General electives are those courses that allow students to broaden their horizons, explore diverse interests, and acquire skills outside their core programs.
The current system of multiple selection dates for electives across different programs limits students from enrolling in courses of their preference. That lack of coordination causes unnecessary stress and defeats the very purpose of electives, which is personal and academic growth.
It starts with the problem of different timelines for elective selection across programs. Some programs let students select earlier, while others wait days. When they log in to choose, many students find the dire words: "Course Full."
This situation disproportionately disadvantages the students in programs with later selection dates, effectively limiting their options to courses they may not find engaging or relevant.
The recent registration to Winter 2025, for instance, had more than 91 courses allow their students to enrol in classes on Nov. 19, while in comparison, 112 courses were open for enrollment on Nov. 21.
How can this be fair to those students whose program might have prevented them from selecting their preferred electives?
The problem gets even worse when dealing with online electives, which are usually the most in demand.
Many learners seem to prefer online courses for their flexibility, allowing one to balance studies with other activities like part-time jobs, internships, or family responsibilities. Unfortunately, these courses immediately fill up during the first selection windows and thus leave students who are only allowed to enrol later with little to no chance of accessing them.
This unfair disadvantage further heightens the frustration of those relying on such options to manage their time effectively.
It sums up the question of fairness: electives should be a level playing field where students can choose subjects based on interests and passions.
If the system is inherently going to favour certain students over others, then it creates resentment and creates obstacles to student success. For a college that boasts inclusivity and accessibility as part of its identity, this problematic system seems misaligned with its values.
This issue could affect academic motivation.
Electives are often supposed to be a relief from program-specific courses, where one explores creative interests, social issues, or life skills. Forcing students into their third- or fourth-choice, or even into electives that do not fit their schedule, dampens their enthusiasm.
Critics will argue that staggered dates avoid putting pressure on the demand for and overloading the system. Such logistical convenience comes with too great a cost. Other institutions have ensured that synchronized selection systems are possible by providing appropriate technological infrastructure and equal access.
The University of Toronto, the University of British Columbia, and McGill University have application systems that provide for synchronized selection across different faculties. It is a seamless, user-friendly, and publicly accessible system that will let all applicants navigate the process as efficiently as possible.
Yet Humber doesn't do the same.
Standardize elective selection across programs. By giving all students one date and time, the college can allow equity to take over while building a sense of community among students. The polytechnic should expand access to online electives. By increasing distance-learning course offerings while monitoring demand patterns, the college can better serve all its students, especially those for whom flexible scheduling is key to success.
Electives should be a source of inspiration and empowerment for students rather than something they are forced to choose. It is time for Humber to harmonize the elective process and provide equal access to classes. It is nothing less than a student deserves.
