Opinion

Ranks: Waterloo is a University, not a Military

Waterloo Engineering is one of the most competitive programs in the world; as we’ve come to realize, this is true on two fronts: academically by having the brightest students in the country, and through Co-op, getting employed in a competition with our peers.

Then on top of that, we are systematically ranked based on our marks compared to other students.

“Wait, you guys are still getting those rankings? Through email?” exclaimed Professor Trivet. Like some professors, he was under the impression that these rankings were no longer sent to students. Somewhere, deep inside the Engineering Faculty, a painstaking 15 step process is conducted to rank each and every Engineering student, making us the only program in the country to have such a system.

I personally set out to find reasoning behind these rankings, the opinions of students and faculty: are they purely a destructive initiator of more competition, or is there more to its existence.

To flourish in an environment of learning, most would agree that there is absolutely no need for excess competition in an already demanding program. Professor Tizhoosh, who has a reputation in his Systems Engineering class for his criticism of competition, believes that “competition is the opposite of intelligence,” he says “comparing is the remains of our animal instincts from Homo Habilis.”

Competition is the driving force behind relative deprivation, which I wrote about last issue. It’s also a major obstacle against collaboration and cooperation, something that’s promoted heavily amongst engineers.

What began in my own opinion as something completely negative is resonating with a majority of students and staff. To them, the ranking system has no benefit and is perceived as purely detrimental. Yet at the same time, some students are indifferent, they understand the pros and cons of having a system, but would “like to see where they stand” and a select few even find the system motivating.

This was my personal revelation that different individuals can tolerate different amounts of competition, very much affected by their classmates and the atmosphere of their cohort.

“It definitely get’s better as you get older,” I was told by Eng-Soc execs Adelle and Jeff, “People realize that there’s more to school than just grades, like co-op”

From faculty members, the “we’ve been doing it forever” explanation is actually the only one. These rankings used to be on transcripts; for many of the staff members who are also alumni, ranks are just the way it has been. Being first years, we would then ask: why should we continue to tolerate something if it can be so detrimental?

To remove the system all together would be met with resistance, though still possible. I’ve also discovered that to different groups the idea of ranking has some benefits, but to others it’s completely demoralizing. If this is the case, then we can definitively agree that the rankings system is flawed and dysfunctional. To cater towards all the different populations I have received some great suggestions: the first and most obvious is to simply ask for our rankings. For those that don’t want to see it, that number will not appear in their inbox. Alternatively, to see where people stand, some proposed only revealing the average or median of different courses. This is something that has been done in other universities.

Optimistically, I’ve been informed that there is change being considered by the faculty. This may very well be the last semester of which we are given emailed rankings. The system to replace these emails is to be determined. However, change occurs very slowly in the University setting, and if the faculty decides on making that switch to a new system, they will listen to the student body on our perspectives. To have your voice heard, I strongly encourage talking to your Eng-Soc reps or execs and encourage the university to take action.

Leave a Reply