Overcommitment
Swarthmore students are very busy. Spend more than fifteen minutes talking to any Swarthmore student, and somehow you’ll get the unmistakable impression that, while he enjoys the conversation, he probably should be doing something else instead. Whether talking with a professor about an important paper revision or shooting the breeze on a Friday night, there remains lingering in the air the slight scent of stress, of other duties, of time being wasted.
I at first imagined that this aspect of Swarthmore was simply because of an intense academic load. I slowly realized that to complete satisfactory work, solid B’s at least, the social sciences and humanities did not require a huge amount of effort (I can’t speak to the sciences). I also began to compare my time spent on my work with friends at schools like Lehigh and Moravian, and realized that there were plenty of students at other schools who worked just as hard, if not harder on their academics. Swarthmore may win on the average, but we aren’t exactly in a completely different world.
What, then, accounts for the difference? I suggest that it lies in the type of students Swarthmore attracts and how they handle work and extracurriculars.
As a salty old senior, I’ve been around this campus a few times and seen a few things. One of my clearest first memories of Swarthmore was coming during Ride the Tide to the club fair. I only remember one club: the solar powered car club. Despite my protestations that I was neither an engineer nor a science person and not even sure if I wanted to come to Swarthmore, the two guys still tried to get my signature. When I arrived as a freshman the next year, they had graduated and the solar powered club was already defunct.
The solar powered car club in many ways epitomizes the problems that we have as highly motivated students. We have come from environments in which we were involved in ten different clubs, and held leadership positions in most of them. Otherwise, we would never have been admitted to a high-caliber college or university in a day and age in which students must be more than simply academic superstars: they must be leaders and active in a dozen different activities.
When we come to Swarthmore, we never shake it off: we have to start our own clubs and run them – partially because we need to show our own worth by putting “founder” or “president” after our names, and partially because we simply are the sort of people who want to realize our own passionate goal, and not follow someone else’s. There aren’t as many not-quite-so-ambitious people who are willing to support our projects instead of making their own. The result is a campus with less than 1,500 students, more than 100 official student groups, a thousand different dreams, and very few activities done really well.
We as students are spread too thin. We try to do everything, and we succeed, but only half-way. We have too many clubs, and rather than combining skills and energy to make fewer clubs better, we waste our efforts in our abundance of variations on a theme.
In the almost four years I have been on campus, I have seen the collapse of this fragile network in two arenas: student literary magazines and a capella groups. When I was a freshman, we had about twelve of each. After the year in which inexplicably they all crashed, we are down to about five each, and it seems that the ones that remain are better for it. The rest have gone to be with the Solar Powered Car club.
The tragedy of these stories is that the clubs died – though each was unique and valuable – but that while they were alive they were not effective. It is this same plague that affects the vast collection of social action groups we have (and they, I suspect, will be the next collection of groups to have many members go defunct), and, really, most of Swarthmore’s clubs. We limp on to the finish line, because everyone is busy with something else too. We achieve something, but nothing great.
There are, of course, clubs that do their jobs well and are models to follow. Nevertheless, when I look back over the years, I feel that Swarthmore could benefit in the future from encouraging a student body that focuses on fewer activities, but achieves excellence in them. In this way we will both accomplish more of which we can be proud. We also will shake off a little of the false burden and guilty feeling that we should be doing three people’s work in one because we signed up for it. We may not be less busy, but it will weigh less heavily on our shoulders, and we can enjoy the excellence of jobs well done.
Print
Email
#1: 3/2/2009 at 12:57 p.m.
In defense of clubs like the solar car club, I would say that no matter what, the point of a club is to have fun and be active in what you enjoy. I agree that they don't always work out, and they are substantial time drains, but I don't think that detracts from their fun.
I think people should put academics first, sure, but in my case, I've been doing that since joining my first club, Recycling, in sixth grade.
And trust me, being out in the real world, where are you going to find people who have the same exact interests as you who have the time and energy to go to meetings once or twice a week? Sorry. Not happening. Too busy with work, family, video gaming, or other commitments.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say there aren't enough clubs at Swarthmore. C'mon guys, get creative, where are the Frozen Peas Appreciation Unit or the Finding Atlantis Club? If not, then please, let's get on this. We're Swatties for gosh sakes!
— Jon | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#2: 3/2/2009 at 8:29 p.m.
It seems like you're writing about two different things. Overcommitment is one person involved in too many activities, but what you're describing is too many clubs for too few students. The first one is arguably a problem, the second one, well... I don't really see what your problem is. And it doesn't seem particularly related to workload, either. I'd also be interested in seeing which clubs you think should go, because you might find that the clubs you think are only succeeding halfway are quite fun and interesting and engaging for those involved.
— KA | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#3: 3/3/2009 at 9:46 a.m.
Wow, Chris. This is really insulting to the people who run clubs. We only do it because we want the glory and we're addicted to being busy! I run a club because the cause is something I strongly believe in and have believed in all my life. I wasn't the first president, and I sure hope I won't be the last. I really don't care what it says about my resume -- I know for damn sure that it won't be as useful there as grading homework will be.
And just for the record, I did maybe two extracurricular activities in high school. Because I enjoyed them. I didn't lead in any of them. And I still got into Swarthmore! So can you please stop making condescending and false generalizations about your peers?
— Ariel Horowitz | Registered, Swarthmore
#4: 3/3/2009 at 10:25 a.m.
