(This is an open letter to Carl R. Gerber)
I'm responding to your piece in The Oberlin Review (November 20, 1998) not only from the perspective of 40 years, but from the Oberlin of today where I have worked for the last five years. Your description of some current problems is accurate, but I find your proposals for correcting them a bit off the mark. Proper solutions emerge from an accurate analysis of the problems which I'm not sure your essay provided.
Certainly some of what one acquires from a liberal arts college comes from beyond the formal academic program. It is not always clear, however, just how that acquisition occurs. For example during our time, I'm not sure that it resulted from "freshman classes, dormitories, and dining facilities, or mandatory courses and a weekly required Assembly;" and I know, for me at least, little of value resulted in the "rivalry between the freshman and sophomore classes" which, as I recall with some embarrassment, even involved the mandatory wearing of beanies. However, the gist of your argument seems to be that such practices served as mechanisms which required students to have "day to day contact with persons and cultures quite different than our own", thereby providing the groundwork for that broad liberal education we all treasure. You suggest that the current lack of these mechanisms has led to a "balkanization" of the campus.
I have heard this complaint from several of my classmates. They remember "our" Oberlin as a place where individuals from different cultures did not move into separate "communities" but all joined, or were compelled to join, the larger Oberlin community. However, with the exception of a few black and international students, the Oberlin student body of the late 1950's was essentially white, middle class, and predominately Protestant. There were simply not that many cultural differences to be exposed to or to form the basis of a separate community. Also, many of the mandatory mechanisms, such as eating meals at fixed times and places, were merely the reflection of the way most students were accustomed to living. Perhaps there was more attendance at athletic events but-contrary to your recollection-the teams did not usually loose. Soccer and lacrosse had a run of undefeated (!) seasons, and the football team-many times the size of the current squad- actually won games rather than suffering a life of perennial lopsided losses. There were even cheerleaders! Oberlin no longer has that kind of cultural homogeneity or social customs; nor does much of the country. Now, as then, Oberlin reflected the culture of its students.
Changes in American society rather than changes in Oberlin policies have produced the Oberlin of today. One exception which you rightly note was the conscious decision to increase the size of the College which has had manifold consequences. Oberlin's size-the largest of the small liberal arts college-does prevent all-school gatherings, works to limit access to courses, and requires a small and often inefficient bureaucracy. It also prevents us from being as selective in admissions as many of our competitors with much smaller first year classes to fill. You suggest that it has led to more large introductory lecture classes, but I don't recall History 1,2 being a discussion group as are the current Freshman-Sophomore Colloquia. Most importantly, a larger student population permits the formation of sub-communities which might not have had an adequate critical mass in a smaller student body. However, as for the structure of dormitories I don't believe that there are fewer common spaces in South or Langston than there were in Noah or Burton. Informal and convenient dining services merely reflect current norms as did the formal and fixed service of our time, and does not prevent students from talking with each other during their meal. Having-as we did- Gibsons as the only convenience store did not I think "foster interactions" any more than having several as today's students do.
Regarding e-mail as the destroyer of community, I think the jury is still out; in any event there is nothing that a college can do to prevent its use. Actually it may help to foster relationships of all sorts. For me, it permits good communication with my advisees including scheduling face to face meetings, which seem to be as common as they were in the past. I don't believe that the creation of "residential clusters' with new dining halls is the way to go. Having personally studied all the background planning for building the "stable dining communities" that went into the North Campus Dining Facility, I can say that that approach has been given its best shot. Stevenson today stands as a cautionary example of a failed attempt at community building by social engineering.
The most overt result of the enrollment increase of the '70's is, as you rightly note, the group of some 800 upper classmen who have to live in town. "Have to" is perhaps a misnomer, for more than that number wish to join their ranks but are compelled to live in residence halls. The desire to live "off campus" is driven by economics-about $1,000/ year less-and by the desire to live in a non-institutional setting with friends and including a willingness to forgo bedroom access to e-mail. Speaking personally, I did not feel any less a part of the Oberlin community by living "off campus" as I did for three years-one year more than is permitted today. In fact, I was closer to the central campus than many college residence halls.
