Is voting for senior superlatives just as controversial as voting in the election? The members of the senior class received an email inviting them to nominate their classmates for superlatives. After nominations were sent in, the people were finalized and a Google form was sent. Students were then able to vote for the person they viewed as the best fit for each category.
Senior Gabby Derusha explained that “it could have been a lot more organized… and it should have been given to a wider range of people.” Senior Burton Caldwell agreed with her. He felt “it didn’t really work well… I remember seeing some of the names on the list, and it didn’t fit. There were better options.” Stephen Hansen also agreed with them. He thought that “the people were very poorly chosen.”
Senior Natalie Buchetto expressed her thoughts, “I was in shock when I saw my name on the list. Some of the people I thought were going to get nominated weren’t. That surprised me.”
In the 2016-17 yearbook, there is only room for 20 superlatives. In the forum that was sent out, there were more than 20 options, and the ones with the most votes were the ones chosen for the yearbook. Some people felt that this was unfair. Senior Lindsay Harden stated, “the categories should have been set in stone before people were notified. People should have been told before they were dropped or cut because it created drama.”
Senior Sofia Sicignano believes that there should be a “width of superlative qualifications. It would have helped a lot with determining who to nominate.” There has been a lot of feedback in regards to senior superlatives- do you think there should be qualifications for the years to come?
Library Media Specialist Shannon Robinson claimed, “I would have welcomed more. We have a very difficult senior class, and it’s hard to make everyone happy, and you’re never going to have 100%,… Everyone had the opportunity to nominate people.”
Mrs. Robinson is very willing and open to new ideas. Yearbook editor Alyssa Robinson said that “we only have 20 spots to put people in. We didn’t cut random ones. The ones we cut didn’t make sense to put in there, or they didn’t have a huge amount of votes. We tried to keep as many as possible.”