Things Fall Apart?

As this semester has progressed the prospect of work for December graduates continued to erode.

At Richmond's career fair in August the booths were bustling with students looking to be hired and professionals, looking to hire. As one of those wide-eyed students, I was pretty excited and felt good about my prospects. As the semester moved on and the Wall Street Journal's economic outlook got darker and darker, the light on my prospects also began to weaken. I came out of the career fair with two solid interviews. However, after an interview I was informed by the companies that they were no longer able to hire new employees due to the economy or that they were revising the roles of the employees they would hire. This was disappointing but if nothing else, I took away plenty of knowledge from the interviews I had - they were somewhat entertaining as well.

Thankfully, I'm not in a position where once I graduate if I don't have a job I don't eat. This knowledge also hasn't helped my job searching as I've been a little less intense than I could have. But, I still worry about those who don't have a buffer they can work from until the economy switches back to hiring mode. More than one person has told me "it's a great time to go to graduate school" and that is what others graduating with me are looking to do. I just don't feel like I would be able to get the most out of grad school yet. I want to experience more before I spend more time in a class room. I want to solve real world problems, I want to work with people. I want to work from 8-5 (or whatever) regularly and see how well I adjust. I've done the academic learning thing for a while - I want to see what else is out there.

Don't fear though, all is not lost for me. Despite my lackadaisical job search I've found and interviewed for a position which I think would be both fascinating, fun, and a great experience and with a company that isn't as subject to the whims of the market as others. Here's hoping that works out!

Residence Hall Access Security

There is an article in this week’s Maroon about dorm security. The article supplements a video made by the paper’s staff as they get in to the dorms at Loyola without the required identification and show that it’s not a difficult process. This wasn’t any real surprise of mine but it does expose a pretty important security issue.

What can schools do to increase the safety of their dorms from an entry control stand point? I think the most important thing schools can do is create a single point of entry and exit to all their residence halls. This allows much more control from a physical point of view and also makes the dorms more social since people are forced to interact while approaching that central access point. This is one aspect of student housing that Loyola does an excellent job at. Richmond makes no attempt for its dorms and allows all doors to be used for entry (with student id) and exit.

After the buildings have a single way in and out the next important step is to staff that entrance with a well trained person all the time. Training should include proper procedure as well as the reasoning behind the procedures. Many problems encountered during my stint as an RA resulted from poorly trained work study students not doing their jobs properly. While at the desk a person’s responsibility becomes checking that each individual trying to enter the dorm is allowed to do so. This also involves monitoring visitor check-in and check-out as well as any other responsibilities (Tulane rents movies, Loyola checks out vacuums). As a part of this, residents of the dorms should each have something on their identification which makes it easy to detect whether they are in the right dorm or not at a glance. Loyola used “building stickers” for this purpose with each sticker being a different color. This allowed desk staff to glance at the ID and ensure the student was in the proper dorm.

Another side benefit of having the dorms staffed is that it provides a simple mechanism for problems. If someone crazy does enter the desk assistant can push the panic button. If something breaks the desk assistant can write up the work order. If a roommate is passed out in the hallway the desk assistant should be able to call for assistance. This requires the desk assistant to be given some level of control over their dorm. My biggest complaint while an RA at Loyola was that the dorms failed to empower the desk assistant.

For desk assistants to be able to perform their duties, they need to be able to control the entryway and lobby of the dorm. This means that beyond a certain point in the building, residents should have to walk around the desk through a single choke point that allows each person to be identified. Elevators and stairs to other parts of the building should be located only behind that point. This ensures that everyone going to the rooms has at least walked past the desk. Desks off to the side of a lobby allow ample room for people to sneak around the desk. When well placed desks are given good visibility of the lobby and entryway the likelihood that intruders could be easily detected greatly increases. Well placed desks also thwart potential intruders as they see a more difficult obstacle to gaining entry.

Right to Carry on Campus

In recent weeks, Richmond's student newspaper, The Collegian, has printed many editorials about students' right to carry concealed weapons on college campuses. The Red and Black at UGA has had similar editorials so I guess this is a pretty hot topic right now. With that said, here are my two cents.
I understand the desire to feel safe on a college campus. I can see how people feel that carrying a weapon would provide them with that safety. I don't think the argument follows that carrying a weapon creates (or even fosters) a safer environment. My reasoning behind this is that while the person holding the weapon may feel like they have some tangible defense against something bad happening, a gun really won't do them any good. In fact, I'd argue that it would harm them.
Assuming that the person with the gun is not the person responsible for the shooting, the do-gooders responding to the threat don't help the situation. Their lack of formal "active shooter" training could allow their nerves to take control of their bodies. Without training it would be natural to react to someone running down the hall way trying to get into rooms as the person doing the shooting. This isn't necessarily the case as it might be another student trying to escape the carnage. Or, instinct might tell you that anyone with a gun is the bad guy. But, what if other students also carry weapons and are in a similar hunt for the real shooter? How would you distinguish them from the real shooter? And, once you've made the distinction, do you trust your fellow gun carriers to be able to make the same distinction so you aren't shot in confusion? Even if you only shoot people dressed a certain way (say, wearing black and body armor) that could fail as police begin to enter the building.
Once the decision is made by the police to enter the building, armed students then pose an additional threat. Police now have to (quickly) sort out the law abiding students wanting to do good from the shooter. If the shooter is still moving around the building this identification could waste valuable time.
Armed students (or others) also pose a communication problem. As 911 calls begin to arrive about the situation people may mistakenly view the students responding to the situation as additional shooters. This could yield a situation where police are expecting a team of 5 individuals to be roaming around the building when only 1 exists.
Ignoring the rare possibility that students would be on a campus with a shooting, guns still pose risks. What would occur if one were to misfire during class? Or, if someone were to fall down a flight of stairs? These risks must also be accounted for in any plan that allows people to carry weapons on campus. The security of the weapons when not being carried would also pose a potential problem. If a person licensed to carry a weapon fails to properly secure it all sorts of problems could develop. Their nut job of a roommate could decide to take revenge on a cheating significant others' object of affection. Their drunk roommate could come in late one night and decide to play Russian roulette with the gun. No way exists to stop these from happening as roommates could learn the combination to a safe or the location of keys.
Debating the costs and benefits of carrying concealed weapons on campuses will no doubt be around for a long time and will always have its supporters. Until these supporters can fix the fundamental problems with having a concentrated number of weapons in one place controlled by (mostly) untrained people, the debate won't end. Even if these problems are surmounted it ignores that we already pay people to take care of this sort of thing for us. We even provide these people with highly specialized training so that they can do a really good job when the time comes. We call these people police officers.