Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

MERCER CLUSTER JAN. 10, 1MB CditoziaCA \'/:r Will Mercer Avoid The Problems Of Emory’s 4 Wonderful Wed.’ ? By Ernie Robinson The day dawned brightly at Emory Uni versity in Atlanta several year- ago with the initia tion of “Wonderful Wed nesday” — a system lib erating the students from* (he drudgery of class- work for a free day in mid-week: a day for en richment. The idea be hind “Wonderful Wed nesday” at Emory was to allow the students an op portunity . for individual expression above and be yond the humdrum l>eat oi mandatory drumming; a voluntary day for the persuance of skills felt necessary by the student, whether related to his major directly or not. The ideal met with im mediate and overwhelm ing enthusiasm. Some students evoked glorious images of excit ing field trips, student- faculty seminars, sendee projects, or research, but most breathed a sigh in thoughts of lazily loung ing in bed. Undoubtedly this factor was anticipat ed and realized as a nat ural reaction for some “students”. Not without its merits though—those students would at least use the day to catch-up on sleep, and probably homework. In practice, apathy was at fir^t masked by the energetic scholars who ravaged the library, labs, faculty homes, and cul tural aspects of the Capi tal City in quest of new experiences. The first apathy began to leek from the faculty, many of whom did not wish to b e disturbed because “The Book” said; “Re member Wednesday, to keep it at leisure. Four days you shall labor and do all your teaching; but mid-week is a sabbath to the Lord of Luxury; in it you shall do no work.” Students, seemingly, were f overcome by the faculty resistence and fell, for the most part, in to the doldrums also. In time they forgot even to do the catch-up work af ter sleeping all morning and puttering all after noon. On Thursday they were no better off than on Tuesday. Apathy there was, but apathy does not necessi tate complacency. The professors recognized a lack in the ideal: think ing they correct the lull, they set about assigning various and nefarious, re ports that could “just in cidentally be done on Wednesdays. When one teacher you have done just a little irritating; when all your teachers do it: “Jh is Student leaders band ed together hoping to snub the “conspiracy.” Grievances were brought before a Student-Faculty Committee un “Wonder ful Wednesday” and an appropriate investiga tion” proposed. “It is true,” the Committee re ported, “that some de partments are taking un fair advantage of the ad ditional time." But no thing could be done, be cause the students were not told to complete their 2,000 word reports on Wednesdays. In all fairness, it must be pointed out that the math, modem foreign language, and biology de partments did offer spe cial assistance classes that were not required. Students attending these informal gatherings said they reaped major bene fits in understanding. This element proved the clue to a new scheme combatting the imposed work burden. Interested students gathered to dis cuss arrangements for speakers, movies and group field trips as well as community service and volunteer work projects. As things began to roll bulletin boards were se lected to list activities for Wednesday and publica tions circulated in some quarters advising of spe cial opportunities. Pro fessors were impressed by the responsibility the ' students at last seemed to be accepting—work assignments were light ened in many cases. Success, however, bred new problems. Though the lectures and all were often of extra ordinary quality all stu dents did not attend, as provided, of course, un der the regulations gov erning the free day. Faculty did come to the activities, many of them literally “eating it up.” Enthusiasm among pro fessors increased until there was a subtle, but nonetheless real, compe tition for the best pro gram. Many of the orga nizers were serious students, earnestly desir ing enrichment in these extracurricular opportun ities provided, but those who did not wish to en gage in or sought other means of using their time, perhaps equally satisfactorily to their ed ucation, suffered. Professors attending the events could not help but notice who of their students, proverbial “brown-nosers” or other wise, were also there and consequentially, who was not. Unintentional or not, participation was reflect ed in grades. Students who were too lazy to take part, or who pursued oth er persuasions, evolved somewhat of an animo sity toward the supposed “do-gooders." Over a span of time friction in tensified. Emory faculty, not en tirely oblivious to the student dilemma, has voted to continue “Won derful Wednesday” ano ther year. What means they have for measuring the success or failure of the program is anybody’s guess — probably they “just like it.” The stu dents did not vote: per haps they should have, perhaps their variable would have been differ ent, but not the outcomi probably. I don’t belive Merci needs to follow the exaa pie of Emory in prod mg so many problem We are not like Emory not as large, not as lib* al, not as heterogeneo not as specialized, not influenced by a city < vironment, not Small classes, commual ty spirit and friend) faculty can make “Wo* derful Wednesday” whopping success at Mi cer. Like Emory, thoii|) the responsibility f o achieving the potentiL inherent in “Wonderfa Wednesday” is OURS, faculty and student Whether a day of freed* crushes us or creates net horizons for us depend on our reaction, our abB ity to discipline our selves. We can learn fra* Emory’s mistakes. To me it can be equal) advantageous a use fori free day to visit the Ii dian mounds, tour tk State Capitol, see a pop ular movie, get a fw hours sleep, talk to English professor abo* a book, complete unfa ished lab work, or deligfc in a completely irreleva* novel. Some are betta uses of the day than otk ere, especially in light preparation for futui employment Whatew use is made of the <l«j I hope that I may Is look back on the til spent without regret. One Student’s Plea To The Registrar’s Office Dear Sir: This letter represents justifying my failure to in part an attempt at register properly for Win ter Quarter at Mercer. The consequences of this !