On a list riddled with indecipherable riddles (“138. 648 5530.”?) and self-referential clues (“59. Camp Scavahunta…”), item 49 of this year’s Scavenger Hunt offered a refreshingly honest and revealing take on the 22-year-old U of C tradition:
“The Judges have no idea what that is, but we like it. No Judge must be able to identify what it is. No Judge must dislike it. [20 points].”
And that, in a nutshell, is how the event exists to many students: an eccentric, insular, and often incoherent curiosity.
More than any other major campus event, Scav polarizes, rather than unites, the student body. For residents of Snell–Hitchcock, for example, it’s a week to circle on the calendar long in advance and an excuse to stockpile duct tape, caffeine pills, and jars of sodium. For others, it’s an annoyance that clogs the house common room and unleashes bands of bandanna-wearing loonies onto the Quads. It’s a cause for school pride (only at the U of C!), and for second-guessing: Wait, someone actually ate his umbilical cord? What’s wrong with this school?
The problem lies in the character of the event itself. While undeniably successful, the event has become less about Scavenger Hunt and more about “Scav,” an identity and subculture that transcend the five-day affair. Much like the Uncommon brand that spawned T-shirts and protest marches, it increasingly has less to do with the actual process and more to do with the idea of Scav. It’s a self-perpetuating mentality that guarantees popularity among a core group of students while limiting the contest’s appeal to the rest of the student body.
Instead of an event with universal attraction, we have items like 150 from this year’s list: “Knit a tampon, and then menstruate all over it. [5 points],” and 156, “Take a running s—. [20 points].” Fascinating, to be sure, but not all that enticing to the uninitiated.
Luckily, there’s a solution: Open up the list to submissions. Rather than tasking a small group of former Scavvies with coming up with a new list each year, they should begin to solicit input from all students and administrators. In lieu of wasting their boundless ingenuity and competitive drive on one-time-use-only creations, the creators of Scav could provide valuable services with long-lasting benefits. For instance:
The University of Chicago does not have a competitive Division-I men’s ice hockey team. Yet. [Frozen Four points per academically eligible Canadian recruit; x points for every academically ineligible Canadian recruit whose grades mysteriously improve enough to regain eligibility (x = net jump in GPA); one point per seat in sparkling-new, world-class hockey arena]
or
It’s 4 a.m. and your judges need a snack. Your judges like bacon. They also like hash browns. You know what would be great? If they could have both of those things RIGHT NOW. Build us an economically viable all-night diner within walking distance of campus. [24-hour points per hour of operation; 1 point per calorie in signature breakfast; –10,000 points per Aramark contract]
or
“WELCOME TO EINSTEIN BROTHERS WOULD YOU LIKE A MUFFIN, BAGEL, OR COOKIE WITH YOUR COFFEE AND BAGEL TODAY!!??!??” Uh, no, no thank you. Wait, you already rang me up? But I didn’t even want a pig-in-a-blanket—I don’t even think those are edible, are they? Sigh. There has to be a better way to run a coffee shop. [500 points].
An open submission process wouldn’t solve all of Scav’s problems, but regardless of what happens going forward, the event could stand to benefit by casting a wider net. Scav can thrive even if it’s confined to a core group of students, but it’s capable of so much more. And if there’s one sure-fire way to bring about a solution, it’s this: Make it a Scav item.
Tim Murphy is a fourth-year in the College majoring in history. He is a member of the Editorial Board.
You’re eating some cereal, but wish it tasted a little like bacon. Produce bacon milk!
Wow, I thought the Maroon couldn’t get any worse.
totally agree with you.why would ppl spend so much energy over those useless pointless items? because they dont have a life, and that’s why snell-hitchcock won every year…
How about you open up your paper to submissions so that anyone with half of a neuron can write for it?
Oh wait, you do.
Maybe that’s why your paper remains an abject farce of journalism.
