I am writing in response to “Popular programs disappoint” (Feb. 12, p. 6). Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, before one makes generalizations about an entire organization, one should research the subject more deeply.
The communities mentioned are in the Hall on Virginia Avenue and the Dakota. Not once did the article mention any community in Thurston or Mitchell halls in detail. To generalize, one should consider that there are a plethora of other communities.
In reference to the statement “students said programs are less effective and organized than they expected,” I challenge anyone interested to ask members of my own sci-tech community if the program is not effective or is disorganized. I have no doubt they will offer totally different conclusions about living and learning communities.
Finally, freshman Kristen Luke stated she found the program at HOVA hardly functioning. Again, this is an isolated example. Trek over to Thurston or Mitchell and you may see another side to that statement. In fact, I believe our community functions quite well. When things need to be done, they happen. When deadlines are set, we meet them. And when we want to plan an event, it happens with community involvement.
One statement I agree with is that “programs become what participants make of it.” In our community, we could have sat around Thurston accomplishing nothing, or we could have been active members in the community. Luckily, my community chose to participate in numerous community activities from blood drives to the walkathons. We have also organized trips to New York and to the Smithsonian. Our Web site has been a tremendous success. Also, we are currently in the process of working to put on a science fair at a local under-privileged elementary school.
Could any of these things have occurred with a lazy, disorganized community? I think not. Before making generalizations, please gather enough facts that encompass most or all of the communities. That way, a more well rounded conclusion can be reached.