I’m also going to assign secondary purposes to IGs. These purposes fall in line with what I assume to be the college’s macro-objectives. The IGs are for (1) showcasing and (2) community-building. Showcasing is important for publicising the college to establish its reputation. Community-building is about bringing people together to make meaningful connections.
And of course, no IG is free from bureaucracy. The student council, CSC, oversee the running of these groups. They also manage the IG’s funding/ resources from the college. Usually there is also a GF or Fellow who is supposed to mentor each IG by giving them guidance on how to run the group, if need be.
So now let's cut to the chase. I don't think the IGs in general are very functional. They are only partially fulfilling their purposes. Not all “interests” seem to benefit from this IG model. Heck, many IGs aren’t even active. Or should we turn the statement around: a lot of students don't seem to be actively participating in their IGs, if any. Hence I’m taking this issue as a possible three-way problem: problem with the IG system, the IGs (interests), and/ or the students.
Let’s start with the students. I think the fundamental problem with in relation with the IGs is the lack of commitment. I’ve talked about this in a previous post so go read that. Don’t mistake me though – I’m not saying that the students of Tembusu are a lazy bunch. The reasons for our lack of commitment are not so straightforward. For example, I know for a fact that many students who are committed, but to too many things. Perhaps you could say it’s a lack of focus.
This in itself is a big problem, because the students are, or at least should be, the very life of the IG. The students are the main benefactors of the IGs anyway. Therefore, if the students are not willing or able to sustain the IG, then they defeat the purpose of being in it.
There is also the issue of leadership. I think the core problem with leadership is that most of the IG leaders are a bit clueless. There’s quite a lot on their plate to figure out, especially since the IGs are pretty young. They’ll need to figure out how to rally members, plan regular activities, manage funds, enforce discipline or some semblance of order (without chasing members away), and so on. And where the leaders lack in these aspects, that is presumable when an RF or GF will step in, but… Enough said.
Next is the nature of the IG/ interest. Here, I want to focus on the IGs that are doing better than the others. It seems that IGs with a consistent program/ activity, works. The best examples are the sports IGs – say Tembusu Ultimate (Frisbee), Floorball Club and The Tembusu Shuttlers (Badminton). They have regular games, even if spontaneous. I suppose that’s one advantage they have, is that they can just pick up and go on the fly.
The benefit from that is they seem to spend a lot of time together, and bonding among the sports IG members (I don’t even think they think of themselves as being in an IG) is the strongest of all the IGs. Cliques, and sometimes couples, often get together through IGs that cohere well.
Some non-sports IGs aren’t doing too bad a job either. Agents of Change @ Tembusu (ACTs), Tembusu Treblemakers (A cappella) and a few other groups also have their act together. The Tembusu College Debate Club people have also been very active recently. I think it’s because they have designed pretty decent programs that runs quite consistently. Not only those, these groups also have clear goals to work towards to. Take the talent competition Sparks, for the Treblemakers, and the Inter-collegiate Debates. What is notable about these examples is that the goals they work toward are public. Well at least their output is visible to the college.
The point I am trying to drive at is that the secondary purposes of IGs ((1) showcasing and (2) community-building) also serve the IGs’ primary purpose (pursuit of interest). The above examples show how showcasing or community-building can lead to the development of (relatively) stable IGs. The sports IGs prove how a good (2) team spirit can keep the games alive, while having a (1) publicly visible goal (and consistent activities that work towards it) can affect an IG’s success.
The immediate implication is that interest alone may not be enough to sustain an IG. Many IGs that serve their own interests don’t seem to last long. They tend to slack, especially when other commitments arise, because they don’t have any external motivation.
In application, this means that IG leaders and mentors need to focus on developing and encouraging participation in regular activities (community-building). The key is consistency, meaning both leaders and members need to be committed in following through the program. Also, the college/ CSC could organise more public showcasing events (so far there has been the Inter-collegiate Debates and Games) to give the IGs a motivation boost.