This is just dumb
For once I agree with the Maroon (or perhaps just Tim Murphy–not a first year). Scav could be really cool, and most first-years seem to have some interest in it, until it turns out to be an opportunity for all the weirdos to leave their rooms for once.
I was hoping as I walked across the quad Thursday and Friday to come across something cool (preferably involving free food or simply non-humiliating voluntary student participation) but instead I barely saw any evidence of Scav in its four days. I don’t live on campus, but for such a big hunt it stays surprisingly under the radar. It’s time for a serious revival of the world’s biggest scavenger hunt.
Current scavvies probably don’t understand this, but I’m sure normal students would agree with me.
On an issue riddled with indecipherable prose and sanctimonious op-eds, today’s Maroon offered a refreshingly Tim Murphy number, entitled Picking Off Scavs.
The best part was at the end, where he tried to prove how funny he was by making scav items. He wasn’t.
And that, in a nutshell, is how the newspaper exists to many students: a banal, pompous, and often incoherent curiosity.
(I’m not sure if reading the Maroon shows why we don’t have a journalism school, or if not having a journalism school explains the quality of the maroon.
If you wanted to write the list, then you should have applied like everyone else. Absolutely any UChicago student can throw in an application, and, as half the process is blind, everyone gets a fair shake. How about next you say that anyone who can kick a football should be allowed to take place kicks for the Maroons, regardless of tryouts? How about anyone who wants to go to UChicago gets in, without putting any effort towards an application to prove that this school is right for them?
You obviously have done precious little research as to how the list is written, who writes the list, and how they come in the position to do so. _We_ write the list, and we all had to work hard on our applications to become judges. Seeing how 300 sleep-deprived-yet-cheering scavvies showed up to judgement Sunday alone, seeing how every year participation increases, we must be doing something right.
Oh, and as for scav not being a universal event, that it doesn’t give back to the community, 213 students donated blood this year for the scavenger hunt, or maybe you don’t count blood as a “long-lasting benefit.” Show me your “I gave blood today” sticker, and I’ll give a bit more credence to what you have to say.
Otherwise, best of luck building that diner.
Will Deitz
UChicago, ’08
There are hundreds of Community Service Organizations, that one may join at any time, but there is only one Scav Hunt. Your seeming wish to convert the latter to the former reveals a distinct lack of understanding about the nature of both.
If someone wishes to formulate a hockey team, a diner, or a new coffee shop for the surrounding area, Scav does not prevent them from doing so in any way: only a lack of interest (and not a few legal concerns) prevents that.
I find it quite insulting to suggest that the passionate energy of Scav participants may be a tool to be directed at will by the administration or people who have never before participated in the event. We do and should not dictate what shows University Theater performs, what selections on-campus music groups perform, or what articles on-campus publications should print. We do not tell those who participate in Lacrosse or Soccer or even Quiz Bowl that they should switch to another sport because it is “confined to a core group of students” and that their “contest” has “limited appeal to the rest of the student body”. No member of these groups would stand for it. Nor should Scavhunt.
All organizations deserve respect for what they do, for the happiness they provide and deserve to run free from unnecessary meddling. Scavhunt is no different, and the fact that Scav remains among the most popular and ever-growing RSOs is not of little relevance: it is unwise for those unfamiliar with a machine to take a sledgehammer (or even the tiniest screwdriver) to that which is not broken.
Certainly, as for all RSOs, there are improvements that may be made, but the time and place to suggest them is not following the weekend where it made so many people happy. It rains on the parade and is in poor taste. The time is at the beginning of every year, where all who have previously participated in Scav can submit their items and ideas to become a judge. I’ve heard those who run it are quite open to suggestions… if they’re good ones.
My only contribution is that I think the University of Chicago has more to offer to prospective students than Bemidji State.
Not only does this editorial provide completely ridiculous suggestions on the way the hunt is run, it’s grossly misinformed.
