By Jonathan Black
The critique system needs to be reworked.
With Michael Bodley’s post earlier in mind, I feel that the conversation of how the critique system works needs a drastic overhaul. As I arrived at my table for the website critique I was expecting the adviser to have the website link pulled up and some vague idea about what he was about to experience.
He didn’t. He didn’t know the URL. I don’t know if it was the adviser — who will go unnamed — or if it’s the system in general, but it should be a simple task of sending The Pendulum’s URL so the adviser can look over it.
I want to be clear that this isn’t the adviser’s fault, but the system’s because the same can be said for the critique of the newspaper and magazine.
All of these experiences can be so inconsistent, and it puts a lot of pressure of the adviser to blindly look over a product and think of a number of constructive things to say to a group of college journalists staring at you.
Since money is coming out of The Pendulum’s pocket to pay for this service I expect it to have some sort of quality to it. The current system is a disservice to our funds and our time.