Editorial: Give student leaders the training that they need
Published: Saturday, September 17, 2011
Updated: Thursday, September 22, 2011 18:09
Burned into the memory of even the most distinguished upperclassman is that feeling of quiet dread that struck upon arrival at college. No matter how far one has climbed the social ladder since then, it is impossible to forget those initial moments of freshman year in which everyone was a stranger in a strange land.
Perhaps the memory of that unpleasant blip is what prompted so many of our peers to become mentors, advisors and residential assistants to the incoming class of 2015. With 447 students – approximately 20 percent of the student body – now dedicated to assisting first-years in their transition from greenhorns to proud Thoroughbreds, one would be hard-pressed to charge our college with negligence of the freshman condition.
Every year those students who take up this noble task – through Residential Life, SGA, peer mentoring or club leadership – arrive weeks earlier than their classmates. They are trained in those arts of counseling and guidance so that the first-years arrive to a capable crew. There is no question that some coaching is needed to equip these volunteers with the skills they need to work with struggling freshman during Pre-Orientation and First Year Experience programs. But over the past few years the nature of those training activities has taken a strange turn, and this year's schedule pushed the program's deficiencies to the forefront.
First and most troubling is that this training, meant to impart practical counseling skills, has become bogged down by so many games and mediation techniques. First the mentors and RAs try them on each other, and then when the freshmen arrive they pass the trust building onto them. These exercises range from the more standard icebreakers ("who would you bring to a desert island…") to silly diversions such as jumping around on newspaper "lily pads" to rather heavy dialogues where students are asked to share the skeletons in their closets.
So it makes sense that several peer mentors witnessed their assigned freshmen sit out these activities, or even slip away from the group altogether. It is also true that still others did enjoy them. But what the deserters understood is that the purpose of such exercises is something quite distinct from helping first years adjust to college life. Compulsory bonding, whether via "Apples to Apples" or a heart-to-heart, really does little to build genuine trust and only reduces time spent on legitimate service to the freshmen.
What might such legitimate service include? These kids have just arrived on campus, and what they want is simple. It is information: about their ID cards, or residency, or accommodations for dietary restrictions. First years are less concerned with the lily pads and secrets than they are that life will retain a structure and rhythm here at college. They would be better off with a team of ‘Skidmore experts' at their disposal rather than a troupe of well meaning but improvising mediators. And many a trainee will tell you: not only did I walk away from the emotional bits frustrated, but they didn't even shed any light on my job.
Their irritation can be justified further. Speaking to upperclassmen that participated, all estimate that over half of the schedule for the training period was devoted to the games and feelings. These are hours that student leaders could have spent in practical preparations, finalizing plans to insure the best possible experience for their incoming students. Shaving the superfluous bonding time off of the schedule would have made for a more productive, more efficient, and ultimately less cringe worthy week.
There is no reason to quarrel with the aims of training, only the heavy-handed execution. First years should certainly feel as though they have support from the upperclassmen that serve as mentors and RAs. To be frank though, those older students are not there to solve first years' problems, only to guide them toward those resources on campus that can. A week of training does not make a peer mentor a certified counselor, and while mentors are the first line of resources for first years, ultimately the troubled students must be funneled toward those best equipped to actually help them, be they at Health Services, the Counseling Center, or anywhere else. Therefore there is no need for an instituted emotional connection and every need for a clean, practical program to which the trainees can adhere.
In the current state, everyone feels ambushed: the upperclassmen dedicate day after day to drills everyone said goodbye to in high school, and do so to the detriment of their clubs and duties. Meanwhile, the freshmen are not given concrete, useful direction amidst the mandatory bonding sessions. Securing a welcome and supportive college community for those entering is, as always, a worthwhile task. But sometimes scaling back our efforts, doling out straightforward jobs and letting the campus breathe achieves what a compassionate but overbearing program never could.
7 comments
The lack of emotion and emotional credit attributed to the freshman is offensive. I know that as an RA I went through two weeks of training all day long. And MOST of that was purely informational. The difference between us and the computer that can also tell you this information is the fact that we are here as a safety net for those freshman, sophmores, junior, or seniors (ANYONE LIVING IN THE DORMS...this is for RA's) who might need an neutral ear to reflect their thoughts. Yes, the majority of residents will adjust fine, but this article is a slap in the face to any person utilizing these people as an emotional or guidence resource. This writer thinks they are talking for the benefit for the freshman, when really they pulling an established based that is there for emergencies (therefore optional and as a safety precaution) for all residents.
The lacking of actual trained staff cited in the article also adds to the unprofessionalism expressed in the piece. Any RA, PM, BM, HE, PA...all of us are trained to refer a student to Health Services and the Counseling Center when the problem is serious, or even not serious. BESIDES the fact that mediation isn't giving advice but more reflective and merely questions for the mediated to respond to.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this piece is more than this, it IS a one sided rant on a system that this writer seemingly has no part in. I'd love for the "Editorial Board" to have a meeting with Fight Club with Duke Fisher, and or David Karp there. I want more than anything for them to realize the power of mediation and the falsehood in the accusation riddled with anger expressed in the piece.
More over the piece is quite ironic because the writer is letting out anger and hurting others in this public article when the very people and system they write about is here to talk out these kinds of outward aggressions.
is a member of the 