As a captain of the Burton-Judson team, I’d like to say that scav is most certainly not an “excuse for weirdos to leave their rooms” (to quote a comment). We had a huge base of participation in the hunt, over 120 team members out of a dorm of 313, and that’s because there’s a huge diversity in each list. Certainly, there are nerdy items, internet culture items, and programming items. But there are also items that are sports related, music related, literature related – I would venture to say that almost anyone, if they actually read the list (which you have clearly not), would find something that might appeal to their individual interests.
As for the makeup of my team, I would say that at least 60% of them were not “scavvies” who were part of a “subculture”. Certainly, there are upperclassmen who come back year after year for the hunt, but the first years on my team wandered into the lounge, found something that interested them, and did it, and they had a blast. Most of them don’t know the judges, or the participants in this so-called “subculture” – they’re just in it to have a ton of fun, and they do.
But no, Tim, I think you’re right. Maybe we should get rid of the scav system that has served a diverse body of participants well for 20+ years, and replace it with your idiotic plan, which seems to be rooted in some “cool kid”-esque sense that all those nerds should just go back to their rooms so you don’t have to see them. Where do you go to school again?
Sarah Staudt
Class of ’10
The first question I ask when reading an article on Scavenger Hunt is whether or not the author has participated. Tim, have you ever done an item on the list on your own or with others? Have you ever spent more than 30 minutes in a team’s headquarters?
Simply because you need a talking point for your op-ed piece in the school newspaper does not give you the privilege to discuss it as if you knew better than the participants themselves. Indeed, I find this article forgets the components of a good editorial–one which blends facts with opinion. The only facts you present in this article are your own perceptions of 4 out of 277 items on this year’s list. Not all of the items are cryptic, overly nerdy, or grotesque.
Personally, even I as 3rd year “scavvy” often have to spend hours on Wikipedia just to “get” the references in some items. However, every year it’s worth it because in the diversity of that list there’s a mesh of items which I both know, understand, and want to participate in and for those I do not know, understand, or care to attempt I get the wonderful opportunity to learn from others. This year alone I learned more about construction, music composition, electrical and mechanical engineering, sculpture, painting, poetry, film, and how to build a damn good bonfire in 4 days than I would have in my four years at this university.
I understand that there are some activities and groups of people that I don’t always mesh with and that’s OK with me. But I further understand that if I really want to participate, I GIVE IT A TRY. I don’t preach and prescribe. If you had come into headquarters on any team they would have done their best to include you and find you an item on that list which fits your unique personality (“nerdy” or not) and talents. Inclusion and finding time in our busy UChicago schedules to have some fun is what Scav is all about! The new faces appearing in Headquarters and at campus events at every second of the bloody day is what honestly makes Scavenger Hunt for me and defines the moments I will remember.
A radio reporter for Chicago Public Radio WBEZ, Matthew Long-Middleton, followed the Burton-Judson Team for all four days this year, sometimes staying the night as we all completed items with no sleep. I would characterize Matthew as a pretty “normal” guy and rather than try diagnose and cure scav he instead offered as a prescription for others based on his professional observations. (Listen to his story here: http://audio.wbez.org/848/2009/05/848_20090513d.mp3–it's about 3/4 in.)
As to Michael, I think you maybe should have chosen a different school. You and your 1-3 years on campus are slightly trumped by a 20-year-old tradition which is nationally well respected. A certain nerdy quality permeates this entire campus so Scav Hunt should come as no large surprise. However, I would stress that Scav Hunt, while partley designed to celebrate this nerd-om, is more to celebrate the vast talents of the students on this campus and show that their intellect may be complemented by a myriad of other skills.
Finally, just because I feel ostracized by your article since I haven’t met you and have never written for the Maroon does not mean I would recommend I and the entirety of the student body should have the opportunity to edit your article (…including your poorly written items). I will instead leave it to those who evidently care enough to do it (and have the grammar skills). Oh, and if you think recruiting a hockey team and miraculously improving their grades in 4 days sounds fun, ENJOY.
