Ron on Middlebury

As this article from the Chronicle of Higher Education reports (see below), the long discussion of altering D-III has concluded, I believe, with good results.  Each conference within D-III will retain the right to govern its own affairs on major issues such as scheduling, recruiting, admissions, and overall standards and expectations for its athletics programs.

NCAA’s Division III Members Nix the Idea of a ‘Division IV’

By LIBBY SANDER

The National Collegiate Athletic Association has scuttled a proposal to subdivide Division III or add a new grouping altogether after an overwhelming majority of the division’s member institutions said they opposed the idea.

The association had touted that proposal as a solution to the rapid growth projected for the division in the coming years. In February the NCAA sent a survey to the 442 active and provisional members of Division III.

When the results came in, the message was clear: No changes are necessary.

Of the 96 percent of Division III institutions that responded to the survey, whose findings were released on Thursday, 82 percent said they supported or strongly supported maintaining the current Division III setup. Only 17 percent supported or strongly supported either the creation of subdivisions or a new division altogether.

John A. Fry, president of Franklin & Marshall College and chair of the Division III Presidents Council, said in an interview on Thursday that he was disappointed by the reaction from member institutions.

“Not enough people are focusing on what’s going to happen in the next five years and beyond,” said Mr. Fry, who has studied membership-growth issues with other presidents and chancellors from all three NCAA divisions. “Unfortunately, people are saying, ‘Hey, we’re surviving. We don’t want a fourth division.’”

Division III colleges and universities offer no athletics scholarships. Although the division includes some of the smallest institutions in the NCAA in terms of enrollment, it is by far the association’s largest group, and it is growing larger every year. The division has added 100 or so members since 1990, and NCAA officials estimate that by 2020, it will reach 480 members. (Division I, by contrast, has 329 active members, and Division II has 282.)

But the survey results indicated that the growth projections were not enough to persuade Division III institutions that a restructuring was needed.

In their responses, institutions listed several reasons for keeping Division III in its current format. They cited the breaking up of athletics conferences and the loss of traditional rivalries as potential drawbacks of splitting the division, and some colleges said the loss of the Division III moniker could negatively affect their ability to retain and recruit athletes.

“We see the survey results as significant news,” Rudy Keeling, commissioner of the Eastern College Athletic Conference and chairman of the NCAA’s Division III Working Group on Membership Issues, said in a statement. “Our members are saying that despite their differences, they like being a part of Division III.”

The full survey is available on the NCAA’s Web site.

One of the joys of being president of an institution like Middlebury is to meet many of the College’s alums while on the road.  Fundraising trips can get stale quickly, but having the opportunity to meet interesting people makes being on the road enjoyable. Last week, my wife Jessica and I met several alums of note, but one meeting stands out: a lunch meeting with Phil Latreille, class of 1961.

Latreille is a legend for his prowess on the ice.  He holds the collegiate single season scoring record of 80 goals—this is not just a Middlebury record, but a record for collegiate hockey.  Those 80 goals translate into four goals per game (the 1960-61 Panthers played 21 games, going 19-2).  For comparison sake, the entire Middlebury hockey team this past year scored 96 goals, and those were scored in 27 games.

Because I have been an avid hockey fan since the age of 5, the first half hour of our lunch, not surprisingly, was all about hockey.  Latreille played for the New York Rangers right out of Middlebury, and though he had a short stint in the NHL, one needs to remember that major league hockey back then had only six teams as opposed to the 30(!) today.  That means if each team carried 20 players, one had to be among the top 120 players to make the NHL in Latreille’s day, while today one would need to be one of about 600.

What stands out most in our conversation was Phil’s clear recollection and telling of his time at Middlebury, and how, he said, it was the right place for him to have gone to college, as opposed to the large D-I institutions that had recruited him to play hockey.  He mentioned the importance of meeting his wife at Middlebury, he spoke about his relationship with his coach, the legendary Duke Nelson, about the friends he developed on the hockey team (the five other freshmen who, along with Phil, changed the face of Middlebury hockey), and he commented on the faculty, who he remembered as being genuinely caring and involved with him and other Middlebury students.  He noted two faculty members in particular—John Clagett and Horace Beck.

Phil began his studies at Middlebury more than 50 years ago, yet the things that were most important to him about the College were the same things I hear from students today: the close and meaningful relationships one develops with fellow students, faculty, and staff, and the freedom one has to delve as deeply as one wishes into one’s academic interests with faculty willing to help in those pursuits.

