But like any unknown territory, the navigation of the undergraduate jungle could be made considerably easier with the help of a friendly guide who can point you in the right direction and tell you which plants to avoid, which routes to take and what times of day to explore. Such a person has the potential to make or break your jungle-exploring experience, so you’re going to want a pretty good one. How would you feel if your guide had never even been into the Princeton jungle? If he didn’t know a class that fulfills the social analysis distribution requirement from one in ethical thought and moral values, or if he thought “Oh, Physics 105 is a 100-level course, that means it’s easy, right?” I can’t speak for the entirety of the student body, but I sure would want my guide to know his stuff before I placed my faith in him.
Unfortunately for us, the University has assembled what might be the most well-intentioned, amenable, but sadly out-of-touch corps of academic guides possible. Don’t get me wrong: There are many faculty advisers who take their roles very seriously and who are remarkably good at navigating the jungle. But as far as I can tell, these guidance wizards tend to be a bit more on the scarce side than their unhelpful counterparts.
Can you blame faculty advisers? As a professor at a university, how are you supposed to know the first thing about contemporary course selection? It’s not like you’re running around taking all kinds of classes in all sorts of areas or trying to find out what you’re truly passionate about. The current advising system behaves as though being on the faculty at Princeton and being a student at Princeton are similar experiences, which they fundamentally are not.
One of my good friends has already experienced the ramifications of misinformed advising. He got slotted in the freshman schedule from hell, consisting of organic chemistry, a theoretical proof-based math class (oof!) and a high-level Spanish course. This sophomore-esque itinerary, coupled with three seasons of Division I athletics, made for more than one late night (or early morning) for this newbie. No self-respecting adviser would willingly recommend this vile academic cocktail to any new scholar unless he just didn’t understand what it means to be a student here. We cannot allow these scheduling travesties to occur any longer or we’ll end up with a bunch of academic burnouts or, worse, McGraw zombies.
The crazy thing about all this is that academic advising is actually incredibly easy. There are really only a handful of things to consider when plotting out a semester at this school. You’ve got your distribution and departmental requirements, obviously, which any middle schooler could probably plan on his own. This is the area where the current advisers shine. Sure, they know all about what courses you need to take, but they really miss out on the other stuff, which is where advice is really needed. Things like workload, professor quality, course pacing, what kinds of students take the class (here’s lookin’ at you, pre-meds). All these things are an absolute black box to 99 percent of academic advisers, who then make decisions at a 10-minute-long appointment that can lead to all-nighters, intellectual disillusionment, math courses and other unhealthy practices.
So what’s the solution to this momentous problem? Where, oh where, is the University going to find dozens of individuals who know the ins and outs of the Princeton academic system, who understand the complexities of the academic jungle, who have the communication skills necessary to alter the course of some wide-eyed freshman’s life? Right in the frickin’ dorms, that’s where. No one on the face of the planet knows more about going to school at Princeton in 2010 than current students. Why not tap this resource? The University currently has a peer advising program that, although it does good work, is vastly underused. We already have all the resources we need to solve the problem; it’s just a matter of making the push. Fellow students should be the first line of advising, not a lesser-known afterthought. Upperclassmen know what makes for an enjoyable classroom and undergraduate experience a good sight more than anyone else on campus.
We could all use a little better advice before plunging into the Princeton Jungle. There are untold treasures waiting to be found and unforeseen horrors to be avoided at all costs. Learning which is which from someone who’s just been through it could prove to be the best thing that ever happened to you. We’ve only got four blessed years to play around in it, and a nudge in the right direction could make it that much better.
Nathan Mathabane is a sophomore from Portland, Ore. He can be reached at nmathaba@princeton.edu.
Read More
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
Return Pete Hegseth’s educational ideologies “to sender”
Lily Halbert-AlexanderHegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
Hegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