I should perhaps elaborate on my points.
I participated in Scav for Max P my first two years, and it was fun. I don’t know what the original Scavenger Hunt was like, but I feel like it’s really spun out of control lately. Is it any coincidence Snell-Hitchcock and B-J are the teams that do the best? And Max P. serious participants are mostly kids who wanted S-H but didn’t get it. Is it a coincidence the Shoreland, the most “social” dorm, never fields a good team? Probably not. Scav can be fun, but the atmosphere it creates is a bit…intimidating. Hanging out with 27-year olds whose lives revolve around spending 4 days a year with undergrads who haven’t figured out how to be productive AND clean is a bit weird.
The thing about the football analogy, Will, is that the football team probably WANTS people to watch their games, but nobody does because they’re bad. Scav considers itself really awesome and even representative of the University of Chicago, but no one who doesn’t participate has any real interest in it. That is a problem, don’t you think?
I think what Tim is saying (or at least should be) is that the problem may be resolved without changing scavvies by simply making the list less…pretentious. It’s something like 18 pages, which is great for bragging about how big it is, but most of the really cool items are forced to be done haphazardly by the big projects teams because no one has enough power to make a really cool labyrinth AND a functional vending machine AND a gun that shoots only itself AND all the other items that are cool only in theory. I don’t think it’s blasphemy to say that if the list were even 2/3 as long, the results would be far more impressive and people might be more excited to see them. When are we going to have another instance of a nuclear reactor being built in 4 days? The periodic table of elements Max built a couple years ago was incredible, and no other team had a remotely interesting one. That’s the problem with scav hunt.
It might do the Judges (and captains, page captains, etc) well to take some constructive criticism without yelling at everyone who isn’t like them to go to a state school.
My favorite part of this whole discussion is Michael’s assertion that “Snell-Hitchcock and B-J are the teams that do it best.” In 2005, B-J placed 9th, and right up until this year’s Hunt, most people still believed that B-J’s 3rd place finish in 2008 was a fluke.
When I lived in Hitchcock, Scav was one of the few times that the nerds and the cool kids (yes they live there– they just tend not to advertise it) got along. When I moved to B-J, it was just as clear there that people who generally avoided each other due to varying degrees of “social” worked together during Scav.
It is also worth noting that Shoreland has produced amazing items in the past few years, as well as some very dedicated judges. And many of my friends from Max P would be horrified at the suggestion that they really just wanted to live in Snell-Hitchcock.
I’m still trying to figure out what is so offensive about Scav. Intimidating? Yes. Strange? Yes. Like every other UChicago tradition or RSO, it will appeal to some and alienate others. Part of a college education, and a UChicago education especially, is developing the maturity to recognize the difference between an actual problem and a personal crusade.
For somebody who uses his soapbox to decry the insularity of a particular event, you’re awfully condescending to people you see as the “other.”
Since you clearly believe that a diner, hockey team, AND coffee shop can be established permanently within four days by a group of “weirdos,” perhaps you’d like to take the Maroon staff–clearly a group of “non-weirdos”–and try establishing a decent newspaper.
Oh, and for the record? We use the Maroon for paper mache. :)
Mr. Murphy:
You might be on the right track but for all the wrong reasons.
Did you take the time to do research before rolling your face on your keyboard? If you did, how are you not aware of the things that Scav does for the community? The Annual Blood Drive, for example, certainly gave back to the community (Hope you don’t get scavvie blood next time you skin your knee…I hear it’s laced with cooties and caffeine). Until recently, the annual “Item on the Quads,” was created by Judges specifically to to give back to the University community, offering in various years: free hot dogs (2004); a open air spa with massages, manicures, and pedicures (2005); a tribute to the Maxwell Street Market with carnival games and much more (2006); a tea party (2007); and an umbrella escort service in case of rain or the need for a friendly conversation and smile (2008). Or maybe you’ve already forgotten the best thing Scav ever gave to “a broader audience” (i.e. “normal” people): the Scav Party…an open-air, unrestricted, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell night of brazen debauchery that was cancelled forever when “the broader audience” showed up to party in Cobb and defiled classrooms. I’m confused where you get off demanding that the scav culture stop fulfilling its niche and change its goals to fit your desires when we’re already going out of our way to do nice things just to be nice.