Though Phil’s historic 80-goal season was 47 years ago, one could feel the magic of such a talent so many years later, and simply over a lunch.  It was a pleasure to have finally met and engaged him, and it was most meaningful and gratifying for me to have heard that the core values of a Middlebury education—what one experiences here—have not changed.

I attended the Middlebury College-Monterey Institute of International Affairs sponsored ConnectEd conference last week, in Monterey, California. It is fair to say that the conference exceeded both institutions’ expectations for a number of reasons: it generated meaningful discussion about international education as a result of globalization and its consequences; it provided a great forum in which representatives from multiple sectors—higher education, business, government, and non-government organizations—could exchange a wide range of ideas and perspectives in different venues (round tables, paper sessions, keynote addresses with Q&A sessions, and informal meetings); and it underscored the importance of collaboration across institutional and national lines if we are to educate successfully students to meet the challenges of this most complex century.

The four keynote speakers, Scott McNealy, Jorge Castaneda Gutman, Robert Kaplan, and David Rothkopf provided different perspectives on the role of education in and for the 21st century. In this post, I will focus on the first keynoter, Scott McNealy. McNealy, the co-founder of Sun Microsystems and now chair of its board, offered perhaps the most provocative vision for education. One conference attendee, a current Middlebury parent and educational consultant, who sought me out to comment on the conference, said, “What McNealy described is definitely going to happen, but it is not what a Middlebury education is all about!” No and yes. More on that later.

McNealy criticized the static nature of education today, and called for an “open source” approach to teaching and learning. Using a new open source based project he is developing (known as Curriki: see http://www.curriki.org/), McNealy challenged the belief that learning had to be a process dictated by a certain number of hours in a seat, taught at the same rate for all learners, at the same time, with materials that were limited by publishers’ long time horizon, and was hardly ever fun. He argued that education would be done more effectively if it were offered as part of a larger learning community that was able to create and edit content, if it allowed students to learn at their own pace with materials that faced constant scrutiny and improvement, and if it was delivered via the internet with opportunities for mentoring from experts/teachers on demand.

McNealy created his vision, he said, from observing how his own young children were taught, and from growing tired of doing “those predictable science projects.” He found that it was nearly impossible to find good online sources to explain things as rudimentary as electricity, and needed to use a welding Web site to help explain how electricity worked to his son. He juxtaposed the dearth of good educational materials online with the 5 percent weekly growth rate in accounts on Facebook.com, the social networking site, and asked why this was so—why were there so many opportunities to use the internet for social networking, but not for education.

Back to the Middlebury parent. How right she is in saying what McNealy advocated is not what Middlebury is about, when what we think of as a Middlebury education is the strong personal, student-faculty, student-student, and student-staff learning opportunities that abound on our campus. Yet, the on-line learning communities that McNealy advocates, and the open source nature of their teaching materials, can also enhance aspects of a Middlebury education if we think a bit more broadly. For language students, having standard course materials accessible that are “localized” or customized for a particular region or country under study would be extremely valuable. Having them available on demand to use to enhance one’s learning, say, after one’s 12-week semester ends or during the summer, or whenever a student needed it, would be very useful. Having that same material updated frequently, and improved, would also enhance what we do best: face-to-face engagement on our campus.

Or think about our 1,300-plus Language Schools students, and how having dynamic learning materials would enable them to continue their learning well after they leave our campus following their intensive, immersion program each summer. Language acquisition is easily and quickly lost (”use it or lose it”) and so having a rich online program that enables one to continue learning and be in contact with mentors in the target language would enhance our Language Schools’ mission and open up new possibilities for our students. Similarly, a Curriki-like site could serve our students who study abroad: by combining customized learning materials with perhaps weekly or bi-weekly online meetings with faculty back on the Middlebury campus, students would, at least in some disciplines, be able to expand their opportunities while they study abroad, especially in disciplines in which it has historically been difficult for students to take courses that count toward their major while away. The language pledge aside, part of these students’ study abroad curriculum could include one course “back at Middlebury” through this kind of technology.

Of course the so-called devil is in the details, and many at the conference had practical criticisms of McNealy’s “open source” approach to online education. The publishing world would be the first in line to criticize this approach to teaching and learning, but many others would be likely to join the naysayer parade. I believe we need to think of the benefits that such an approach to using the internet and open source technology can bring to our current students as well as to our future students. The boundaries for learning need to expand beyond our classrooms, the materials our students are asked to use need to be dynamic, and the learning process in general needs to be more engaging and fun. On these issues, Scott McNealy is right on.

