I recently learned — hadn’t thought about it before — that dorm-resident college students will also have received forms this week. There is a bit of concern about this, confirmed in discussions with a few actual students. First, contemporary students are not accustomed to take stuff seriously that arrives via snail mail. Second, some think their parents will report them (this is not the case, if they live in a college dorm). And some of course don’t understand the importance of the census (I know this sounds preachy) or are aware of claims about its accuracy on minority reporting (a possibly legitimate topic, but not one that should discourage response — quite the contrary). So I hope we can make students aware of what this is all about.

Which leads to the hardy perennial topic: how to contact students in the first place? As we administrative types have discussed communicating about the census, we also remind ourselves that students no longer read emails. Facebook and other methods are better, but there’s no assurance of uniform reach even here. Responsible students themselves hesitate in giving advice about how to contact their peers. Happily, for the census, dorm-based signs and simple word of mouth, though old-fashioned, may help. But the issue is intriguing, and of course goes well beyond the census to other occasions when we’d like to be surer than we are about getting some information out effectively.

A second set of decisions involves people: deciding whom to hire or not, evaluating a complicated promotion case, or even worse, trying to sort through a conflict among individuals. These can really keep me awake, for it’s impossible to be sure of the best course or, in cases of conflict, even to decide who’s telling the truth.

But it’s the third decision set that prompted my recent musings: when a superior or an external force threatens to make me complicit in a policy that goes against deep principle (my principle, of course). Fortunately, I haven’t faced too many of these as Provost. Those that have erupted have, so far, been manageable either by modifying the impending problem to a point of acceptability; or by realizing that the clash of principle, though real, can be finessed by simply out waiting one’s opponents and changing a policy later on; or by deciding that while the clash is real and unavoidable it isn’t important enough to require a public stand. But, at least for a few days, until the sorting out eases things, the discomfort is real and deep — which is of course precisely what a moral dilemma should entail.

And while the discomfort lasts — and this is probably the real contribution of this blog, in encouraging further reading — I always think of a freshman Western civ passage that made a deep impression on me at the time, and that is still vividly relevant: an epistolary debate between Sir Thomas More and Erasmus. Erasmus was arguing against administrative service on grounds that it always forces compromises of principle: far better to be pure and removed. More, in contrast, admitted the dilemma but said it was preferable to be involved, for at least then one could make an impure situation somewhat less impure, improving conditions for others in the process even amid some compromise. I thought at the time, and still believe, that More had the better of this one (I never liked Erasmus much anyway) — that undue purism is ultimately selfish. But the debate is terrific and, as I’m implying, rerunning it mentally can be stimulating during the occasional moral crisis. And unfortunately it’s also worth remembering that More ultimately encountered a moral dilemma that he could not resolve, and was put to death for his obstinacy. Fortunately, in contemporary academic life, literal decapitation has become less fashionable, and we also have tenure to fall back on.

Preparing for SACS falls particularly on a number of staff members and faculty committees, but it is positively desirable for the larger campus community to be generally aware of the contours. In the first place, though this is for us an unlikely extreme, a verdict of non-compliance has truly dire consequences for an institution, in terms of jeopardizing not only reputation but federal funding and calling for years of arduous remedial work. Even a smaller number of dings require remediation, though it’s unusual to avoid some issues of some sort. (SACS is a bear about faculty credentials, which caused us some grief last time around; we’re much better prepared now, but it’s hard to be foolproof.)

It’s well known that SACS, like most accreditation agencies, has become more demanding. Whether it should do so is worth discussing, but given the power structure in the short term, it is beside the point. Particularly interesting in this season is the tension between a more demanding approach, which among other things unquestionably costs an institution some money in advancing a proper response; and the current budgetary climate.

Two issues are front and center. First, with accreditation work generally, much more emphasis is being placed in identifying and assessing learning outcomes AND responding to results. Units accustomed to this feature of accreditation — for example, the School of Management — have become fairly comfortable with what is arguably a desirable emphasis. The University as a whole is less consistent. Proper response does take work, beyond the usual chores of classroom grading, and we still have some effort to expend.

Then there is the QEP, unique to SACS. Here, I hope, we’re in good shape. Certainly we’ve seen truly dedicated faculty and student response. We have an excellent project, in enhancing undergraduate scholarship and creativity. We still need to see the plan become more precise and we need to publicize the project itself. In principle, SACS folks can wander around campus asking faculty and students if they know what the QEP is, and given the general level of informed-ness on a big campus, this is a challenge in itself.

So: we have a year to go, and a lot of detailed effort already expended on the overall process. The coming months will require some further collective awareness, so stay tuned.

Of course there are downsides. We sometimes venture things that don’t pan out. My favorite example (since I was not alone involved) was when we excitedly kicked off an interdisciplinary degree in e-commerce, right as the bubble burst and when, as a result, no one wanted the program. We are sometimes vulnerable to accusations that we don’t seem to have an overall plan or direction (I believe these accusations are exaggerated, but I confess they’re not always wrong). We sometimes pile up organizational structures that don’t always make sense, because they have accumulated from pursuing one idea after another.

But I think our eagerness to respond to the excitements of faculty, sometimes the external community, and sometimes students is a good quality, and one that helps explain our ability to weather the obvious storms around us, budgetary most notably, without losing all our verve.