I'm glad I read the <a href="http://daily.swarthmore.edu/2009/3/1/stuco301/DG"> StuCo Minutes</a> before reading this column because it gave me some context:
"[Student Groups Advisor] Green expresses that the main concern for student groups on campus is that there are too many with limited funding."
A problem, yes, but merging completely disparate groups like Club D, the Migration Project, and SLAP because they all work in Kenneth Square won't necessarily solve the funding issue...or an overcommitment one (?)
— 5 | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#5: 3/3/2009 at 2:34 p.m.
I don't want to comment on Chris' column, but I do want to respond to 5's comment regarding merging "completely disparate groups." From a logistical point of view, merging groups that concentrate their efforts in one location can reduce costs and thereby increase efficiency. The idea is not such a strange one, and should not be brushed aside because of Chris' other beliefs, or because the idea may seem foreign.
— S | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#6: 3/3/2009 at 3:25 p.m.
I came from a high school not much larger than Swat where students did, in fact, found clubs for resume-boosting as much as for pure interest. We had over 50 by the time I graduated, and student council voted in more and more each month. So it seemed to me, at first, that at Swat it was more or less the same thing. We have a hundred clubs, and when a dozen die at the end of a semester, a dozen more pop up to replace them.
But there doesn't appear to be the same "I need this for my college apps" feel to these clubs. Following what Jon (#1) said, at Swarthmore we have the energy to invest our time in forming organizations for interest's sake, and fortunately we also have the capacity to fund them. It's awesome! One thing I will always tell specs about Swat is that whatever you want to pursue or achieve, Swat (the students, the profs, the administration, the fun fun'd, w/e) is willing and able to help you. It's definitely not a ideologically conservative way to roll, but it's part of the liberal in liberal arts, imho.
I've recently joined two nascent organizations, Gourmets & Gourmands and pun/ctum. The former is a club for people who like to cook food and eat it, the latter is (surprise!) an arts publication. Neither were begun for selfish resume-boosting reasons, and both are flourishing nicely. Here's to hoping they'll float!
It's common sense that a school as small as Swat won't really be able to do all the big university things (like a daily campus newspaper or Div I sports) as well as... the big universities. So what's wrong with sticking to small and scattered, but special? And special, that is, to those for whom these varied interests really are what they want to pursue, not just another check on their "How to be successful in college" to-do list.
All of that said, I do agree with you on the notion that Swat students seem to be perpetually busy. (That might be because we all love to procrastinate.)
Oh, and let's please bring back more a cappella groups! :)
— Andrew '12 | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#7: 3/3/2009 at 9:23 p.m.
"...like a daily campus newspaper"
I'd just like to note that you *are* posting this on the Gazette. And a lot of larger universities (and independent college newspapers) are considering moving in our direction.
— Miles Skorpen | Staff
#8: 3/3/2009 at 10:52 p.m.
I don't know why you picked social action groups to be the next to go down- from personal experience, though I don't have very much involvement myself, the people involved in social action and activism tend to be some of the most passionate around. Just look at the Lang scholars if you doubt me, or the many Swat alumni who are currently involved in social activism. Also, I don't know why you would want to discourage people from pursuing bizarre or unique interests. Peter Schikele is one of our most famous and successful alumni, probably our most successful in music, and he had some pretty strange hobbies while he was here (something about fire sirens in LPAC? I don't know, but typically Schikele shenanigans). I think you're mistaking extracurric-resume frenzy for self-discover and invention, which is what college is all about.
— JC | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#9: 3/3/2009 at 10:54 p.m.
Whoops, last sentence the other way around, you're mistaking self-discover and invention for extracurricular/resume-building frenzy. Join a club.
— JC | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#10: 3/3/2009 at 11:50 p.m.
Have your say.
— Mr. Mistaker | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#11: 3/3/2009 at 11:54 p.m.
Damn autocomplete. I apologize for accidental comment spam.
What I mean to say was this - I object to the statement that we achieve "nothing great" through student groups. I'm sure that the kids who play Top Soccer with Swatties or those who create, perform in, and witness student dance, theatre, and music would say that we achieve /many/ great things. I certainly do. Not every group will change the world. But most of them the world for at least a few people, and isn't that worth the doing?
— Mr. Mistaker | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#12: 3/4/2009 at 3:29 a.m.
Chris, I think you have the problem backwards. You say there are too many clubs, but you point out that half the literary publications and a cappella groups died. There are something like 11 a cappella groups at Haverford--and I doubt Haverford students are more stressed out than Swarthmore students.
Furthermore, if the reason we are overcommitted is because we overcommitted in high school to make us more attractive to a college as selective as Swarthmore, then why aren't equally selective schools known for their excessive workloads and grumpy, stressed-out student bodies? Why aren't the students of UPenn as miserable as the stereotypical swattie?
As others have said above, the problem appears not to be that there are too many clubs, but too few. Perhaps this is because students are flaking out on their clubs to attend their "other duties," i.e. their massive workloads.
I agree with you, however, that the workload is exaggerated by many students (at least in the social sciences / humanities). It's not the clubs that are the sources of stress though--I'm sure they fall into the category of "time being wasted" for many students.
— dumb-ass swattie | Unregistered, Swarthmore
#13: 3/4/2009 at 10:25 a.m.
And half the time the founder or president not only do not have much to do, they do not make a huge impact at all. Some club's 'presidents' probably just need to spend 15 mins more than other members each week.
— kk | Unregistered, Swarthmore