The presidents of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division III colleges are now considering a proposal that would redefine the current division, of which Middlebury and its New England Small College Athletic Conference (NESCAC) institutions are members.  The rationale for this proposal is rooted in the belief that the recent growth in Division III, now with more than 420 member institutions, and continued growth anticipated, has altered, and will further alter, the character of D-III athletics.  NESCAC, arguably the most successful D-III conference in the division, is also the conference with the most stringent rules that govern varsity athletics, including the length of each season, the number of contests, student eligibility, practice schedules, recruiting policy, post-season play, and others.

Interest in this topic became national as a result of two books published in 2001 and 2003 (”The Game of Life” and “Reclaiming the Game”) that questioned the degree to which the balance between academics and athletics at selective colleges had been compromised by an overemphasis on the latter.

The current concern is that with schools coming into D-III that have more lenient rules than NESCAC governing their athletics programs, the annual votes on rules changes taken at the national convention will soon run counter to NESCAC’s philosophy.  The anticipated rules changes would give our competitors on-field advantages that are seen as unfair.  To counter this, a number of D-III member institutions are encouraging colleges that share our (and their) conference’s philosophy on the balance between academics and athletics to support the proposal for a “Division IV” or “Division IIIa” and “Division IIIb sub-divisions.  By establishing a new division or sub-division, schools would be grouped and compete with schools that share more similar philosophies on the role of athletics on their campuses.  It would also allow the new division to introduce new and perhaps even more stringent rules guiding athletics at their institutions.

My initial reaction to all of this was that it would be good for Middlebury to compete with schools and athletic conferences that set similar parameters around their athletics programs.  It didn’t seem right to me (or “fair”) that some of our varsity teams compete against programs with student bodies that are two, three, and even five times the size of Middlebury’s—programs that begin their seasons weeks ahead of our teams, with many more games/contests under their belts before post-season play, and with fewer other restrictions on their recruiting, admissions, and other relevant areas. 

However, because of a student lunch that my wife Jessica and I hosted for the varsity spring sport captains last April, my thinking has evolved.  Pete Mellen, last year’s captain of the men’s lacrosse team (and best face-off man in D-III), listened to my comments on this apparent uneven playing field, and responded, “But President Liebowitz, who really cares?  We beat them all anyway.”  His position was seconded and supported by all other captains at that lunch.

His comment reframed (for me) the question this way: so what if other D-III conferences had rules more lax than our own, and so what if, on those campuses, a greater number of classes would be missed by varsity athletes, or too much time was expected from athletes in terms of their commitment to one activity on campus, or if some athletes were red-shirted, or any of the other things that would be out of “sync” with NESCAC philosophy?  If our conference retained the proper rules and balance, and was still able to compete successfully, who cares what the other 400+ D-III schools did?  We could still set the example and the standard.

Well, at least two issues come to mind.  First, since NESCAC occupies a leadership position within D-III athletics, to reject a proposal by the more academically oriented institutions to form a division within the NCAA committed to ensuring the balance between the classroom and the playing field would put our conference in an awkward position.  Some believe it would cast our institutions as hypocrites by not leading by example and supporting a move that at least claims to “reclaim the game.”  And second, if colleges with philosophies that differ greatly from NESCAC began to dominate D-III rules debates and voting so there was a wider discrepancy in rules governing athletics between most D-III schools and NESCAC schools, what would happen if NESCAC teams began to get pummeled in first round NCAA tournaments as a result?

Right now, of course, that is not happening.  In fact, NESCAC is the most successful conference in terms of NCAA championship play, but how much pressure would presidents of NESCAC schools begin to feel from student-athletes, coaches, athletic directors, alumni, and others if our current success gave way to early tournament departures?  How tempting would it be to compromise on the current balance we prize and celebrate to win more?

Several questions to consider:

• If NESCAC retains its own high standards for how it runs its athletic programs, should we really care about a larger D-III?

• Would moving to a D-IV or sub-divisions within D-III affect the recruitment of student-athletes at schools like Middlebury? Many coaches believe it would. Should that matter?

• Since NESCAC teams often beat many D-III schools that are larger with more lenient policies guiding athletics, is this proposal, in reality, designed to make the would-be D-IV athletic conferences more competitive?

