First, housing selection usually takes place in the summer, but this year, it occurs during the last week of class. I, like many others, have conflicts with classes and assignments that make this process more stressful. My 9:15 am slot coincides with my 8:30 am class, and I am not looking forward to choosing my room for the next year while sitting in an Economics lecture. Moreover, I would either have to step out of class or miss it entirely to call my roommate in the event that the room we want is taken. 

Second, there has been discourse about seniors placing juniors into singles. Seniors chose their housing today, April 29, while juniors and sophomores will go tomorrow. In past years, it was not uncommon for juniors and seniors to form a block. However, students have taken issue  with seniors placing juniors into rooms during senior regular selection because it defeats the purpose of splitting housing selection by class year. If such a senior had an early time slot, their decision to place juniors in high-demand dorms such as Tower Court could have prevented other seniors from getting their location of choice.

In addition, having housing selection during the school year could have increased interest in creating larger housing blocks, as people can communicate in-person about their time slots and preferences. Over the summer, communication is often restricted to close friends, but now, students are able to ask around campus with the goal of joining an early-slot blocking group. Students are also able to tour their potential rooms in-person, which could increase competition for larger rooms, rooms with better views, and more. 

According to users on Sidechat, every Tower single was gone one hour after housing selection started for seniors. By the end of the first day, only 65 singles remain—most of which are in Munger and McAfee. One user even posted a screenshot from the Wellesley Facebook page, which read, “Willing to compensate $500 if a rising junior has a 9 a.m. slot.” Even students  who already have their rooms are trying to trade them on this platform.

This year’s early housing selection might be the College’s attempt to get a head start on its administrative responsibilities, but it is unclear whether negative feedback will change future procedures. Moving selection back to the summer, limiting blocking sizes or enforcing restrictions on class year selection dates could all be solutions to this problem. In any case, good luck to my fellow juniors—I hope we can all make the best of a not-so-ideal situation.

Some Democrats are unhappy with Biden because of his economic policies, while others believe that he’s too old to serve another term. A more recent issue that has turned the tide against Biden is his approach to the war in Gaza. Opponents of his foreign policy started a movement to vote “uncommitted” or “no preference” during the presidential primaries. With this, it is important to note that voting uncommitted in a primary is significantly different from abstaining in a general election. Because Biden ran virtually unopposed for the Democratic ticket, choosing no preference only served to send him a message that people are not happy with how he has chosen to handle the conflict in Gaza. However, it did not put his nomination at risk. Not voting for him in the general election does boost Trump’s chances of winning office, though there are other considerations, such as whether the voter’s state is blue, red, or a battleground. 

In a typical election, the decision to not vote in Biden’s favor might stand alone — meaning, perhaps its effects wouldn’t spread past the decision to not vote. In this upcoming election, however, Biden is already entering at a disadvantage. There are two reasons for this: first, Biden is losing critical groups across America — groups that arguably helped him win the 2020 election. According to two New York Times articles, Biden is losing Black, Hispanic, and young voters because of issues like inflation, his age, and the war in Gaza. Notable swing states this year include Georgia, Arizona and Nevada, all of which have sizable Black or Hispanic populations. If Biden loses these groups of voters and their states, the election could end with Trump’s victory. 

Second, Biden’s position as the incumbent is not helping his campaign. Usually, incumbency is a huge advantage because people vote for the names they know. However, with Biden in office, people are quick to blame him for present problems. Americans have always worried about inflation, though now more than ever due to the lingering effects of the pandemic. Even though inflation rates have cooled significantly from December 2022 to December 2023, Americans still believe that inflation is a significant problem that Biden is unable to control. It doesn’t help that at an NRA gathering in early 2024, Trump promised to reduce prices and energy costs by 50 percent in his first year in office. 

This is all to say that Biden is clearly in an unfavorable position heading into this election, so every vote against him — whether it is for Trump, another candidate, or no one — will only help Trump succeed. If Americans want to look to the future, meaning Trump’s promises, there are many policies to consider. Circling back to Biden’s approach to Gaza, Trump is on record stating that Israeli forces have got to “finish the problem.” Trump also wants to end delays for federal oil drilling permits, cut support for gender-affirming care and more. Voters must understand the goals of both sides before making decisions. 

On Super Tuesday, I drove home to Boston with the singular goal of casting my vote in the primary. It was my first time voting, as I had just turned 18 last August. But I knew that this wasn’t a normal election. There is a lot at stake, and people need to understand that this election is just as crucial as the 2020 election. It is certainly discouraging to see the choice of candidates, but ultimately, to vote is to weigh the options to determine what kind of future we want. 

