[24429] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Proposed: Older Undergrads as advisors?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Laura)
Wed Sep 8 01:50:46 2004
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 01:50:26 -0400
Reply-To: Laura <laura.costa@comcast.net>
From: Laura <laura.costa@comcast.net>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Who's to say the older undergrad is someone that went back to school? This
person could be someone who didn't go to college right out of high school,
maybe they worked for a few years or joined the military or got married and
had kids or whatever and decided that now would be a good time to get that
college degree.
Also, you are an undergrad no matter how many undergrad degrees you already
have if the degree you are pursuing is a bachelor's degree. You're really
not a grad student unless you're going for a master's degree or doctorate or
other such advanced degree. I know when I got my second degree, the school
considered me undergrad.
I actually think this could be a good idea. Older undergrads may not want
to pledge but want to be involved somehow. They may not be able to make the
necessary time commitment. Advisors often don't have to commit as much time
as an active brother or a pledge. They could be a valuable resource to a
chapter and may be able to offer a unique perspective.
I think if you allow people to become advisors at the chapter where they
pledged, I think they should only be allowed to do it once all the other
brothers who were active at the time the brother in question have left the
chapter. Personally, I think this should be true, no matter if the brother
wishing to be an advisor is an undergrad student, a grad student, university
employee or just someone in the community.
Laura
----- Original Message -----
From: "scelliot" <scelliot@netzero.net>
To: <APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: [APO-L] Proposed: Older Undergrads as advisors?
> > The proposed amendment would change the last sentence of Article III,
> > Section 2, (4) Advisory membership from
> > "Such Membership may not be conferred upon undergraduate students." to
> > "Such Membership may not be conferred upon undergraduate students
> > younger than age 23."
>
> I understand your theory behind it, but my first instinct is to not
support
> it. Not because it's a bad idea, but because I don't think there would be
a
> significant number of people impacted by it.
>
> One of your arguments in favor is, IMHO, subject to some interpretation.
If
> the person already has an undergraduate degree, are they considered to
still
> be undergrads if they go back to school? Does it matter if they go back
to
> the same school or to a different one?
>
> But for me the overriding thought is that an undergrad who desires to be
> involved but not as a pledge or active brother is not likely to fulfill
the
> duties required of an advisor, either.
>
> Thinking outside the box is always welcomed. We need much more of that.
>
> YiLF&S
> Elliot
>