• Would stricter guidelines on our athletics program, which might come with a new D-IV, be a good thing?

It seems to me that striving for the best of both worlds should guide our position on this issue: that is, providing the best competition for our student-athletes while, at the same time, applying the necessary policies to ensure a healthy balance between our academic and athletic programs.  That would mean choosing to remain in D-III while retaining the most stringent guidelines to ensure the kind of overall education we seek for our students.

I am interested to hear your views on this topic.  In the coming months, I plan to hold discussions with our coaches, varsity athletes, and our Athletic Policy Committee to gain multiple perspectives on this issue.  In the meantime, please send along your views.

And by the way, congratulations to our men’s soccer team—recent winners of the NCAA D-III national championship over a remarkable (and undefeated) Trinity University team.  Special congratulations to long-time Panther coach, Dave Saward, who, along with so many Middlebury coaches, represents the best of D-III athletics.

The Marines came to campus to recruit on November 13. The visit and the protest that ensued were covered in The Campus newspaper, but even with the extensive coverage, there remain some fundamental issues about recruiting on our campus that seem to get lost whenever the issue comes up, as it has with the Marines’ recent visit.

I should mention that I shared with the campus community in September my position in formulating the College’s policy regarding military recruiting in a detailed memorandum. That said, I will highlight here some areas of controversy, offer my position once again, and hopefully generate some discussion for us all to consider.

It is central to point out that the College has a very clear and strong non-discrimination policy that guides its hiring practices and its engagement with and treatment of Middlebury employees. In addition, it was also one of the first colleges/universities to offer the equivalent of spousal benefits to the partners of gays and lesbians who worked at the College.

Allowing the military to recruit on our campus became an issue when, in 2005, we learned that the Marines wished to come to campus to recruit for the first time in many years. College policy at that time was to require all potential employers who could not sign a statement saying that its policies were consistent with the College’s own non-discrimination policy to hold an open meeting at which they would explain their hiring practices and policies. Since 1993, when Congress set the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy for gays in the military, the armed forces argued that they allowed gays and lesbians to serve, but that they “would discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct, which is defined as a homosexual act, a statement that the member is homosexual or bisexual, or a marriage or attempted marriage to someone of the same gender” (from the New York Times, April 1993).

The College’s requirement that employers who did not adhere themselves to the College’s non-discrimination policy hold open meetings served to keep the military away from campus, as it did at other liberal arts colleges with similar policies. Yet in 2005, the Marines were invited to campus by two seniors who were to be commissioned into the Marines during their Commencement week, and hence the first visit in years.

For the 2005 Marine visit to campus, College policy was followed as our Career Services Office required that the Marines hold an open meeting if they were to recruit at Middlebury, and the meeting took place. Prior to the Marines’ visit to campus, a group of law schools challenged a federal law, known as the Solomon Amendment, that linked a college’s or university’s receipt of some categories of federal funding to the ability of the military to recruit on campus. At the same time, a faculty resolution here at Middlebury, which requested that the College not allow the military to recruit on campus at all, was introduced at a faculty meeting, and the resolution passed by nearly a 3-1 measure. Some faculty were wary of banning the military if it meant federal funding for their research would be jeopardized; a much smaller number thought it wrong to ban the military from campus for a variety of reasons; but the largest number favored preventing the military from recruiting on campus and using College facilities if it could not ensure that all Middlebury students had the opportunity for employment.

Following the faculty resolution, I engaged many individuals, both on campus and off, including former military officers, scholars of military history, experts on public policy, and other college presidents. I decided it would be best not to change our policy, and to await the challenge to the Solomon Amendment, which was heading to the Supreme Court following an appellate court ruling after the challenge from the law schools.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously (9-0) that the Solomon Amendment was constitutional—that federal funding could be withheld if colleges did not provide “equal” access to military recruiters. Moreover, it meant that our existing policy of “requiring” an open meeting was not in compliance with the law, which the Supreme Court had just affirmed. To require such a meeting would be in violation of the Solomon Amendment. We amended our policy so we now “request” an open meeting, but the military is not obligated to provide that open forum in order to come and recruit.