As for your issue with “Scav” culture, I find it amusing that you want Scav to change itself to serve your interests, but don’t really offer to do the same with your activities. I notice the Maroon doesn’t really cater to people interested in news that is clearly ridiculous and false (though I absolutely love to hate your typically self-indulgent Viewpoints section). I might do more than skim it if it replaced the sports pages with absurd historical facts, cutting edge academic research or patently false (but humorous) current events. What’s that you say? That’s against the purpose of a newspaper? Huh. I also notice that you personally write mostly sports pieces…why don’t all the sports teams dress up as Quailman, wear ballgowns or David Bowie costumes during games? What’s that you say? It’s against the rules? Huh. What other sub-cultures exist on campus? Perhaps fraternities should bring an elephant to the quads or build a zeusaphone or a walk-in kaleidoscope. I think I’d be most pleased if the frats themselves reinstated the open-air parties on the quad until scav hunt members ruin it for everyone by defecating in Cobb some rainy night.
Speaking of s–t, allow me to highlight what you did get right. General consensus among scavvies is that the “Running s–t” item was stupid and unnecessary…looks like we have some common ground. And you did observe the two biggest problems facing Scav in my opinion: lack of participation within the community and lack of transperency or responsiveness from the Judges. Surprisingly, a good chunk (200/700) of the Max Palevsky team’s point deficit this year was from the Blood Drive… of the 712 residents of Max P, 29 showed up to donate blood in the team’s name. How sad is that? Worse yet is the purported reason: resentment towards scav culture stopped people from giving blood (“why should I bother to give blood? Goddamn scavvies are always pestering us!” seems like dumb logic to me when you could be saving lives). Sure, scav-titan Snell-Hitchcock might not have as much of an issue generating a scav-positive community, but I’m sure even as our arch-rivals they can agree that there’s no reason more Max P residents shouldn’t have given blood.
That aside, it’s just an educated guess of where the points disappeared for MP Scav. The actual breakdown of where points were lost, non-judge scavvies may never know. Maybe one of our attempts at their abstruse items failed to make them laugh (our attempts certainly made us laugh); maybe an item we completed in good fun pissed them off and they arbitrarily decided to assign negative points (I’m reassured by the good faith efforts and successes of some judges to eliminate the running shits, arbitrary abuses of power, and general culture of self-indulgence such a “secret society” generates). Judges often forget that Scav is for the scavvies; scavvies often forget judges were once scavvies; and everyone often forgets that the whole point of scav is a surprising, novel, unbridled, bacchanalian, ephemeral entertainment experience, a.k.a. Good Clean Fun. Please, don’t bother trying to tell us how to have our Fun. And certainly don’t lecture us on giving back to the community.
You go busy yourself building a community for your sub-culture and I’ll go back to building mine. Let’s try some mutual respect though, neh (judges, scavvies, and others included)?
-Jason Finkes
College Alumnus, A.B. ’08, MPScav (’05-’??)
Dear Maroon,
You wrote an article not overwhelmingly, unambiguously positive about my organization/event/dorm/department of choice, and have thereby given me no choice but to declare you and all yours stupid-heads.
Good grief.
You know what’s even more typically ‘uchicago’ than scav? Possessing the emotional maturity and intellectual security necessary to absorb criticism, consider differing opinions, and react in a measured manner to those who disagree with you.
Scav is great, but not perfect, and it could be improved. You will find the same to be true of many things you like. The ability to respond appropriately in such situations serves a person well.