>ehavior—or misbehavi or, from your point of view—is quite irrelevant here. This will be a mat ter for someone other than yourself or mo to decide. I only ask that you try to understand my viewpoint as one which is indigenous to many Mer cer students and which therefore deserves your consideration. From a theoretical point of view I can find few reasons why most college students should have substantial difficul ties with the Office of the Registrar. Presumably, that office is one which performs the vital paper work necessary to main tain the academic accred itation of the University and one which maintains a record of the students’ academic career. It exists as an immeasurably valu able liaison among stu dents, university admin istrators and faculty members and parents. The Registrar's Office is therefore a service to the many constituencies of the University, and does not itself enjoy further status. From the first disillu sionment with the accu racy of Mercer’s Bulletin to that final shelling out of the last graduation fee, many students surely feel resentment, and rightly so. Several flatly dishon est conventions of univer sity catalogue publica tions do not necessitate Mercer’s conformity to them; they do, however, make it easier to fill up Mercer’s dormitories. The employment of com puterized registration at many universities does not make s u c h a tech nique at Mercer self-evi dently advantageous, al though it is likely to make registration pro cedures more prestigious to those outside the Uni versity. In addition, there are several drawbacks in this system, some of which I am sure you are aware. I am referring not to unanticipated paper work, however, but to the substantial and subt ly systematic depersonal ization of Mercer’s much- publicized student- advisor-professor r e 1 a • tionships. Several exam ples may - help you to understand just,what it involved, from a student point-of-view, in such a registration technique. Computerized registra tion precludes a profes sor’s knowledge of how many students are regis tering for his courses and how many sections of each one he would have to teach to provide for any overflow of students. The student therefore cannot know for certain who will be teaching any specific section of a course. From this one sizeable number of intri cate problems arise, and only one thing seems clear. If a low teacher- student ratio necessitates discrimination among students applying for a course, certainly the pro fessor can make such de cisions more judiciously than a machine supplied with only minimal infor mation as to each student’s particular sit- u a t i o n . Computerized equanimity is at best aroitrary and, more like ly definitely dangerous. It can lead, for example, to being unneceaaary closed out of courees in one’s major during his junior or senior year, or to being forced to take one or even two unwant ed courees to avoid the possibility of being draft ed. Who gets to take what when should be a matter decided between individ ual prole—ore and stu dents It ehoold not be jeopardized by a tech nique which amply pur ports to get the paper work done a lot fester. Nobody likes Registra tion, but the computer •: f. ■.■ may not be the answer. It seems that the major ity of students rendered their verdict on this new, improved method by the fact that they did not take advantage of the pay-by-mail opportunity. A successful computer ized registration had these students co-operat ed can be safely doubted, however, and this ques tion should remain sec ondary to the judgment of the value of this tech nique for Mercer at the present time. To come to the point of this letter: I feel that someone must create an opportunity to somehow get us beyond the pros pect of a continued bit terness, beyond the accu sations of inefficiency and not—co-operation on the part of the students I speak for and your of fice concerning the prob lems I have mentioned. Hence the ideology be hind my nonco-operative behavior. On its basis I do not consider my refus al to register properly as my withdrawal from the University. I shall con tinue to attend classes, live in the dormitory, and sat my meals in the cafe teria. I am enclosing a check and foe notification slip and will be glad to endorse my National De fense Loan check when ever I am Beamed that I will not be forced und the threat of late foes I stand in line, as I aa several scores of othl students did Thursdi afternoon, for almoi four hours only to be w tified that I “will not t processed” after all. Th much was decided in m unmitigated frustrate of Thursday aftemoe and my recollection the of all—and other—prol lems involving your 0 fice that never seam 1 end. Subsequent thougl on the matter has resul ed in this letter of « planstion to you and i copies of it addressed I those who might he into ested and helpful in th pensing with the caua of these problems I quickly as possible. I hone that my behat ior ana this expianatk will somehow prompt recognition of the the retically proper and a tually operative role t the Office of the Regi trar so that their discit pency may be redua end tire demerit of si vice with regard to t) students and focub members at Merow a be restored. I would bo) that we can together cat front • mutual probls totter than each othl end that understands will override