Fast forward to last week. The Marines, as I mentioned, came and set up an information desk near Ross Dining Hall. Many on campus believe we should have changed our policy and not permitted the military to recruit on campus since our gay and lesbian students, should they choose a career in the military, would have to hide their sexuality, and face expulsion from the service if it became known they were gay or lesbian. Some argue that the College is “hypocritical” in allowing the military on campus since the military’s employment policies and practices are not consistent with our own.

I agree with the November 13th protesters, in that I strongly support the rights of gay and lesbian members of our community. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is neither a fair nor smart policy; gays and lesbians have proven to be exceptional members of other countries’ armed forces, and the current loss of expertise as a result of DADT is unquestionably great. And there is no logical reason to deny gay and lesbians Americans the right to defend this country. At the same time, I don’t believe the proper response is to ban the military from recruiting on our campus as the protesters have requested.

First, the conflating of our clearly stated policies on non-discrimination with the military’s policy is illogical. Arguing that because we allow the military on campus we compromise our own policies is incorrect; we continue to follow our policies and we remain committed to them. In fact, as Justice Breyer argued in oral argument in the case, the remedy to speech [or ideas] with which one disagrees is more speech, not a restriction on speech. Bryer’s argument is consistent with our mission as a liberal arts college, which is to encourage the engagement of different points of view, not limit such discussion.

Second, the armed forces are not any random potential employer seeking to enlist young talent into their ranks. They are part of our federal government; those in uniform are asked to make the ultimate sacrifice in the name of our collective security and freedom; and Congress, not the military branches, is responsible for the policy that discriminates against gays and lesbians, and so that it, and not the military, ought to be the target for changing policy.

Third, disobeying the law, and in the process losing federal funding, would have multiple effects on the College. It would compromise some programs, including those that support student loans, College facilities, and scientific research. It would make us look irresponsible in light of what we charge students to attend Middlebury, at a time when financial support from alumni and friends is so vital to the College’s mission. In accepting federal funds, we are not denied the right to oppose DADT, which, as an institution, we do.

And fourth, while I, and according to most polls the majority of Americans, oppose the DADT policy, the impact of preventing recruiting on campuses like Middlebury is likely to widen the divide between civilians and the military. It would also contribute to the sense of elitism that surrounds campuses like ours and accentuate an already class-based division in our armed forces. The less educated and less well-off socioeconomic groups are widely overrepresented in our volunteer military service branches and therefore suffer the disproportionate casualties defending our country and its interests. The successful recruitment of students from places like Middlebury would bring values to the armed forces that are more likely to generate pressure on Congress to change DADT from within. Preventing the recruiting of these voices, in the long-term, will prove to be counter-productive.

Those of us who are opposed to DADT should lobby our elected officials to overturn it, both here in Vermont and in our home states. We should also work with the many public advocacy groups that are fighting to change DADT. This course of action, rather than banning the military from recruiting on our campuses, would go a lot farther in changing what so many find problematic about military recruiting.

We will have an open forum to discuss this issue in McCullough social space on Monday, November 26 at 4:15 p.m.

Your thoughts on the subject?

Last week I attended a great event in downtown Middlebury, just yards from where the recent train derailment brought the town front and center on CNN—until the California fires raged and caught the public’s attention and great concern.

The event was the groundbreaking for the last phase of the Town Hall Theater project, a project that, when complete, will provide the town with a remarkable theater and public space in a building that was constructed in 1883 at the juncture of Merchants Row and Cross Street. The decade-long project, led so ably and enthusiastically by Doug Anderson, and supported by many in the local community, is critically important to our small town. It will provide a home for local theater, for a wide range of productions, for student groups to perform in town, and to strengthen the town’s civic culture.

The College supported this project early on, and weeks ago agreed to provide $1 million in additional support to allow for the final phase of the project to move forward, and for the theater to open by this coming June or July. Our support is in the form of a partnership. College students, faculty, and staff will be able to use Town Hall Theater facilities, students will obtain internship opportunities at the Theater, our Language Schools, so short on performance space on campus, will have use of the facilities for parts of the summer, and the Theater’s presence will have a positive economic impact on the town. Just as the town’s and College’s histories are so intertwined, so, too, are their futures, and I believe it is in the College’s best interest to contribute to the town’s vitality through this project.

Though the presence of Middlebury students in the local community, not to mention faculty and staff, is already quite significant, this project will diversity the kind of interaction our students have with the town. So many students now volunteer in the county across a wide range of volunteer programs or through “service learning” segments of their courses. Our Alliance for Civic Engagement (”ACE”), a vital hub of activity in McCullough Hall led so energetically by Tiffany Sargent, provides a remarkable array of opportunities for students to “do good” in the local community. In addition, a great number of our varsity athletes, encouraged by their coaches, mentor students in local elementary and secondary schools throughout Addison County.

