Registration: We love to hate it

Teddy Corcoran and Spencer Payne

It seems like the new registration system is a step in the right direction.

“I got every class I wanted,” Monette Carli, ‘17, said. “I’m glad the changes were made,” offered Phillip Harmon, ‘17. And Matt Kordonowy, ‘16, said that “the new registration was definitely an improvement.”

Good news, right? Not exactly.

While students might not realize it, they have alleviated a considerable amount of their frustration by complaining about WebAdvisor in years past. The old system of registering was aggravating, yes, but criticizing it was a great way to blow off steam.

Nothing was better than trading stories of terrible experiences with friends, or coming up with creative analogies about how terrible course registration was. But now that many students had a better experience this time around, something else will have to fill that void.

Before we go any farther, let’s be clear: we are not suggesting that registration went smoothly or even remotely well. “Playing the registration game twice was more definitely more stressful,” Billy Kingsbery, ‘18, said. Peyton Bryant, ‘17, said that the new 10 p.m. time disrupted her sleep schedule. And, of course, everyone still felt a sense of panic during the two-minute delay between “submit” and “results.”

But despite these facts, the new “pick one” feature appears to be the first step in propelling the registration system toward mediocrity. It is therefore imperative that we begin to explore new ways for students to vent their feelings of frustration and anger.

The first option that comes to mind is to complain more about the dining hall. Many believe that D-Hall’s quality begins to diminish after a few months, so this would appear to be a natural fit. But not only is this option limited to those who consistently eat on campus, it also is remarkably unoriginal. Surely we can criticize something that’s a little less, shall we say, bland.

Another option is to direct all of our frustration toward third year housing and the administration’s “agenda.” This is a favorite for many students. The vague criticism that general “change” on campus is the cause of every problem is not only convenient and versatile, but it cannot be disproved. You got a low B on that test you studied so hard for? Chalk it up to the general anxiety you have about the sensible changes that are being enacted on campus.

“I just can’t focus with all the glare in the new Huntley Reading Room,” Conley Hurst, ‘17, said.

We’ll take your word for it, Conley.

Finally, our favorite option: belittle the parking deck. Forget the general lack of parking on campus, forget the hefty fines that are thrown your way should you park somewhere reasonable when the deck is full, and forget the displaced and utterly inconvenient first year lot. Those are easy targets. Let us instead hone in on the deck’s poor design.

This is truly the perfect grievance. Not only are the decks’ sharp angles and blind turns perfectly designed to cause small accidents, but the general aesthetic of the deck is decidedly drab. Worried this complaint might sound a bit snobbish? Don’t be. It isn’t about us, it’s about our cars.

We are not saying that we personally deserve a better looking parking deck–that would be pretentious. We are simply suggesting that our Range Rovers and BMWs deserve to be housed in a more elegant setting. Surely we can get more of our pent-up frustration behind that.

So if you go about your day and find that complaining about WebAdvisor doesn’t quite do the trick anymore, consider what we have said. Give Scott Dittman a break, and put Ethan Kipnes in the hotseat.