A Reflection on the MOL Year 2/3 Debates ~ From a Friend

MOL year 2/3 debates were very insightful. There was a lot to learn, a lot to experience, and a lot of points to understand from every candidate. Overall, the debates were basically quite civil and tame. Each candidate shared their opening remarks, reiterating their points from their manifesto. They then moved on to the open house, during which Dhruv (the year 3 candidate) brought up a discussion point about each year 2 candidate being accountable and pulling their own weight within the ministry. 

Dhruv’s manifesto and debate focused mainly on the work that he has done in the past and how he wants to move forward with the same. As he iterated in the speech, continuity was his main goal during this election cycle. His ideas were well-planned and based on the problems that he sees that the student body has encountered in his last tenure. 

With his exceptional work on getting DAN tutoring in place last year, he commented on how he wants to continue working on the same and ensuring that it becomes better and better. Additionally, his opening remarks brought to light the tutoring bank initiative, which he would continue working on with the ILS this year.  

Overall, the open house focused on the MOL year 2 candidates, with just a few remarks from the MOL year 3 candidate. Adding on to this, as per my memory, Dhruv was asked a question about his work on the feedback form, and hands were raised to ask, ‘Why is the form open for so little time?’ to which he replied that he would check on this and work towards ensuring that a better timeline is fixed as per the student body’s needs. 

The candidate asked a significant number of questions to his fellow year 2 MOL nominees, and he focused on accountability (As I remember). This debate was very open. Simply described, it was 5 people who wanted to simply serve the student body and try to learn about each other's priorities and ideas.

(It is to be noted that this piece focuses mainly on the Year 3 MoL candidate and does not claim to provide a descriptive account of the entire debate as it happened on the day.)