![\"treble\"](\"http:\/\/tembusu.nus.edu.sg\/treehouse\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/08\/1410722_169853503208251_1639979595_o.jpg\")
<\/a>Firstly, I think it\u2019d help to clarify the intended role of an Interest Group (IG) in Tembusu.<\/p>\n
According to the Tembusu college website, \u201cTembusu is home to a large number of student-run interest groups. Students can join any of the existing groups; and if they are interested in something else, they are encouraged to form their own groups. Whenever they submit a successful proposal, the college provides seed funding that is administered through the student government.\u201d<\/p>\n
This is great as it sits inline with Tembusu\u2019s tagline of being a \u201cHome of Possibilities\u201d. No hard-line restrictions are placed on students and Tembusians are encouraged to define their own interests and experiences. Essentially, it is the hope of the college that every member of the college finds a group that fits their interest and if these interests are radically different from what already exists, it encourages students to work on forming their own Interest Groups. We are held against no one\u2019s yardstick and I truly appreciate the college for this.<\/p>\n
In his article, Jonny made the following observations that caught my attention. While they are contextualized with respect to the writing groups in Tembusu, the points raised can definitely be abstracted to other IGs:<\/p>\n
\u2022 IGs that have not worked have been scrapped and new ones have taken their place.
\n\u2022 These new IGs present a \u201cbetter\u201d or rather more focused versions of previous thematically similar IGs.
\n\u2022 However given the freedom and our bid to refine, there is little focus on longevity and sustainability of an IG.
\n\u2022 There exists a slight lack of clear communication, leading to a lot of isolated efforts rather than a communal one.<\/p>\n
Thus, there do exist some longstanding problems with our IGs that need addressing. And while these issues have been bubbling up, it makes sense to take a step back and see what we have got right thus far.<\/p>\n
It is easy to view attempts at remodeling IGs after our previous attempts as simple rehashing. Jonny notes that such a surge (as with the writing groups recently) is actually a refinement process. This involves looking at the nuances of the previously failed groups and learning from their mistakes. A bystander may be oblivious to such incremental improvement and thus may easily write off an improved group as \u201cjust another new IG\u201d. This is a fallacy that many tend to buy into and thus new IGs should actively communicate how they are value-adding when starting. This idea of incremental improvement is great but comes at a cost of seeming fickle. So the challenge now becomes incorporating what\u2019s good from before whilst keeping the mind the issues that are being raised about IGs.<\/p>\n
In terms of concerns about our IGs, there are two main camps. One purports that IGs should retain their ephemeral nature as it allows for a natural reflection of interests and fluidity, with little bureaucracy. The other suggests that this very fluid nature is leading to sustainability issues, succession problems and sunk costs amongst other issues. And in the thick of this debate, it is easy to forget that we still lack viable solutions. Instead of comparing the pros and cons of each camp, I will instead attempt to extract what I believe are the better points of each camp and marry them together get a working model: a model that will help our IGs move closer to sustainability while retaining flexibility. Various members have contributed some of these ideas and I will try my best to give credit where it\u2019s due.<\/p>\n
There are several considerations that this new model should have. Does it<\/p>\n