Student perspective
Pleasures and problems in second year
By Joanne Lane
It's fall and I'm back at school again. I can't say that the
thought of academia excited me too much at the beginning of the semester. The summer was a
busy one: I, like a few other brave souls in the class, decided to get married. Of course,
I decided to do it a week before school started. Only a week to relax and gather my
thoughts for the new academic year.
Being back has brought its own little pleasures, though -– like coming back to a familiar place. As I walked into the Health Sciences Centre on the last day of August, the smell of the place greeted me and welcomed me to a new year. A lot is the same: we have some of the same professors and we're continuing the integrated study of disease. Some things have changed, though: We have a new classroom, our mailboxes have moved to the second-year space and, most importantly, we're no longer the newest arrivals. Seeing each notice for the first-years about biochem, anatomy and finals buoys my spirits -- it reminds me of the year just past, of the hard-won achievements and that I'm a year closer to graduating.
Yes, this year is much better. I feel more comfortable examining patients. The mysterious medical jargon of last year has become my language and I feel like I might actually know something. Last year there was an endless stream of classes and labs. This year our learning is aimed more tangibly towards becoming doctors.
It has been strangely quiet this fall, however (with some exceptions, certainly). One of the most notable differences from last year is the lack of furor surrounding Monte Carlo. Because of time restraints and because we don't have help from the third- year class, it was decided that the whole affair would be toned down -- a welcome change. Last year, I remember the commotion and how stressful it was for all the students. It was a wise decision to make Monte Carlo less time-consuming and more reasonable.
Of course, the fall hasn't been without its moments. The second-year class was surprised and dismayed at the beginning of term to learn that the schedule would only be distributed block by block (i.e. in three- to four-week instalments). This was a novel experience for us; we were used to having our timetable for the whole term. The impact on me is minimal -- it just means that I can't tell the in-laws in Gander more than a month in advance whether I could visit. I can, however, sympathize with those who don't live in Newfoundland or those who may have something to plan for in the future. This new way of receiving our schedule has caused some major inconveniences, especially with respect to arranging travel plans. I’m hoping next term the situation will improve -- I'd like to visit my sister in Toronto....
The scheduling situation has also served to underscore another issue that has caused serious strife in our class, the "unanimity rule." I'm sure all the second-years remember the fiasco last fall with biochemistry. The school requires a 100 per cent consensus if students want to make any changes to the schedule, to exams or to tests. Try getting that with 63 people! Attempting to alter the value of a biochemistry assignment last year created a huge rift in the class; the situation was pretty heated for a while.
This year, there was a similar scenario when it was proposed that a test date be changed. Faculty was supportive, the vast majority of the class wanted to switch the dates, and it seemed that maybe this time we would get a consensus. To make a long story short, it didn't happen. My question is: Why do we need 100 per cent? What about 75 per cent or 80 per cent? I understand that ideally everyone should be in agreement, but in practice this can never happen. Why can't the faculty just say that no decision can be changed, because this is what the "unanimity rule," in effect, means. Who knows, though? Perhaps we'll be able to find some way to change the rule ... unless we need a 100 per cent consensus, of course.
Comments or
questions e-mail: 