The Backdoor is a work of fiction and humor.
SOME SYMPOSIA are certainly sympathetic to certain student concerns, like, say, sad cigarette statistics and psychological stress studies. But are students similarly sympathetic to symposia? Supposing that some students stand opposed to symposia, senior sociology professors set out to ascertain some precise statistics on symposia sympathy and will soon present these statistics at Sunday’s “Symposium on Symposia Sympathy.”
These scholars started by sampling certain students with set survey responses, seeking statements opposed or predisposed to so many LC symposia. Sociology Professor Sam Patrick secretly supplied us a sneak peak of some of Sunday’s symposium’s sample student statements.
One such student, senior Simone Schtiller, stated her stance principally supporting such symposia.
“Some symposia suppose uncertain and sometimes suspect stances,” Schtiller said. “But most symposia show substantially stimulating studies from several prominent standpoints.”
Sophomore Stephanie Palso also asserted sympathy to symposia.
“I’m certainly always excited to see posters promoting symposia,” Palso said. “I’m psyched to supply my position as part of Sunday’s Symposium.”
Similarly, sampled psychology major Sage Port ’20 reported, simply, that she “stans” symposia, purportedly because they “report important stuff.”
Contrary to these conflicting perspectives, Sarah Tate ’19 stated her strong position, staunchly opposed to symposia.
“Us students are supposed to simply accept a perpetual stream of supposedly scholarly symposia,” Tate said. “And now LC says we should support a symposium purporting some importance of symposia? Simply absurd.”
Senior Steven Pond responded the same, saying he was “salty” about some symposia he has seen.
“Some stated surreptitious statistics, scientifically unsupported — sort of sordid stuff,” said Pond.
Some student responses were sadly unreportable, as several sampled students were seemingly stoned when surveyed, since the student survey session supplied compensatory snacks.
“Snacks were perhaps a poor pick,” Professor Patrick opined.
While student symposium sympathy was the study’s central concern, for comparison’s sake, student conceptions of colloquia were concurrently collected. A common consensus quickly became clear: colloquia are consistently condemned. This collective condemnation could be caused by current concerns in connection to colloquium credibility. A comment from chemistry and classics major Colin Kanak ’21 accurately characterizes this communal concern.
“Colloquia actively counteract constructive conversations and are candidly incapable of correctly encouraging communication connected to current concerns,” Kanak said. “Symposia simply seem saner.”
Sunday’s Symposium is supposed to start a series of similar Sunday symposia on symposia. Professor Patrick plans for seven such symposia, which plan to supplant previous pessimistic positions and so strengthen student symposia sympathy. Some such symposia in Patrick’s series are “proper symposia prose,” “proposing successful symposia” and “scrutinizing symposia subculture in school settings.” Patrick predicts an uptick in symposia success and subsequent participation pursuing this series.
Nonetheless, seeing such mixed student sentiments so far, success in such symposia is surely still uncertain. Some students simply oppose symposia, supposing that symposia similar to Sunday’s squander school resources and, of course, enforce certain presumptuous suppositions. Perhaps Professor Patrick can persuade such skeptical students to be sympathetic to symposia, as he supposes, and LC will see that Sunday’s symposium on symposia sympathy sets a persistent precedent for success and student presence at subsequent symposia.
Written by Austin Schmidberger.