Townspeople who work with our students and/or are the recipients of their volunteerism recognize and appreciate the strength and power of town/gown relations, but many, unfortunately, do not. Through the Town Hall Theater project, plus other collaborative projects we will develop with partners in town, the benefits of town and gown working together will be both enjoyed and recognized by a greater number within the Addison County community.

Perhaps most importantly, the Town Hall Theater and its anticipated full slate of performances will bring townspeople within Middlebury together on a noticeable and significant scale. Our town is not immune to the trends seen in many small, rural towns, which include the weakening of civic culture. The sentiment that “the College should stay up on the hill,” something one can still hear at Town meeting and in other public venues, must give way to a spirit of collaboration and mutual appreciation. I believe the Town Hall Theater project embodies this kind of spirit and it is overdue.

Well, Dean Spears and I hosted the first open meeting to discuss the so-called “4/2″ Commons idea, which was described in an earlier post on this blog.  The turnout was very light, leaving one to wonder whether the changes proposed are a “non-event” as many students have said in recent conversations over lunch in Ross, Proctor, and Atwater . . . or, could it be that those who oppose the proposed changes have yet to weigh in?  Our second open meeting will be Wednesday, October 31, at 4:30 in McCullough Social Space.  I invite you all to come and weigh in with your opinions.

One issue that came up at the first open meeting, as well as in other conversations prior to the meeting, was why a “4/2″ and not a “4/1″?  That is, why make it four years membership in one’s commons and two rather than one year of residency?  Good question, and I recognize there are good arguments for both approaches.  Here is why I have been lining up with the “4/2″ concept.

First, even students who today oppose the Commons system believe the system is very helpful to all students for the first two, three, or four semesters. After that, they argue quite consistently, students have chosen a major, become involved in many on-campus and some off-campus activities, and have grown comfortable enough on campus not to have their place of residence serve as their major sources of support and attention, and find it somewhat stifling when it is.

But if the Commons dean is to remain a “go to” person for students during their four years for issues about which faculty and staff are not as likely or equipped to help, does one year living within the commons allow the time for most students to forge a relationship with a dean to make it natural for them to engage him or her throughout their Middlebury careers?  I don’t know.  But two factors have swayed me thus far into thinking the two-year residency makes greater sense than one year.

First, the second year represents a sort of natural break at Middlebury for so many students.  Around 60 percent of our students go abroad, and so the hoped-for continuing commons communities are naturally broken after the sophomore year.  Most students select their majors during their second year, and so their time and attention shifts from the residence halls to the academic offices of their teachers, and they, presumably, in our environment of close student-faculty collaboration and mentoring, become more important as advisers to students.  Thus, there seems to be a natural breakpoint for a student’s focus on his or her place of residence, and that is during or at the end of the sophomore year.

And second, the possibility to use the sophomore year to build stronger ties among students by spending a second year together, and, equally important, to build meaningful relationships between students and their Commons heads, deans, and faculty and staff affiliates in one’s commons, is very attractive. During the strategic planning process, we discussed ways to strengthen the sophomore year experience, as many in the community felt it was a difficult year for students because it lacked the equivalent of the first-year seminar, junior year abroad, or senior work, usually done through working closely with a faculty member.  A successful non-academic sophomore experience in each commons, such as community-based projects, a year-long symposium, or some other non-graded program that builds community and relationships that will serve our students well as juniors, seniors, and even after Middlebury, can add significantly to our students’ experiences.

The most common argument against having a two-year residency is that it would be “required.”  Asking students to remain in particular residence halls for the sophomore year strikes many the same way as asking them to remain in specific dormitories for four years: it is bad to require that they live anywhere after their first year.

While I agree with that argument (students would prefer no requirements to some requirements), the benefits of what the sophomore year can offer our students — a year in which the geography of where a student lives can still have multiple positive effects and build on the community established through the Commons-based first year seminar program — outweigh this potential drawback.  In addition, the reality of any room draw I see replacing our current scheme would leave few rising sophomores with better choices than they would have in their commons.  That is, by the time rising sophomores would select a room in a strict seniority based room draw, the rooms available would be similar to what is likely to be designated as “sophomore” housing in each commons.  Therefore, in weighing what is possibly gained by having the “2″ in the “4/2″ system, rather than a “1,” I have, to date, come down in favor of proposing the two-year residency.