Many of my housemates were Jewish and so some cross-cultural exposure occurred without coercion. It was interesting that you quoted a Jewish student who spoke of his desire to associate with non-Jews. In the '50s Jews were the significant minority group mainly because Oberlin-true to its commitment to educational access-did not apply the kind of quota system that the Ivy League colleges were using to limit the number of Jewish students. However, the '50s was the era of assimilation, and my Jewish classmates-some with recently Anglicized surnames-were looking to blend into the larger society. Therefore, a desire for something other than diversity might have been the primary motive of your Jewish friend. Such is not the case today for many American cultural and ethnic groups. A separate Kosher or African-American dining hall would have been an anomaly in our time; today it is the norm. There is great diversity within these groups and one cannot assume uniformity on the basis of race or religion. The Kosher Co-op provides a meeting place for Jews and Muslims because of common dietary practices. "Cultural exposure" is taking different forms in the Oberlin of the late twentieth century than when we were here at mid-century.
Your suggestions for more spaces where students can gather certainly make sense, but your proposals to segregate first-year students and limit their choices runs counter to current realities and were made about five years ago; I would not like to revisit the turmoil that these proposals evoked. Building a sense of community is difficult; building a "diverse community" is even more so, for the phrase itself is a contradiction in terms. A task of such complexity will require more than a reaching back to older models as well as a more searching analysis and planning process than has taken place to date. Perhaps your raising these issues once again will highlight the importance of this process.
Harry Dawe is an Oberlin College alumnus, class of 1958.
"They didn't talk to us before they cut jobs, so we didn't feel any obligation to talk to them before we walked out," explained Libby Fleming, a Dascomb student worker who participated in the walk-out on Nov. 21.
John Edmonds coordinated the protest after he tried to sign-up for the same job for second semester and realized that it had been crossed off, along with eleven other jobs.
He had heard of Student Workers' Organizing Coalition's efforts to unionize student workers and asked for our support.
The next day, several student workers walked off their jobs at Dascomb, chanting slogans such as "Hey, Oberlin, whad'ya say, how many jobs did you cut today?" as they marched around the cafeteria wearing signs. SWOC was there to join in the protest and to distribute information sheets, and answer diners' questions. SWOC also tried to lighten the workload for the remaining workers by encouraging students to eat at Stevenson instead.
Following the protest, two students lost their jobs because they had each received their third write-up. The third write-up was issued to the students for coming to work but "not fulfilling their duties." Instead of fulfilling their duties, the students were protesting the degrading and unfair conditions they were hired under. SWOC does not believe that students should be punished at all for the protest. It is working to get all the write-ups revoked. It is also trying to keep the amount and kind of second semester jobs offered at Dascomb to remain the same as their first semester equivalents. Fortunately, the College has already been pressured to rehire the two students who lost their Fall semester jobs.
Job cuts were not the only thing which inspired the Dascomb walk-out. That was merely the straw that broke the camel's back. Many student workers have plenty to complain about.
Job descriptions are unclear and students are unsure of which duties belong with their jobs. Students are often not trained, but merely thrown in. They have little idea what their rights are on the job. Managers often do not have enough respect for students to keep continually asking students to work late. One student worked overtime almost every day last summer, without getting paid any overtime. Students get no holiday pay, no health insurance, no job security. Bosses may also completely ignore their workers. "At least now the managers are talking to us. Before, they didn't even recognize we existed," noted Libby Fleming following the Dascomb protest she participated in.
Some students have suffered accidents on the job, such as being burned working near the stove, or wrenching a shoulder out of joint trying to lift a too-heavy burden.
Moreover, students deserve to make more because of the importance of their work to the College. And don't say the College can't afford to pay them; it may not be in the budget, but it should be. Oberlin administration must admit that student workers cost a lot less than full-time workers, and keep the college running in many ways.
Also, the amount of work many students have to do to help pay for the exorbitant cost of being here reduces the time they can spend actually getting educated.
"I'm angry at Oberlin," Libby says, "Why should I have to sacrifice my study time to work an underpaid, unrespected position?"
SWOCers have been wondering the same thing for a while now. Things could be so much better for us than they are. We recognize the huge gap between the way things are, and the way they should be; we're trying to bridge the gap by unionizing student workers.
When student workers become part of a union by signing a petition, they can elect representatives and decide what they want to demand. They have the power of the union behind them to enforce their demands.
This goal is not unreasonable. SWOC started out small, but has been growing larger as more people realize that they share our goal, and want to help attain it. Currently, we are supported by all three unions of full-time workers on campus who hold jobs comparable to those held by students. Each union is willing and ready to incorporate student workers. Moreover, we have heard from alumni and press representatives who support us in trying to actualize the liberal values Oberlin claims to possess.