In the mid to late 2010s, beauty gurus like Jaclyn Hill, Tati Westbook and James Charles took over the internet by doing full-face, glamorous looks with colorful eyeshadow and glitter. I followed their tutorials using my mom’s old makeup, trying to perfect a cut crease with concealer so the blue eyeshadow could pop. To me, it was more art than beauty. I never wore those looks outside of the house, and I only spent the occasional hour playing beauty guru. Sephora tweens seem to have drastically different motivations for swarming Sephora. The products they buy—skincare, cream highlighter, and GrandeLash—all steer towards “natural beauty” and effortlessness. They want to wear makeup without looking like they’re wearing makeup, and they don’t want to age, which is ironic given that these tweens buy products to feel older than they are. 

There is also a notable difference in how I consumed this media versus tweens today. In middle school, I was confined to 30-minute YouTube videos that forced me to designate time for video-watching. I was enraptured when watching, but when I wasn’t, I focused on completing homework, setting the table for dinner and getting ice cream with friends. My worlds were separate, and the influence I was under did not encroach on my social development. 

Tweens today are subject to 30-second TikToks, Instagram reels and YouTube shorts that they can watch anywhere, anytime. Passing periods in school, car rides and even time with friends are consumed by influencers doing “get ready with me” videos and showing new products they received in PR. Thus, the lines between online and physical spaces blur until they become one reality. This also creates a bubble: everyone online seems to have certain products because the algorithm directs you to similar content, so the watcher feels left out when they do not possess a specific item. Social media has overwhelmed everyone, so this phenomenon isn’t isolated to tweens, but feeling excluded during one’s developmental period can lead to a heightened desire for conformity through consumption. 

Social media is relatively new, as are its impacts on development, but parenting is a factor that has always been around and undergoes steady transformation through the years. The generations that raised tweens vs. older teenagers have largely influenced behavior. Millennial parents are known for enacting a more gentle parenting style than previous generations. Combined with a shared desire to consume — especially products advertised on the internet — Millennials are arguably more likely to give in to their children’s pleas for the next big thing. Parents are supposed to have their children’s best interests at heart, so they should be more responsible when buying these products for them. The long-term effects of retinol and polypeptide moisturizer on a young person’s skin are currently unclear, and tweens’ lack of knowledge on these ingredients isn’t wholly their fault. 

When my best friend Mai and I went to Sephora during winter break, we saw the outbreak of Sephora tweens firsthand. Girls who came below our shoulders lined the shelves with bags of products, their mothers trailing behind. At that moment, I, like others on the internet, judged them for “growing up too fast.” But considering the powerful influence of social media and advertising today, the shift away from physical third spaces to online spheres, and the growing feelings of exclusion resulting from algorithms, Sephora tweens are sadly just a product of our changing society.

Interviews can provide applicants with important details about Wellesley’s academic rigor, values, and campus culture. Furthermore, researching for an interview forces applicants to reflect on why they want to attend Wellesley past its location and acceptance rate. The only research currently required to answer Wellesley’s supplemental essay is browsing the Wellesley 100 and choosing two to write about. Though some applicants connect these offerings to their personal interests and goals, others do not fully consider what their place at Wellesley could be before hitting submit. Interviews are typically portrayed as opportunities for colleges to put faces to names — or personalities to pages of accomplishments — but they also allow applicants to envision their place at the institution and thereby bring the college to life. A student cannot fully know what it is like to be on campus until they arrive, yet having a comprehensive understanding of Wellesley before committing to four years could decrease transfer rates and increase overall student happiness. 

Additionally, with the fall of affirmative action, interviews offer a space for students to share parts of their background that would otherwise remain concealed in their application. Applicants’ backgrounds are significant in higher education because they often indicate what a student can offer to the college community. Even though interviewers cannot explicitly consider race, applicants have the chance to speak candidly about how their circumstances have affected their experiences. The interview is, after all, a conversation about the applicant as a person — not solely regarding their academics or extracurriculars. 

Some applicants also possess valuable skills that grades, activities or essays fail to reflect. These assets, such as effective communication, can shine through during an interview. It is certainly important that each admitted student demonstrates leadership skills and academic excellence, but at the end of the day, interpersonal skills are the key to a successful transition from college to the professional sphere. Sociability is just as important as other admissions considerations and is generally overlooked in college applications without interviews. 

Like every part of the admissions process, the college interview has its faults, but Wellesley could resolve most issues through various policies. The first problem is accessibility: some applicants do not have access to Zoom, and others are limited in terms of in-person interviews because of their location. The fix is simple — make interviews optional, and give applicants an option for virtual or in-person meetings if they opt in.  Not having an interview won’t hurt chances of admission, but performing well could be advantageous if admission officers are on the fence about an application. 