Your views on this?  I am interested in your thoughts.

On my original post about a month ago, I listed items that I wanted to address early in the semester.  I have addressed two of them thus far, and I want to turn, now, to a third: the issue of student workload.

I have heard over the past two years during lunches with students about the “increasing” work load at Middlebury, and how, to some, we are becoming a place that is not in balance—that there is too much academic work assigned, leaving students unable to partake in non-academic pursuits and “have fun.”

The argument I hear most is that faculty are now assigning what has been described as “gratuitous work”—things that do not add to the students’ understanding of the material, but only to the time they need to spend on a course.  The perception voiced frequently is that faculty seem not to know that most students take three other courses and therefore the amount they ask students to do each week is simply too much.

A few things to note on both sides of the issue before I invite students, especially, but others, too, to weigh in on this issue.

• I have been at Middlebury for 24 years, and I have heard this complaint since I arrived. In fact, I usually hear rising seniors talk about how “smart” and “eager” the first years seem to be about their studies, and how the place is changing. I first heard this in 1984, and it hasn’t stopped.

• I have spoken with two veteran faculty colleagues, both of whom have taught here for more than 30 years, and asked them this question: has the work load for students increased, in your view, since you arrived here?  Both of them, asked individually, said “no.”  And in fact, one of them even said that he believes he has had to cut some things from what he used to expect from his students.  Each had his or her theories for why students believe that the overall work load has increased, but I am more interested in hearing our students’ perspective.

• Through my work as dean of the faculty and provost, I was involved directly with the tenure and reappointment review process for many years.  That process includes faculty members up for review submitting dossiers with their professional materials.  Many include their syllabi.  In several cases, it appears as if the traditional assignments that used to make up a course’s “content” have been supplemented as faculty are utilizing new technologies to engage students and have students engage the course materials (such as mandatory postings on class electronic list-serves; searches on the web and of new electronic data bases; etc.). 

• The rising popularity of the “double major” over the past 10-15 years may be playing some role for those who feel that the workload has increased.  By double majoring, students need to focus on two areas of the curriculum in terms of meeting specific requirements, and therefore have fewer courses to take for “enjoyment,” and, thereby, fewer opportunities to feel less pressure.

• Some faculty argue that they have indeed become more prescriptive (and expansive) in terms of weekly assignments than they used to be, because, they argue, students are less focused on their work.  If they don’t give specific assignments, they can’t be assured students will do the work, and the atmosphere in class would suffer noticeably.

I am very eager to hear other points of view on this.  One thing is for sure: the student of today, versus the student of 1984 when I arrived here on the faculty, takes the same load each year (four courses a semester and one during winter term).  They do, however, have many, many more opportunities in terms of the number of student organizations they might join, the number of varsity, club, and intramural athletic teams on which they might play, and a whole new world of technology-driven activities to attract their attention.  Video games, on-line social networking, blogging (!), and other technology-infused activities that did not exist in 1984.  Even e-mail, the supposed dinosaur of communications to this generation of students, did not exist: we communicated with administrators through campus (”snail”) mail and with one another by … believe  this … visiting the person’s office, or by calling.  And not with a cell phone.

Just a hypothesis, but maybe the antidote to feeling that there is too much work has to do with exercising more self-discipline in the face of all the information technology-driven distractions that we now take for granted in our daily lives.  Is it possible that the work load has not changed at all, but what has changed is how we spend our time, and more and more of it is being spent on things that didn’t exist even a few years ago?

Well, the launch of the Initiative and the start of the “public phase” of the College’s fundraising efforts to support the major objectives in our strategic plan came and went this past weekend.

Why are we doing this? Why have we set for ourselves the huge goal of raising $500 million over the course of the next five years?

Quite simply, we want to ensure for future generations of students the experience that current and past generations of Middlebury students have enjoyed and continue to benefit from throughout their lives; and we want to build on that experience.

The press release about the Initiative summarizes how the funds raised in support of the Initiative will be used. The short version: enhance financial aid; add 25 faculty positions; increase funds for student and faculty research; and increase opportunities for student creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurialism outside the classroom.