FYI, Michael, I built the Periodic Coffee Table you referenced. I also hang out with the 27 year olds (who have amazing jobs and do amazing things the other 361 days of the year) and watched the 27 year olds hang out with kids born after the Berlin Wall fell. And those younguns love to hear their stories of scav hunts past. They enjoy the Hunt because they enjoy it, plain and simple.
As for why you didn’t see anything on Thursday or Friday, Item on the Quads was dropped this year. Maybe if enough people not into Scav miss it, they’ll appreciate it more when it is brought back. And unofficial efforts were made to have a huge party again, but they fell through.
In any case, Scav’s not there to be watched; it’s not there for glory; it’s also not for the dross you get from it (I kept the “Pimp My Bike” item from my second year, the Periodic Coffee table from my third, and the 200psi air cannon from my 4th (subsequently used in my 5th as the Hot Dog Launcher and Boxing Glove Harpoon); it’s there for the experience.
As for the list composition, it’s a fine line the judges walk between “Largest” and “Only Awesome items.” They argue passionately about these issues all the time. They’re also human and make ubermistakes. But to paraphrase Will Westin, Scav Hunt is just a really successful RSO…stop thinking it is anything else.
Michael, it’s not about quality! Scav’s about fun and ridiculousness. Quality is just extra. B-J’s mantra was, “If you’re not having fun, you’re doing it wrong.”
And I wouldn’t stereotype B-J and Snell-Hitchcock so negatively – they are, believe it or not, social and filled with friendly people!
And to the author: perhaps it is an attitude like this that lets fun die. Don’t let fun die! Don’t!
Let us bash the Maroon! I mean that is what half the comments do.
The other half do it right, dissect the opinion of a student and then judge the article on what it actually says. Just because I disagree most of the time with the Wall Street Journal’s op-eds, I don’t judge the rest of the paper.
In case you haven’t noticed, the Maroon’s news department covered the Scav – highlighting interesting stories and in general was quite favorable to this subculture.
Mr. Murphy,
This is not meant to detract from the otherwise interesting points you make in your editorial, but I feel like if I hear one more fellow student complain about food service on campus I’m going to scream. The coffee shop is fine, the food is perfectly good and you know it, and workers in workers in both the Reynolds club and the dining halls provide decent service considering. If I had to serve wealthy students all day long for relatively low pay and work as fast as the men and women at the c-shop do, you can be sure I’d be a bit resentful and screw up a few orders. Especially if all people ever seemed to do is snobbishly complain about the food and my failure to live up to serving their every whim. To suggest that what is needed to improve food service on campus is for brainy U of C students to come in and take things over strikes me as quite elitist and pretentious. Maybe if students treated campus workers like human beings and stopped bitching so much, they would show the same respect back. I am aware that this line is a pretty minor part of your general argument and was probably not given much thought, but please show a little more respect next time.
Sincerely,
Noah Glaser
Assuming I understand your “viewpoint” correctly you feel that scav is small sect of the university which most of the population does not understand and generally avoids. Why not pick off the rest of the RSOs on campus while you are at it? Does anyone other than the debate team really know what they do for us? I have a few friends on the debate team and I obtain no benefit from it or am included. I am a member of the Crew team here and other than those who joined an quit no one really knows what it is like to be a member of this association. We really do not benifit the campus in any way but no one seems to complain.
Is it just that Scav is visible and since you are not a member you must criticize it? Is it because it is different and you do not understand? Have you ever even attempted to participate in this great event?
What if there was a river near campus and you saw the crew team up every morning before sunrise practising? Would you mock us for spending our time on something that does not seem sensible to you?
Scav is nothing other than a competition between teams on campus, it is no different from any other competition whether it be regatta or a debate tournament.
More or less, I agree with what Tim wrote. Scav is really interesting concept. When I first heard about it as a first year, I was very excited to be a part of of Scav. However, the major turn off was indeed the very exclusive Scav crowd. When you walk into the common Scav area, it’s quite intimidating. Often times, when a new Scavvie is asking for help, he goes ignored, while everyone else is busy doing their own items.