The second concern is the age of interviewers: older alumni might portray Wellesley in a way that is inaccurate to current campus culture. With this, proponents of younger interviewers might advocate for current students to interview applicants. Even though current students would have the most accurate picture of what Wellesley looks like now, they have not been through four years of college, nor do they know the impact that Wellesley has on one’s postgraduate plans and professional career. Therefore, the best solution is to encourage recent alumni (ideally two to 15 years post graduation) to volunteer through the admissions process. This keeps the alumni network strong, and it encourages future participation and donation by maintaining connections early on. 

As a first-year, I wasn’t given the option to interview at Wellesley, but I attended in-person interviews for three other schools. I genuinely enjoyed chatting with people I had never met before, and they offered a wealth of information that a website could never capture. I wish I was given the same opportunity for Wellesley — especially because one of our pull factors is a powerful alumni network. The implementation of interviews, if done right, could improve the quality of Wellesley from its students to alumni to the college as a whole.

If a student lives in a swing state, or a “purple state,” they should absolutely cast votes in their hometown. There are currently 10 states classified as swing states, including Wisconsin, Ohio and Georgia. There’s a reason why presidential candidates in general elections focus their campaign efforts on swing states through additional advertising and visits: these states are crucial to the outcome of presidential elections, majorities in Congress and ultimately the partisan positions of the Supreme Court. While the allocations of your state’s electoral votes do not change the inherent value of your ballot, voting in a purple state is a tactical move that could tip the scales in favor of your preferred candidate. 

Voters in firmly red states often feel discouraged from voting for Democratic candidates because their ballots sink into a sea of opposition. However, subtle yet frequent shifts can occur within red states after landmark political events, such as the fall of Roe v. Wade, which can transform into tangible change — especially as parties mold their platforms to appeal to new demographics. In the 2022 and 2023 elections, the deep red states of Kentucky, Kansas and Montana rejected measures that would exclude abortion from their state constitutions, and swing states Michigan and Ohio passed measures enshrining reproductive rights into their state constitutions. In Michigan, this coincided with a larger number of Democrats elected, illustrating that partisan issues can influence party choices. Some might see voting blue in Massachusetts as presenting a similar conundrum in which individual votes ostensibly shrink in importance as the relatively homogenous electorate drowns out dissent. But these scenarios are different because you can take the first step towards change by making your voice heard in a red state rather than reinforcing the inevitable Democratic victory Massachusetts. It is also important to note that any narrative that paints voting as pointless only further discourages civic engagement in a time when democracy already faces threats of erosion. 

Is there a difference between voting in a firmly blue home state and voting in Massachusetts? Given Massachusetts’s history, it is smarter to vote in places with less concentrated Democratic populations. With the exception of the District of Columbia and Vermont, Massachusetts contains the highest percentage of Democratic voters. Even though some states are solidly blue, like Illinois, there is still a notable percentage of people who do not vote Democrat. However, it is still practical if a student chooses to vote in Massachusetts because they spend a larger portion of their year as a MA constituent.

I was born and raised in Boston, and my family still lives there, so I might not be the most qualified advocate for this issue. However, it is because I am limited to casting ballots in Massachusetts that I recognize the importance of strategic voting for out-of-state college students.

One contributor to the lack of “Wellesley pride” is the social scene. Many students, myself included, leave campus during the weekends because Wellesley is hardly a hot spot for parties. But why would students bother hosting if the campus resembles a ghost-town after 5 p.m. every Friday? We’ve trapped ourselves in a self-perpetuating cycle of excess off-campus socializing leading to a lack of on-campus events. Although the infamous 2006 Harvard Crimson profile on Wellesley students is full of distasteful stereotypes, it does paint the picture of a more social campus. Students from other schools frequently partied at Wellesley because students publicized events at colleges around Boston. The lull in activity could be attributed to COVID-19, but it could also be a shift in the campus culture. Either way, change cannot happen until students make an effort to attend on-campus events or go the extra mile to host them.

Another issue lies with academics. Despite being a prospective humanities major, I found myself telling people back home that I was going to take classes at MIT to justify my commitment to Wellesley and elicit nods of approval. Cross-registration is advantageous to certain majors—such as computer science—that may feel limited by the size of our departments or class availability. However, there is a stark difference between saying that you take classes at MIT and saying that you go to MIT: one is a footnote in your journey of higher education, and the other is a bibliography composed of a single source that you accredit all of your accomplishments to. I don’t need to list reasons why Wellesley deserves a spot in your social resume. Just take a moment to re-acknowledge your dedicated professors, small introductory classes and accomplished peers. We often take it for granted.

