As the second presidential debate quickly approaches, students have scrambled for opportunities to enter the debate hall. While some of the 10,000-plus ticket applicants aim to become a cog in the never-ending political machine, others hope to catch the studio lights shimmering on Anderson Cooper’s silver hair, scope out workout machines in the Sumers Recreation Center to prepare for #BeachBod2k17 or to see just how much Donald Trump’s neck looks like a turkey.

In an attempt to ensure access to the debate area (at the least), many Washington University students applied to be debate volunteers in addition to entering the largely fruitless ticket lottery. While we applaud Washington University for providing an opportunity for students to get involved in the debate, the Student Life editorial board wishes organizers would be more transparent about the volunteer process.

As the volunteer system is kept shrouded in claims of security and random selection, students remain confused about the selection criteria and shift distribution. Some volunteers received approval, but were given only one shift, while others were overwhelmed with over 25 hours of assigned work across a three-day period. With this many hours available, it seems logical that the limited spots offered should at least be evenly distributed, or the man power should be increased.

In addition to the unequal distribution of hours, many students were not aware of exactly what volunteering entailed. Becoming a “debate volunteer” is a vague promise to Wash. U. that has ended up meaning a variety of things. Assigned tasks range from media network coffee rat to designated golf cart driver, and each comes with their very own set of awkwardly timed hours. In reality, few were chosen for the coveted usher position, one of few choices actually in the debate hall itself.

To combat this issue in future debates and similar campus-wide events, we’d like an increase in the scale of opportunities. Considering the debate is taking over the lives of undergraduate students with the amount of security, construction and literal barricades it brings, it only seems fair to maximize the ways for students to feel incorporated into this pivotal moment and to remain politically involved. However, we understand that this may not be possible due to security concerns.

As the amount of flyers and posters tacked up around campus will tell you, there is no lack of engaged and willing students on campus, just a shortage of positions available and a lack of flexibility in shift sign-ups. Not every choice needs to be as glamorous as sipping on Kayak’s Cafe lattes with Andrea Mitchell. Instead, developing spots for staging set-up or takedown may seem equally appealing to those with varied interests.

We understand the long-term benefits of hosting the debate in terms of media attention and increased name recognition (University of Washington in St. Louis, be gone!), but the focus must remain on the impact of the debate on campus life and the well-being of students.