I went to showcase this year to look at the end results, and some of the items were amazing (vending machine, labyrinth, harpoon gun, some of the videos put onto Youtube). However, it seems like most of the products ended up being uncreative and lackluster. After all, there is only so much any team can do with a ‘beard of bees’ without having bees. In addition, a lot of the items were rather rediculous for a normal crowd be participate in (i.e. wacking off on a bridge). One change I think that would help with this is to have a shorter Scav list as others have mentioned. A shorter list would allow different people to work together on the same item instead of each person doing their own few items. The end result would be more high quality items–like the showcase ones–and more teamwork in Scav. In the end, having items like the tampon or running s–t won’t attract a bigger crowd for Scav.
To respond to particular comments:
Michael: “I was hoping as I walked across the quad Thursday and Friday to come across something cool (preferably involving free food or simply non-humiliating voluntary student participation).”
Scavenger Hunt makes no claim to be a spectator sport, and it is insulting to suggest that Scavenger Hunt is here to amuse or feed people who do not participate.
Michael: “The thing about the football analogy, Will, is that the football team probably WANTS people to watch their games, but nobody does because they’re bad. Scav considers itself really awesome and even representative of the University of Chicago, but no one who doesn’t participate has any real interest in it. That is a problem, don’t you think?”
In a word: No. Though Scavhunt is known as a University of Chicago phenom, Scav make no claims to be particularly representative of the University, and in many ways, acts in direct contrast to what many consider the typical UChicago experience to be. I do not consider it a problem that there are those who enjoy their time with Scav, and those who choose to spend their time with other RSOs or none at all. I also think all those other RSOs would have problems with demands of the “There are people not interested in what you do, therefore you should change it” variety. That said, perhaps Scav fills a niche, but all RSOs do, and Scav is one of the largest.
Michael: “It’s something like 18 pages, which is great for bragging about how big it is, but most of the really cool items are forced to be done haphazardly by the big projects teams because no one has enough power to make a really cool labyrinth AND a functional vending machine AND a gun that shoots only itself AND all the other items that are cool only in theory. I don’t think it’s blasphemy to say that if the list were even 2/3 as long, the results would be far more impressive and people might be more excited to see them.”
WT: “I went to showcase this year to look at the end results, and some of the items were amazing (vending machine, labyrinth, harpoon gun, some of the videos put onto Youtube). However, it seems like most of the products ended up being uncreative and lackluster.”
I feel that people are reacting poorly to you denigrating their efforts while you did not participate in the creation process, something that I cannot fully blame them for. In any case, I find your remarks both unkind and inaccurate. Perhaps you did not stick around for many of the presentations of smaller items, but almost all were presented with an enthusiasm, pride, and quality that you callously deride. To say that the only “really cool” items are the bigger ones, goes against the spirit of the hunt since for many, the smaller items are the ones that hold the most interest. Perhaps Puzzle Jugs, Shishi Odoshis, Trainspotting, David Bowies, or Origami doesn’t interest you, but to imply that the people who enjoy the creation process, regardless of results (which are often magnificent, mnd you) are uncreative and produce only the lackluster, is hurtful. I’m not saying that such comments were meant to be taken personally, but it should not be difficult to see why they might.
I am also confused by the suggestion that a shorter list would somehow make the hunt more accessible: the purpose of a long list is to provide multiple opportunities for people to participate on a wide variety items concerning a wide variety of topics. Some people may work on tens of items, some people only find one or two things that interest them. Even the vaunted Breeder Reactor was not done by a full team: it was done by two guys in a shed with passion, dedication and an idea. Most items are. It seems contradictory then, to suggest that more people would be interested in the hunt, if it’s breadth were narrowed.
An Alum: “You wrote an article not overwhelmingly, unambiguously positive about my organization/event/dorm/department of choice, and have thereby given me no choice but to declare you and all yours stupid-heads. Good grief.”
