In my four-year journey, what we now call “advisory” went through significant changes. The system was often torn apart and built from scratch. In my freshman year came Common Ground, then Project Wayfinder, and finally Advisory, which also went through quite a change amid the novel virus. After going through these programs for four years, I feel more confident in providing my feelings and understandings about them.

I still remember the time when we had the first Common Ground meeting. There were about 15 to 20 people inside a classroom. There were seniors, juniors, sophomores, and freshmen, and none of us were smiling when we entered the room. Even before the meeting started, the atmosphere was already down, and at that moment, I knew that Common Ground would fail. Even after icebreakers and all the different activities, the gap between the students from different grade levels was not closing. Many complained about the program, underclassmen not understanding the purpose of sitting next to upperclassmen and vice versa. 

I believe that the main problem was that teachers forced Common Ground even when students publicly hated it. Many of us did not understand its usefulness and purpose. That was why many were making fun of the program and criticizing the school for creating a useless program that no one enjoyed. If the majority does not understand the purpose of an activity, then there is little chance for that group to be satisfied with the activity. The second problem was putting the upperclassman and underclassman in the same room. Putting freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior in one place and fostering a closer relationship between the four distinct grade levels certainly had meaningful intentions. I guess the faculty imagined this: younger students find advice from the older ones, breaking down the walls between students. However, that is easier said than done. The wall that blocks close relationships between different class levels is formidable. Students who succeed in breaking them do so by going through sports and clubs, which they chose to join, instead of being forced to.

Next came Project Wayfinder. From what I have heard from my friends, Project Wayfinder seemed to be the worst of the three. This program put a certain amount of students in one group and, in my memory, tried to relieve students’ stress and teach specific life lessons. Contrary to Common Ground, Project Wayfinder only had students from the same grade level. However, soon after its start, many students did not believe that its lessons were meaningful and effective. Students complained. None of the students thought the activities to be meaningful. And Project Wayfinder came to a finish.

In my junior year, Advisory came along. Students, compared to two previous lessons, seemed to cope better with this program. Even though the groan remained among the general crowd, there really was no one trying to rip the program in two. Students did not enjoy some activities, and many made fun of them. But at the end of the day, more students found it useful than Common Grounds and Project Wayfinder. For example, many Seniors found cooking lessons, tax payments, and others to be useful. Students found value in that 45 minutes between the third block and lunch. Compared to the forced laughter in Common Ground and Project Wayfinder, Advisory fostered genuine satisfaction from students’ hearts. This may only be true for me, but that was the impression I got from the whole grade. 

Putting students in a specific location and telling them to do something they don’t want to do is difficult. Students complain, and when the parents receive an impression that the school is misleading their children, there are consequences. However, such programs that help the student body is critical and important in helping teenagers prepare for their future careers. They alert any social issues, give helpful life tips, and let the students mature. Therefore, I think it is quite necessary to force a program that the majority of the students want it abolished.

I say that there are different reasons to the students’ hatred towards the mentioned programs. The first is that students fail to find the programs useful. While teachers and faculty easily look ten, twenty years down the road, many students do not easily succeed in doing so. Instead, many want the 30, 40 minutes before lunch talking to their friends or playing basketball. To add on, when students fail to find these directly affect them or find them meaningful in any way, we tend to reject and repel. 

However, I think Advisory is on the right track to becoming successful. Students disliking such programs are natural. To put advisory as a part of high school experience, the faculty will need to take years of complaints from the student population. On the other hand, to have these programs entirely find their light, students need to take these programs seriously. If the students close their ears and eyes, it is not possible to learn. With such attitude, Advisory or any other programs will not be effective. But looking at how much improvement both faculty and students have made for the past few years, I am hopeful that Advisory or any other similar programs will only improve and help students prepare for their future. 

Article by Ryan Chung.