Yearbook woes

To the Editor:

After nearly a year of anticipation, my Class of 2010 yearbook arrived in the mail last week. Was it worth the wait? The $99? Not even close. The book is a travesty from both an editorial and a production standpoint, riddled with inconsistencies and errors too numerous to mention here. Several of the pictures – including some full-page spreads – are painfully blurry, while others feature the Class of 2009 prominently. The “Academics” section consists of 10 pages, six devoted to dance and most of the remainder to art, while the “Clubs” section includes an incomprehensibly random assortment of organizations: the Elizabethans but not the Ephlats, ScientEPHic but not the Record, a full page devoted to something called Wushu and a mention of Dance Company accompanied by a picture of Kusika. “Sports” features men’s basketball (with the same picture used twice on one page) but not women’s, as well as women’s tennis, crew and lacrosse, but not men’s. Only two things hold the yearbook together apart from the bland white binding: a weird stream-of-consciousness narrative (unsurprisingly with no author listed) and a design template that seems to suggest perforation lines. The yearbook even fails in its most basic mandate – to document the graduating class in its entirety. The “Portraits” section excludes several members, misspells others and doesn’t even include a class photo. Still more names are misspelled in the “Parent Messages” section.

Frankly, I am unsurprised that Campus Life would tolerate such laxity of standards and produce a publication so out of touch with the class and the College as a whole. For future classes, I strongly discourage the purchase of any yearbook produced under Doug Schiazza and Campus Life. Either take ownership and create something you’ll actually value down the road, or spend your $99 on something more valuable. Like 99 cans of Diet Coke.

– Jared Quinton ’10