MARC CHOQUETTE
Perspectives Editor
With little fanfare, the bi-annual “Dead Week” disappeared last year from the academic schedule of Seaver College. The week originally served as a buffer zone separating the hectic final days of assignments and deadlines from the week of final exams, giving students some downtime to read and prepare for the most important tests of their college careers.
But many who have been at Seaver for a few years know that, even though this Dead Week was on the official academic schedule, it was not exactly honored by most professors to truly be a week without tests, homework or other assignments.
Instead, Dead Week turned into an overspill week, seen as a time to finish course material that might not have been covered due to cancelled classes or other circumstances.
According to the Feb. 14 issue of the Graphic, SGA Vice President Clint Harp said the administration has become aware of the “student outcry” that the already moribund dead week had officially been eliminated from the schedule.
Like many of the other outcries due to administrative decisions, this move was not exactly a big deal on campus when it happened. The administration did not announce the change to the community — most likely hoping nobody would notice its disappearance.
So I must give credit to Harp for noticing the strange departure and pledging to do something about it, along with the astonishingly short period most students have between their last exam and their decree to move out of the dorms (which in some cases, like my freshman year, was only separated by a few hours).
This is what we need SGA for, not to ban Web sites or dictate what students can and cannot view. But that is for another, tired discussion.
Certainly, congratulations are in order now that the administration has asked SGA to “look into the finals situation to see if any beneficial changes should be made.” In fact, let us congratulate the administration for actually asking the student body for input on the decisions they make that are supposedly for our benefit.
Harp cautions that ideas are still in the research and planning stage, but the newest idea of a “Dead Day” as some sort of compromise to replace Dead Week simply does not go far enough. The idea intends to give students the last Friday before finals off from class to begin studying, but what is one day?
So, to recap, we have evolved from a week of review and study, to a week of doing so in theory only, to having one day at the end of the week. What a compromise …
This “Dead Day,” while well intentioned, offers little consolation compared to what we were supposed to be entitled to with a real, actual Dead Week.
I’m not arguing for a week off. Students should have class in the final week of school, since we are paying for an education — not a vacation. But this needs to be dead week as it was intended to be: a week for class, lecture or review, but one that lacks the last-minute reading assignments, homework, tests and quizzes.
With many courses involving a cumulative final that includes material dating back to the first day of the semester, students need more than just a Friday (which, lets face it, will not be used to “study” by most students) and a few weekend days to prepare before they are bombarded with exams.
Students need Dead Week. If the administration no longer values this time — as it was intended — then why was it instituted in the first place? What changed? And why has it not been honored?
I applaud SGA for taking on this topic, but a “Dead Day” is not much of a consolation for losing the week that was intended for studying and preparation.
And if that is not enough to convince those in power to bring back the Week of the Dead, realize this: Maybe a more spaced-out study week would prevent a last-minute library invasion by students jacked up on Adderall and coffee, staking out their space for the next three days.
For anyone who has spent time in the library during the weekend leading into finals, I’m sure most would agree that a few extra days would only help.
02-21-2008