One alumni wrote: "I send donations [to the College], and I don't want to be contributing to exploitation, even indirectly-but if the College won't negotiate fairly... then we need to speak up."
We want to unionize, not only for the student's sake, but for the sake of the part-timers. SWOC hopes to eventually unionize these men and women, some who have been working at Oberlin for years without gaining raises or security. They can be fired over one day's missed work. We also hope that if Oberlin raises wages, other establishments around town will have to raise wages to compete, perhaps changing poverty-level wages into decent living wages. Hopefully having higher wages for the lowest paid workers in an establishment will boost the wages of other workers as well.
SWOC wants to work with any student who supports unionizing regardless of their political affiliation, or whether they work on campus. We welcome everyone to attend our weekly meetings. Like Libby, some of you may "not even be into this at all, until I lost my job." Contact the undersigned to find out more about meeting times.
However, there is no need to come to SWOC meetings to be in a union. The only thing you absolutely have to do is sign a petition of the union your job is under; Just ask a SWOC member with a petition to sign. The petitions will be going around until we get a majority.
Your support is important to the success of this campaign.
Members of SWOC who submitted this letter are: college sophomores Katherine E. Roberts, Aisha Cousins and Libby Fleming, and college juniors Tyron Moore, Felicia Mello and Gillian Russom.
In September, during Alumni Council weekend, I had the opportunity to do a mock interview with two Oberlin students. I was very impressed with both students and their backgrounds, but felt they did not know how to best sell themselves. Since I routinely teach students how to get jobs and also do consulting in that area, and since most, if not all, of you will be on the job market at some point in your lives, I thought I'd share some tips to make the process more effective.
Think of yourself as a company, Me Inc., whose major product is you. First, you need to know the attributes of your product, what you are especially good at. However, you may be good at things from which you derive no personal satisfaction. Therefore, I recommend the following exercise to you. Although it is somewhat difficult to do, it pays major dividends and the information generated can be used for a variety of aspects of your job search.
Get a pack of 3x5 index cards. Think back to your earliest memories to things you did that gave you a since of achievement and accomplishment. (Not something about which your mother said, "Oh, honey, how wonderful," and you said, "Yeah, right," facetiously, but something you did about which you felt proud.) On one card only, write down what the situation (S) was, what your input (I) was (i.e., what you did), and what the results (R) were. For instance, maybe you taught your younger sibling to ride a bike, maybe you built a tree house, or maybe you helped the little old lady down the street in some way. Whatever. The only criterion is that it was something that gave you a special feeling of having done something important and worthwhile to you. Break your life into categories to make this exercise easier. For instance, grade school, junior high, high school, college, various jobs, club activities - some way to give you a hook to help you remember. Now, take the cards and sort them by the themes in your inputs, what you did. You should have more than one pile, but each card should not be its own pile. Usually, you have somewhere around 5 +/- 2 piles. Some themes might be "creative" "good with people" "ability to analyze" "selling ideas, products, processes" "conflict management." Once you've sorted your cards, you have a list of not only what you're good at but also what you enjoy doing. This knowledge will help you to make sure you get a job doing things you like to do. But, you also have great stories to use for your resume and in your interviews. Instead of the trite, "I'm good with people," you can illustrate this message with concrete examples.
Now, take a blank piece or two of paper, and write out your "Ideal Job" in as much detail as possible. Do you work with people or things? Is your company formal or informal? Do you travel? Within the State or within the States? Abroad? Frequently or occasionally? Do people call each other, including the President, by first names or by Ms. or Mr.? You get the idea. Reviewing these details keeps you from making the mistake one of our UT (The University of Texas at Austin) grads made. She had beau coup offers (maybe 30), and took the biggest paying one (a big mistake, by the way - focusing on salary as the determinant of which job to pick, instead of focusing on what it is you'll be doing, and what the potential of the job is). Six months later, she quit. She hadn't thought about the fact that the she was a people person and enjoyed moving around dealing with different people; sitting in an office and rarely seeing other people drove her bananas and made her very unhappy.
