University of Virginia Library

Payoffs For Counselors?

Scott Stephens, a College representative to
the Student Council and a Senior Counselor,
is presenting a series of proposals to the
Council for endorsement in an effort to get
more material benefits for dormitory
counselors. We disagree with his assumptions
about the nature of the job of a dormitory
counselor, and the majority of his specific
suggestions to entice more "good" students
into the important positions.

We do recognize, however, that the
counseling program has been instrumental in
making the first year more bearable, if not
enjoyable, for the incoming students. The
counselor performs innumerable duties that
require many sacrifices that do not seem large
unless taken as a whole. From the time that
he returns to the University early after
summer recess, the counselor feels the weight
of responsibility for his eighteen charges. He
must be able to respond quickly, yet
thoughtfully when faced with any of myriad
situations. He must be available.

We agree that "the counselor's job, it
might be said, that he is a 'helpful friend' to
the individual student and to the
administration." Mr. Stephens then asserts
that for all of the services, which we certainly
admit are many and vital, the counselor
performs, he only receives a free room.
Materially this is true, but the intangible
benefits accrued by a participant in the
counseling program are many. We readily
agree that counselors do not receive the
material benefits that would be
commensurate with their tasks, but this is as
it should be.

We view counseling as one of the most
rewarding extracurricular activities that a
student can enter, if he is selected to do so. It
also is a great service to the University,
something that Mr. Stephens completely
ignores, as he constructs a "we-they"
framework for presenting his proposals. It
evidently does not occur to him that students
within the University are more than willing to
enter a vigorous program (witness the
ever-increasing numbers of highly qualified
students who apply for the counseling
positions every year) without the added
enticement of free meals provided by the
University or a salary to give them the
"incentive" to do a better job.

Some of Mr. Stephens' arguments for some
reserved parking spaces, fixing their own
parietal hours, and an earlier registration for
returning counselors are reasonable, but the
payoffs, of athletic tickets, free refrigerator
registration, free board, and academic credit
for counseling work are ridiculous.
Exploratory efforts in the realm of academic
credit for counseling has already ended in a
gut course. The assertion that the increased
expense for food services to feed 50-100 extra
people per day would not be that great is
wrong.

We contend that the one salient point Mr.
Stephens is able to draw from his tortured
logic is that students who desire to enter the
counseling program, who are selected for the
positions, and who are unable to do an
adequate job because of their financial
position should receive some sort of
additional support so that his resources will
not be wasted. These are the student
counselors who should receive added help.

The University, as President Shannon
recently noted, is in a stage of rapid
expansion so that all quarters of the Grounds
are experiencing the taxing financial effects of
this growth. There are all sorts of demands for
budgetary considerations that are being
fielded by the Administration. We assert that
the added benefits for counselors, especially
those of a financial nature, would not entice
significant numbers of better counselors into
the program, and would, in fact, work to the
detriment of those in counseling position.s

At present counselors are regularly berated
for letting administrative fiats slide in trying
to make the first year for students more
livable and clinging to common sense. If they
received more benefits from the
Administration, their status as a "friend" to
students would undoubtedly diminish, and
their position as policemen would become
more defined at the expense of the first-year
student.

There is room for considerable
improvement within the counseling program.
The recommendations of the Executive
Committee have consistently been reasonable
and judicious. They deserve a better
Administrative hearing, but Mr. Stephens'
presentation runs counter to the current
program, a program moving in a positive
direction. Finally Mr. Stephens' threat that
"If, however, the decision makers decide to
reject these proposals, we feel it is only fair
for them to expect less that a 'good' job from
their employees" is the height of
irresponsibility.