Any discourse regarding Wellesley’s prestige circles back to one thing: its lack of cisgender male students. The numerous misconceptions resulting from our institution’s gender demographics are part of a larger, more complex issue, so I want to zoom in and touch on how it relates to college elitism instead. College elitism is a loaded topic that runs rampant in academic cities like Boston, and it stems from a history of achievement—a list of impressive alumni who held top spots in government or financial firms. By this logic, college elitism is rooted in patriarchal limitations because women have been denied jobs, promotions and recognition for centuries. Not to mention that many women in Wellesley’s early days did not use their degrees professionally, instead facing social pressure to marry shortly after graduation. Wellesley is undoubtedly an “elite” institution, but its name is not widely known because men do not lie in the orbit of its narrative, and the accomplishments of our alumni have been constantly devalued by misogyny in the professional sphere.

Rather than propping up Wellesley with names of other colleges to justify your choice in higher education, consider wearing the Wellesley name with pride. Promote a vibrant intra-campus culture through social events and school spirit, and stop to appreciate the unique opportunity for personal and intellectual growth that our school gives us. Maybe one day, your professional and social achievements will be one of many that give Wellesley College the recognition it deserves.

Admittedly, the excessive pomp and circumstance might be worth it if these debates actually influenced voters’ choices. However, a recent study shows that voters do not place notable weight on political debates when choosing where to cast their ballot. In the two months leading us to an election, which is typically when general election presidential debates are held, U.S. electors’ voting decisions are less flexible when compared to those in the six other countries studied. Voters are initially impacted by televised debates but quickly forget their contents. The jam-packed, never-ending news cycle causes debates to slip through the cracks despite their ostensible importance for civic engagement.

But why are voters initially affected by these debates? It must be the riveting plans candidates pitch to their audience, right? Wrong — the crux of these debates is the yelling, talkback, interruptions, callouts and attacks. Candidates aim for one thing during their time on screen: notoriety. They want to be remembered, and they don’t care how their name plants itself in people’s minds. Roger Stone, a political consultant for multiple presidents, including Donald Trump, flippantly remarked, “Politics with me isn’t theater. It’s performance art. Sometimes, for its own sake.” 

In the first Republican primary debate, GOP candidate Vivek Ramaswamy took an extremist position by calling the climate agenda a hoax. Initially, many saw this as a foolish maneuver, myself included, because climate change is widely accepted as an important reality that needs to be addressed. However, Ramaswamy’s true motivations for causing such a stir became apparent after I saw his name splashed across every major news outlet post-debate. Ramaswamy’s unique stance gave him an edge in appealing to extreme right-wing voters, and media outlets advanced his platform by centering articles around his position. Meanwhile, candidate Governor Ron DeSantis was widely criticized for remaining on the sidelines simply because he failed to create such drama. 

As a result, the “winners” of a debate may not be the most sensible candidates. Politics is, at its core, a popularity contest. To become popular, you have to be known. This leads candidates to resort to extreme tactics that decrease the legitimacy of our electoral system. It’s a strategy that got Trump elected in 2016, namely through his promise to “build a wall” between the U.S. and Mexico. Fame, or infamy, continues to boost Trump in the 2024 election cycle, as he remains popular despite multiple indictments.

Candidates are not the only ones fighting for the spotlight. Media outlets often participate in “horse race journalism,” a type of reporting that prioritizes polling data and public perception over candidate policy to gain clicks. The New York Times is guilty of this, as evidenced by this headline they published after the debate, “Ramaswamy Seizes Spotlight as DeSantis Hangs Back: 7 Debate Takeaways,”. This mirrors a Fox News headline, “First Republican debate: The biggest loser and the biggest winner.” Rather than publishing neutral headlines and outlining policy points for readers who may have missed the live debate, these newspapers called attention to the night’s drama. They focused more on candidate Chris Christie’s dig at Ramaswamy’s ChatGPT tone than the candidates’ views on inflation and unemployment. 

Despite their differing political leanings, both The New York Times and Fox News leverage contention to keep money flowing and viewers entertained. Televised debates fuel these outlets for months, supplying dozens of articles chock-full of extremist views and petty behavior. This commodification of politics is harmful because it contributes to the steady decline in the public’s trust in the government. How can we rely on our government when the people in office can’t even abide by elementary-level norms? 

In 1960, the U.S. organized the first televised presidential debate between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy. Today’s star-studded podiums and electronic walls are a far cry from the wooden chairs and plain backdrop of decades past. But like technology and design, our perception of politics and how we obtain information has changed. We need to reconsider whether our resources should continue funding something akin to reality TV or if they should be allocated to something — anything — more productive for voters and this country.