Student: “The other half do it right, dissect the opinion of a student and then judge the article on what it actually says. Just because I disagree most of the time with the Wall Street Journal’s op-eds, I don’t judge the rest of the paper.”
Point well taken. Certainly, rumors of Scavhunt having an ongong tiff with the Maroon are greatly overstated. But we can detect patterns, and an article like this seems to appear under the Maroon banner every year. Just as everyone is happy with the completed Hunt, a person with limited experience in Scav declares that the Hunt needs to be changed, and that said person knows how to do so better than those who actually participated in the event. Vague, if slightly reasonable suggestions are made (inevitably, concerning things that would make the event more compelling to the writer, personally) along with perhaps unintentional back-handed insults to the event’s organizers and those who enjoy Scav as it is. Scavvies get angered at seeing their work denigrated by a perceived outsider, feeling (perhaps rightfully) that there’s is the only RSO that has to put up with these kinds of editorials and that the author is writing from ignorance. A flame war in the comments erupts, and in the end, everyone walks away feeling that they are right. And then, when judge applications are taken the next year, there’s a paucity of people who previously defended massive changes. It’s like the water-cycle, but with more anger.
Tim – This was stupid thing to write and you know it. The Maroon’s gotta do it every year and historically its been a mark of truly successful Hunt.
Jason – Maybe the Judges are drunk with power (they’re certainly drunk on something most of the time, see the Bylaws, Article V Section 6), but its not like anyone had a gun to their head and was told to soil themselves. I think in many ways this was a social experiment (welcome to UChicago kids!), often Scav items ask the question “Who in their right mind would do _____?”, and this is one of those items. Also, to echo the BJ sentiment, if you’re not having fun soiling yourself, you are doing it wrong! Perhaps that is the real challenge.
I am amazed to see the Maroon printing such a negative article about Scav. For 5 years now, I have watched my child (won’t say who)participate in Scav. I have seen the delight in his face, and the other college kids not afraid to just have fun,ande maybe get a little silly. I am amazed that Scavvies can figure out what some of the list items are asking for, because they befuddle me at times. The judges work hard assembling the list, so that the Scav Hunt will be fun. A UChi scav list simply cannot have “find a snipe,” as an item. There is no thought given to that, so no challenge.
To “someone who knows”:
You’re more than welcome to enjoy sh___ing yourself. And I’m well aware that the judges get themselves piss-drunk…they used my home as a headquarters a year or so ago. If you really are someone in know, then you’d know.
But to call it an “experiment” doesn’t really excuse it. Experiments have to pass muster before review boards. Just because they can put it on the list doesn’t mean they should. Furthermore, just because people actually did it doesn’t mean the judges should put something like it on the list again. What’s next? “Item xxx. Eat Shit – 30 pts”? Slippery slope arguments are generally suspect, but with this item as precedent, some other judge might come along and decide he wants to see how far scavvies will go… pushing people to their limits as “social experiments” doesn’t need to be done; it has already been done, repeatedly and quite conclusively…read up on “Eichmann in Jerusalem,” the Milgram Experiment or the Stanford Prison Experiment. Even if the methods or reasoning in those experiments are suspect, we already know…people do a lot of things they wouldn’t normally do when encouraged to by someone in a position of authority.
If they really wanted to do a running shit item as a social experiment or let people do it to have fun if they wanted to, they should have pointed it at zero or one point(s). For example, the year they had the page of .25 pt items that were just puns…some people actually meditated at Botany Pond as Nudist Buddhists. But they didn’t. If they wanted to include it as a way for people to express their individuality or exhibitionism, they could have. They didn’t. Instead, they pointed it at 20 points as a structured event. People were sh____ing on the Judges’ terms, not their own. I think it is clear that the judges were misusing their power and I think it’s clear that this “Social Experiment” wouldn’t pass a review board. If you’re a psychologist, I urge you to prove me wrong and get it published.