Finally, the IG system. I actually think the most successful initiatives (in terms of achieving the IGs three purposes) do not take the form of IGs. Instead, they are more project-like. This means they are one-off events. Usually, the build-up to these events requires the same amount of commitment and consistency of practices as IGs – but only up till the event showcasing. In that sense, Interest Projects (yes, I just made up a name for it) are short-term.
There are quite a few events that would fit the IP profile: Grease theMusical, lipdub, Minum, Under the Tree (ongoing), Sandwich-making, Discovery Week, etc. I think out of administrative convenience, many of these IPs have been subsumed under IGs (for example, Grease is under Broadway@Tembusu). They also fulfil the purposes of IGs. Through these projects, Tembusians get to explore their interests; they have had the largest audience showcasing; and they brought many different people together (community-building, and in every sense of “bringing together”).Yet, these “IGs” aren’t IGs since they don’t really exist after the event ends. Thus, what we have is an alternative model of the IG.
IPs are important because it allows interests to be explored differently. And, it allows different types of interests to be explored. The benefit of having one-off events is that it doesn’t demand long-term participant commitment. People who are interested in learning more about culture stuff from say, Discovery Week, just attend one cultural display session. This format also opens more opportunities for networking. So everyone gets a better chance to meet everyone through these projects. In addition, it allows student-residents to explore a range of things that might interest them. So Tembusians receive a wider breadth exposure to various interests.
Anyway, to throw more complications into the works, there is a rumour (note: not yet announced/ verified) that Student Exchange Program (SEP) requirements are going to include CCA participation and… IGs are not considered CCAs (badum tss!).
I know it’s just a rumour now, but for the sake of the thought process, let’s assume that it is true. Such a requirement would drive more student-residents to join main-campus CCAs. This means there will be increased competition for Tembusians’ attention/ commitment. In an extreme scenario, nobody will join an IG, simply because the benefit of joining a CCA will outweigh that of joining an IG. The solution is either make IGs the equivalent of CCAs (meaning enforcing attendance and some form of participation/ achievement grading) or decrease commitment level of IGs (which means, there’ll almost be no point having IGs at all). OR (drumrolls) …we could have IPs!
Obviously I am just finding an excuse to justify my IP idea. But let’s walk through the trade-offs between IPs and IGs in such a situation. If we were to have IGs the equivalents of CCA, then the focus on interests would be on proficiency. Since each resident only lives in Tembusu for (by default) two years, we can imagine that IGs would be very similar to CCAs in JC.
Commitment levels would be very high due to frequent and intense practices. The tendency for IGs will be to recruit students with prior experience. This creates barriers to entry, such that untrained but interested residents cannot join IGs of interest, and trained residents wouldn’t try something new. In short, exploration of new interests is limited. It may also offset study/ play balance, as it is with some halls. Such structure would encourage strong but limited bonding, so the college community might become (more) fragmented. The benefits are that the college might enjoy increased confidence and prominence, and student will have depth of experience.
On the contrary, a lot of the opposites would be true if all IGs were restructured into IPs. Students will enjoy rich and broad exposure to different experiences, but be probably wouldn’t be experts at any interest. Also, since we assume students to join main campus CCAs, there will be less time for Tembusu events. This means commitment levels further decrease, which could lead to decrease in the quality of the exploration experience. In the long run, Tembusu might become a more fluid community, since the nature of IPs and CCAs will allow students to be better connected within and out of Tembusu. This could be a platform used to promote a more integrative, inclusive culture in the college.
Of course neither outcome is really probable. But I do think some changes are in order. For one, the way the college should rethink how interests are pursued in the domain of IGs. I’m not sure if they are satisfied with the current framework, but the incongruency between these event-projects and their labels bothers me. I think the IG system should be restructured to allow IPs (or the like) so that student-residents understand the different expectations of IPs and IGs. It will also lessen the burden of having to sustain the pursuit of an interest as an IG when it’s not really the objective. Also, the college currently has a repository of event-organising experience that can and should be fully utilised.
Phew. Congratulations for reaching the end of this piece. Now go back to studying for midterms. Have a productive recess week!
No comments:
Post a Comment