The overall objective of the “Initiative” is to make Middlebury the global liberal arts college for the 21st century, and we have the educational resources in place to make that happen: in addition to our baccalaureate program, Middlebury is also the world-renowned summer Language Schools, our C.V. Starr-Middlebury Schools Abroad, the Bread Loaf School of English, the Bread Loaf Writers’ Conference, and the Monterey Institute of International Studies (as an affiliate).

In this era of globalization, multiple and competing forces are, at the same time, erasing boundaries of all kinds and strengthening the importance of local languages and cultures. Consequently, the College’s unique and remarkable set of programs, spread across the globe, and, which, for a long time have operated in relative isolation of one another, need to be leveraged so they best prepare our students to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

I see our task as twofold. First, we need to continue to support all of the College’s individual entities so they can best serve the various student populations they have long served—baccalaureate students at the College since 1800; graduate students in the Language Schools since 1915 and non-degree students since 1973; graduate students at the Bread Loaf School of English since the early 1920s; graduate students at our Schools Abroad since 1945 and undergraduates since the early 1970s; and graduate students at Monterey since 1955. And second, we need to determine, with input from current students, how each unit of the College can be leveraged to increase the educational opportunities to students studying in other units.

In trying to link more strongly the many parts of Middlebury, the goal is NOT to make Middlebury more like a university. In fact, the strength and beauty of what I am calling the “Middlebury model” of the global liberal arts college is that, on the one hand, the individual components of the institution as a whole will remain autonomous from one another; on the other, each part of the College will more frequently enrich the educational experiences of students enrolled in other units. For example, during the academic year (September to May), the Middlebury campus will remain fully dedicated to undergraduate education as it has been for 207 years. But our undergraduate students will have greater access to the other programs that are offered away from the Middlebury campus (at our Schools Abroad or in Monterey), or operate during the summer months (the Language Schools, Bread Loaf School of English, and the Bread Loaf Writers’ Conference). By connecting all the so-called dots, and making all of our educational resources more available to our students, we will become the global liberal arts college for the 21st century.

Your thoughts?

A reader of this blog e-mailed me to provide encouragement as I make my way through the blogosphere with my first few posts . . .

He also mentioned that one of the topics I had listed in my original post — the College’s upcoming Initiative — remains a complete mystery to most students, and therefore the big bash dance and great food scheduled for this coming Saturday, is also a mystery.

Well it’s time, then, to de-mystify that event and invite all students, faculty, and staff to Nelson Recreation Center, this coming Saturday evening, October 6, beginning at 9 p.m. There will be a great spread of foods from around the world, and two bands: Freestyle, which will play from 9 p.m. to midnight, and then Orange Crush will play from midnight to 2:00 a.m. I understand Orange Crush is a popular band with students. I hope so.

The reason to celebrate is the launching of the College’s major fundraising initiative that will seek support for three major causes: 1) increasing financial aid to improve access to Middlebury; 2) adding faculty positions to ensure small classes and the ability of students to work closely with faculty members; and 3) strengthening our residential and co-curricular programs. We thought an all-campus dance with two bands known for great dancing music would be an excellent way to celebrate what will be, to date, the largest fundraising effort by a liberal arts college.

Fundraising campaigns typically follow the adoption of strategic plans and our Initiative is no different. The Trustees adopted our strategic plan last May, and we have been working hard to articulate our needs to potential donors and building the base for financial support. We are calling this endeavor an “initiative,” because, unlike a campaign, we believe these three areas will remain priorities beyond the traditional timeframe for a fundraising campaign (typically about five years). Thus, we view the coming years as foundational to building support for the vital areas of financial aid, faculty/academic support, and co-curricular programs.

As I mentioned in my introductory post to this blog, we will be inviting potential donors to campus over the course of the Initiative to see first hand the kind of education that takes place at Middlebury. This is somewhat new in fundraising, as it is more common to have the president and fundraisers out on the road most of the time, visiting with potential supporters and relaying to them information about Middlebury that would attract their support. We will still be out on the road meeting with many people, but we believe the best way to garner support for the College from many potential contributors is for them to see how our faculty teach, research, and engage students and what our students are accomplishing both inside and outside the classroom. My hope is that many students will be willing to share with potential supporters of the College who will be visiting campus the many interesting, challenging, and remarkable things they are doing at Middlebury.

But back to Saturday night. I hope many of you get to Nelson to dance to the sounds of Freestyle and Orange Crush and enjoy the great food prepared by our chefs here at the College.