The resume. The one word synonym for resume is advertisement. I assume you all read magazines from time to time. Think about the last time you did so. Did you read every single advertisement? Probably not. Did you read some? Probably yes. So, what made you read the ones you did? Most likely, something caught your eye or your attention, or it was a topic or product in which you had some interest. You want your resume to catch the reader's eye. But unless you are in a few select fields, it should not be a weird color or strange looking. Be aware of the quality, appearance, and content of the resume. Use heavy bond paper in a conservative color (e.g., white, off-white, eggshell, tan - your placement office can help). Do not use every typeface imaginable. Try various formats and drop them all on the ground so you can't read them, only see the format. Which is most attractive?
Now, as to the content. Many people make some fundamental mistakes. They give us a list of job duties or responsibilities. Boring!!! Instead, tell the reader your accomplishments and achievements. One or two sentences of how you made a difference, provided value added. That way, I can distinguish between you and Mary Sue, who had the same list of duties and responsibilities, but also was a real waste, whereas you were a star. If you were commended for something you did, tell us. Use active verbs, use numbers (not written out as in prose, but actual numbers: what is more eye catching? Six million dollars or $6,000,000?) Many recruiters only spend a few seconds glancing at a resume to make their
initial cuts - their goal is not to find the best person, but to get rid of as many resumes as possible - so structuring yours so information stands out makes a difference. Use percents, talk about dollar impacts as much as possible, talk about how you increased or decreased something (but not about how you increased costs and decreased revenues or profits!).
Don't just tell me you developed some computer program or procedure, or made a recommendation. Did anyone use it? Did it make a difference? Give us pertinent information. You usually only have one page, so use the space judiciously. Don't cram it full of stuff and use less than 1-inch margins. Don't add superfluous information (e.g., references provided upon request) or useless information (enjoy reading, playing tennis [unless you are USTA seeded] or things most folks put down). Instead, tell us something that makes you stand out and that excites attention. For instance, "play Jai Lai" would be interesting everywhere but, perhaps, Miami. Put your web page and e-mail addresses on your resume but DON'T use crazy e-mail addresses. Get a special e-mail address, if necessary, for your job search. And, make sure your web page is sanitized and professional - leave off that pix of you and your buds quaffing down beer or whatever, or pictures of your cats or dogs. A caveat: Career Offices often require resumes formatted a certain way for their resume book; that does NOT mean you shouldn't have a better resume to use for your job search and to hand to companies who got your name from the resume book!
The interview. Here are two tips on how to do great interviews. First, get a tape recorder; two tapes, one labeled "master tape," the other "work tape" and a good friend. Get a list of the 20 hardest interview questions you can. The Career Office may have a list, but you can also pick up a couple of books on how to get a job and combine their lists to create your own list. Each night for seven nights, have your friend play interviewer and ask you the 20 questions. The first night, use the master tape. The next evening, replay and critique the master tape, then have your friend ask the 20 questions (again), taping these on the work tape. The next night critique the previous evening's work tape, then do it all again, using the work tape. On the last night, replay the master then once again, and then do the exercise on the work tape.
Now, get a video-camera - maybe use the Career Offices, then put on your conservative, banker-like, interview suits (you and your friend) and do the 20 questions live on camera. When you review the tape, look for annoying, but usually unconscious, habits. Picking your face, tapping your finger, whatever. Look at your posture and your affect. Remember one thing as you now answer these questions you've practiced: pause before you answer each and every question. That helps you from sounding too glib or from stepping on the interviewer's question, or from answering the wrong question.
When you're asked to tell us your greatest strengths, or what you did, or a host of other questions the information from your SIR cards come in handy. You can use them to tell stories to illustrate your points. You now have your strengths, what you are good at.
Doing the exercises illustrated above will give you tremendous leverage in the market. But don't forget to do your research on the company. And, make the interview interactive. Based on your research, based on what you now know you need or want in a job, ask questions of the recruiter! It makes for a much better interview for both sides and gets you off your psychological knees. You want to know why you should put your product (you) on this company's shelf (i.e., "why should I work for your company?" in a nice challenging manner, not a hostile, aggressive one).
Remember, the company is interested in one thing: "What can you do for me?" You are presumably interested in doing what you love and getting paid reasonably well for doing it. While there may not be an ideal job, you're much more likely to get close to one using the tips in this article than if you didn't do the work here. The knowledge you gain from doing the above will make you prepared for that lucky encounter that lands you the job or for that interview situation in which you show you're the best person the firm can hire.
Good Luck.
Dr. dt ogilvie, OC '70, is a class president & Oberlin Alumni Board Member.
Copyright © 1998, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 127, Number 11, December 4, 1998
Contact us with your comments and suggestions.