A Former Pathways Peer Mentor Reflects on the Program's Failings
"Being forced to sit in a class that spoon-feeds them buzzwords and asks for hollow feedback and reflection feels not only ironic, but inauthentic," says Tyler Tewell '25, former Pathways Peer Mentor.
Welcome to Perspectives on Pathways — a compilation of interviews intended to make public a wide array of viewpoints on Furman’s two-year advising initiative.
This week, we focus on the perspective of Tyler Tewell ‘25, a former Pathways Peer Mentor.
We hope you enjoy the insight.
Tell me about your experience with Pathways.
My experience was fairly standard, as far as I can tell. When I was in the program myself, I opted to stay in for the full two years (Pathways was optional at that time). As a peer mentor, I worked with the incoming freshman class for the entire year. The workload was minimal for both students and mentors, though mentoring was a bit more involved. I taught classes alongside the professors and enjoyed the one-on-ones I got to have with students across semesters.
What are Pathway’s positive characteristics?
Pathways has some definite pros. It levels the playing field by promoting access to student resources and teaching soft skills like study habits, active listening, and school/life balance. It also provides students with people in their corner who can directly support them on an individualized basis.
What are the program’s flaws?
Unfortunately, the program’s flaws can stem directly from its benefits, because the program isn’t optional. When students already know what they’re being taught, assignments often wind up being more busywork than beneficial. Also, the Pathways class itself often interrupts or halts student activities and planning throughout the week.
There is a general sense that very few students like Pathways. Why do you think that is?
Simply put, the course is primed to get on students’ nerves. Most Furman students enter their first year already prepared and ready for majors, social life, and the college experience as a whole.
With that kind of initiative in mind, being forced to sit in a class that spoon-feeds them buzzwords and asks for hollow feedback and reflection feels not only ironic, but inauthentic.
As I mentioned above, students were permitted to opt out when I took part in the program. I didn’t stay because it benefitted me, I stayed because it was easy. I imagine being forced to stay is what made Pathways into the inconvenience many students see it as. That and the fact that it’s two years instead of one.
Are there ways that Furman could improve the program?
Reducing the time it takes is the most common suggestion I hear for improving Pathways—taking the essential information in the curriculum and condensing it into the first year experience. Alternatively, creating a point at which the program can be opted out of, either by choice or through proven knowledge, might give students a greater sense of agency within a system that is intended to benefit them.
Is there anything else you want to say about Pathways?
I’m not actively against the program, but even after experiencing it as both a student and a peer mentor over three years, I’m not in support of it either. I think that’s significant, and it makes me want to see Pathways improve.
Each subsequent week, we will publish another perspective from a Furman community member, including interviews from:
Provost Beth Pontari, Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
Professor Helen Lee Turner, Professor of Religion
Nathan Johnson, Junior, Politics and History Major
We will also be conducting more interviews. So, if you are a student or faculty member who has experience with Pathways and would like to voice your perspective, please reach out to us at furmanfreespeech@gmail.com.
 |
|