Stu­dents begin reg­is­tering for classes Monday. Nicole Ault | Col­legian

Some stu­dents thrived in the stress of reg­is­tration week, but most of us were uneasy for our uncertain fate.

Come reg­is­tration day, you probably slept for four hours, got one of the classes you wanted, and ended up with many pro­fessors to email and a mess of sched­uling to deal with. A small slip up — a failed alarm clock, a failure to line up reg­is­tered classes in time, a blip in the Wi-Fi — can transform your next-semester schedule from a dream to a nightmare.

Even your aca­demic adviser for­getting to lift your reg­is­tration ban can have grave con­se­quences — and this sit­u­ation isn’t that uncommon.

The adviser meeting before reg­is­tration is required for all Hillsdale stu­dents, espe­cially since stu­dents can’t reg­ister until their adviser lifts restric­tions on their WebAd­visor account. This system of adviser-con­trolled reg­is­tration bans puts respon­si­bility that should belong to the stu­dents on the advisers.

Every semester, I hear stories about dif­ferent reg­is­tration ban fiascos. Pro­fessors just don’t have the investment in class sched­uling that their advisees do. Some advisers forget to lift the ban after the adviser meeting. Others don’t remember how to work the system, and they don’t lift the ban in time. By the time a student emails about a standing ban and gets a response, his or her sought-after classes could be gone for the semester.

If all that was at stake was the surface issue of “oh, you didn’t let me reg­ister first before all of my other class­mates,” my problem with the current system could be seen as merely selfish. But the truth is that it should be the stu­dents’ choice how far they are willing to go to get his classes. The stu­dents decide whether or not they are going to wake up at an ungodly hour to reg­ister. It’s each student’s choice to determine how important the classes are to them, and the reg­is­tration ban just doesn’t provide an envi­ronment for that sort of adult control.

Legally, college stu­dents are adults. We are trusted with our own jobs, health, and cars. We are trusted to do homework and accept the con­se­quences of our actions, whether good or bad…but we’re given a restriction on class reg­is­tration, which seems arbi­trary and unnec­essary.

The ban seems to serve no purpose besides incen­tivizing stu­dents to show up for adviser meetings. Does the ban exist so advisers can prevent stu­dents from taking too many or too few classes? If so, it isn’t much use. There isn’t any­thing stopping stu­dents from dropping or adding classes through WebAd­visor after their adviser meetings.

Stu­dents who really don’t care about their classes will suffer the con­se­quences one way or another, whether through ter­rible classes or ter­rible grades in classes. The reg­is­tration restriction doesn’t make a bad student get his life together, and it doesn’t do any­thing for a good student.

In life, we’re going to suffer from other people’s con­se­quences as well as ours. But the reg­is­tration ban insults hard­working, grown-up stu­dents while not pro­viding much of a deterrent for lazy ones. I’m not dis­counting pro­fessors’ superior knowledge — my own aca­demic adviser has been beyond helpful with me. But we shouldn’t shift this respon­si­bility on them. Ulti­mately, class sched­uling is most important to the student.

Let’s con­tinue having contact between advisers and stu­dents, while not forcing both parties to deal with the adviser-con­trolled ban. At the very least, it’ll give us stu­dents one less thing to worry about during the hell­ishness of reg­is­tration week.


Katarzyna Ignatik is a sophomore studying English.