Orientation III: Post Mortem

A while ago a friend and I had a discussion about the previous Orientation, and a certain belief that it contributed to this year's second-year seniors lack of initiative in starting events and projects. Although I don't actually think that is the case, both my friend and I agreed that if such were assumed to be true, then Orientation should either be scraped or re-conceptualized to the point it does not resemble traditional Singaporean camps like those in Halls.
 
So it seems that Orientation has gone down the second path: it's a lot mellower this year. Less rousing and noise. The configuration on Orientation Groups (OG) was changed again. Participants were grouped randomly instead of House levels, and House Week was initiated to compensate intra-House bonding. Sadly, there wasn't much inter-OG collaboration.
 

The games were very, very different. There was a lot of pressure from Prof. C to make sure the games had relevance to Tembusu or academia. In effect a lot of the games seemed quite contrived, but given the time constrains the Orientation committee worked under I think it was fine. Besides, the current pool of game ideas can be improved in future. What was good about the games was that the Fellows got involved! I didn't get to see how they turned out, but hopefully that broke some ice between the Fellows and freshmen.
 
I thought there were a tad too many lectures and briefs though. I get an inkling that the Fellows don't seem to understand how boring lectures generally are. Don't get me wrong, some briefing is necessary, but I think that should be kept to a minimum.
 
That aside, I really liked the story concept. The Orientation program was woven into an other-worldly narrative, complete with illustrations. The open structure was nice too – allowing OGs to decide which games to play, and how many. One interesting thing: the stylization of Orientation was effectively a branding of the college, something I know a few Fellows are particularly cautious of. They didn’t attempt to stop this “branding” though, as far as I know, and I think such is inevitable anyway. Even so, I hope later Orientations develop on these ideas.
 
Given all these I think Orientation turned out well. It seems that the freshmen’s expectations for a different experience in Tembusu. They also were quite happy with the chill, calm tone. No surprises here I guess.
 
The main problem with this Orientation was at the back end. Seniors’ expectations were not well managed leading to a lot of tension and frustration. It probably starts at the committee level. From what I understand, the committee had difficulty getting Prof. C’s approval for their proposal. Prof. C was unusually firm with implementing new restrictions that previous Orientations did not have. Some of these restrictions include the banning of the terms “freshie” and “camp” and making sure games had an explicit relation to academia and the college.
 
Prof C did justify his stance in his opening brief at Orientation, warning against the formation/ continuation of a “ragging” culture – the tradition of bullying as a rite of passage or initiation. Personally I don’t agree with this reasoning because I don’t think local orientation culture counts as “ragging”, nor has it proved physically or emotionally harmful to warrant worry. If there is any reason to re-culture orientation, it is, as I mentioned, on the assumption that it will encourage initiative and perhaps creativity in contributing to learning and college life. With this in mind I actually wonder if all this exposes a certain lack of understanding of local student cultures and perspectives on the Master’s part.
 
It seems that the Orientation Group Leaders (OGLs) and other seniors were also not very convinced by Prof. C which has led to a sense of disillusionment and disappointment in many of them. For a while Prof. C’s restrictions were being called “clamping” – already a negative reaction to his proposed changes. But the worrying thing is that the restrictions also signaled a contradiction to the supposed ‘open’ culture that welcomes student initiatives. I think this might have been countered if Prof. C’s expectations were made explicit much earlier, so that the Orientation committee and OGLs could be more willing to accept them.
 
The fact is a lot of these changes came too hard and too fast, almost to the point it was administratively unreasonable. From what I understand, the program proposal was still being redrafted the week of Orientation, so OGLs couldn’t be properly briefed. The committee itself was driven to its wits end. This begs the question: Why was Prof. C so adamant on these changes, and so suddenly? Regardless, the Orientation planning and communication complications seem to have planted a seed of bad faith in a handful of seniors.
 
Another outcome of mismatched expectations is that a good number of seniors feel unresolved, as if they have yet to fulfill their roles as OGLs in Orientation. This reveals some fundamental assumptions about ‘camps’: participants have to be roused to a ‘high’ that presumably forges bonds and a group identity. I think in general bonds form by through common interest or experience, so spending time together is definitely important. However, excitement or ‘highs’, which are the norms of camps, are not necessary for bonding. I have a suspicion that this norm frames the friendships formed in camps in that emotional state, meaning OG friends always expect each other to be ‘high’, even after camps. Actually, thinking about it, it is this expectation that would not be healthy for creating a living-learning college environment since the focus of daily interaction would be on play rather than learning.
 
But back to the seniors. Because a number of them still expect a roused ‘high’ from camps, they may try to resolve it though House Week – which is this week. I’m not sure how determined they are though, and if it would offset the tone set in Orientation. We’ll have to wait and see how the seniors renegotiate these expectations with the freshmen.
 
Another unresolved issue is a latent anxiety that Tembusu will become like Cinnamon. Although there hasn’t been much conflict (imagined or real) since thewall incident, Tembusians often compare ourselves against Cinnamon, with them being “more intellectual” and us, “more fun”. With the numerous lectures, Master’s “clamping” and the general style of Orientation, some seniors worry Tembusu will become “too intellectual”.

Evidently though, that is the direction in which Prof. C seems to be pushing. They even gave out book vouchers to each participating freshman at Orientation, in hopes of starting a culture of reading. Honestly, there is nothing wrong with that. I wish I had book vouchers when I entered Tembusu. So Tembusians’ worry isn’t and shouldn’t really be about becoming “more intellectual” – it is really about being “not fun”.
 
In that perspective, you can say that there’s a conflict between being “fun” and “intellectual”, which are championed by the student body and Fellows respectively. This, I suppose, is also how we seem to have interpreted “living” and “learning".
 
It’s also quite apparent that the two have been taken to be mutually exclusive, or at least in competition with each other. But then, why should they? Can’t being intellectual be fun? And can fun be intellectual? We should be answering these questions to find our orientation.