Recently, one important faculty leader noted that he’s worried we’ve lost some of this exuberant quality, in becoming more bureaucratic and rule-conscious. The charge is interesting, and I have recurrently wondered about the same issue. We are of course no longer in first youth (I’m talking about the University, not myself personally). We’re big and we’ve inevitably developed lots more regulations and complexities. Also, of course, the world around us imposes more rules as well: safety concerns multiply far more rapidly than risks, the feds invent new research requirements faster than they print money, the state adds in a little bit and then there’s accreditation. Some of this stuff is desirable; some of it’s inevitable; some, we need perhaps to sort out a little more creatively. But we also impose some rules of our own — I have several offices in mind here that sometimes seem to go overboard, but I won’t mention by name.

The goal of course is balance. We can’t confuse entrepreneurial with heedless. But I think the University deserves a recurrent debate about aspects that still seem out of reasonable control, but, even more, areas where we may be, with all good intentions, thwarting one of our most important characteristics. Reactions welcome.

While the following stories are of course anecdotal (and it is only a partial list), they provide a snapshot of some of the creative ways that the University was able to combat “Snowmageddon 2010.”

“MGMT 301, 317, and 318 sections are completely online this semester and haven’t had any disruption whatsoever. Because we have set it up so [students] have a week to participate in online discussions, we haven’t even had complaints about power outages – at least I haven’t.”
Dr. Paige Wolf, Associate Professor, Management

“I can attest that the [Distance Education} course has been working well over the snow period. I have not received any student complaint and was able to update the students via email and Blackboard about any due dates."
Dr. Patrick Soleymani, Part-time Professor, Management

"On Wednesday afternoon, during the height of the storm, the CSS graduate course on Complexity Theory in the Social Sciences met at the regularly scheduled time (4:30 – 7:10 p.m.) in ‘Cyberia.’ Using the Skype teleconferencing and Blackboard from our laptops off campus, the students and I were able to discuss all of the assigned readings that were scheduled for that day, as well as explore additional course-related topics that came up during our lively three hour seminar discussion. We even discussed some potential research paper topics inspired by the storm, such as the consequences of power-law distributed snow storms on social complexity. It was very exciting and productive!"
Dr. Claudio Cioffi-Revilla, Professor, Computational Social Science

". . .about a third of our English 302 faculty have been revising to create DE [Distance Education] assignments for their classes this past week. We’ve been sharing strategies online since Monday [February 8]. . . .My 302H students are doing three online exercises this weekend . . . to prep for a draft workshop on Tuesday.”
Dr. Shelley Reid, Associate Professor, English

“. . .I am working on ideas for creating a make-up class session via distance education. We already have the class’s PBworks website, and it will be fairly straight forward for me to do this if we are not going to have actual class time added back.”
Dr. Mark Thurston, Senior Fellwo, Consciousness & Transformation Center

“Bob Sims ran his STAT 350 and 344 classes – asking the in-room section students to attend online. He reported 20% to 35% attendance for the two courses. Ariela Sofer held some advising sessions which seemed to go OK. Dan Fleck reported that he used Elluminate for his CS classes this week – none of which is a distance section. Mark Pullen notified his students that he was running the class and had the in-room students join, or asked them to listen to recordings later.” Dr. Jonathan Goldman, Director, Computing Services

“Weekly course material is made available to students on Monday and it is due on Sunday night. My classes participated in the discussion board as usual and their assignments did not budge from their assigned due dates. Students viewed my recorded lectures at their convenience…Everyone is talking about falling behind in the schedule when we are staying on track in our NET courses.” Dr. Kammy Sanghara, Instructor, Applied Information Technology

“Across my 3 courses alone, about 30 students participated in my scheduled dimdim.com webinars this week – roughly 70% of all enrolled. This was the only multimedia* free option I could arrange on the fly (e.g., no GMU funds or procedures of which I am aware for rapid reservation and use of our Adobe Connect webinar license).”
Dr. Dann Sklarew, Associate Professor/Associate Director, PEREC

Our decision to reopen Friday, Feb. 12, is like all weather decisions guaranteed to annoy some. We follow our standard rule: main roads open, campus and lots adequately clear, and we’re open. I hope it’s realized that we know not everyone can make it, and we will be urging tolerance for sensible individual decisions about feasibility. (Faculty who can’t make it should obviously coordinate with their unit head.) But we are keenly aware that we need to get going, that we have lots of students on campus who’ve been pretty patient. Interestingly, our new group of Moscow State students, who arrived last weekend, have been conducting classes regardless; it helps to have experience.

I’m also keenly reminded, as I look at Facebook comments that we shut down for a longer period, that higher education, like dentistry, is not a commodity where everyone wants to get their money’s worth.

But I also appreciate the patience and good humor with which most of the community has been displaying. Again, I know additional inconvenience awaits. But hopefully we can lurch forward once more.

Everybody Talks About It, and it will become boring

Indeed, I'd hoped to avoid the weather altogether. The massive snows have involved a lot of work particularly for physical plant, but also for many colleagues who've been working on decisions and options, and my thanks to all. 

Our decision to reopen Friday, Feb. 12, is like all weather decisions guaranteed to annoy some. We have follows our standard rule: main roads open, campus and lots adequatley clear, and we're open. I hope it's realized that we know that not everyone can make it, and we will be urging tolerance for sensible individual decisions about feasibility. (Faculty who can't make it should obviously coordinate with their unit head.) But we are keenly aware that we need to get going, that we have lots of students on campus who've been pretty patient. Interestingly, our new group of Moscow State students, who arrived last weekend, have been conducting classes regardless; it helps to have experience. 

I'm also keenly reminded, as I look at Facebook comments that we shut down for a longer period, that higher education, like dentistry, is not a commodity where everyone wants to get their money's worth. 

But I also appreciate the patience and good humor with which most of the community has been displaying. Again, I know additional inconvenience awaits. But hopefully we can lurch forward once more.

Like the rest of you, I observed that Democrats got a lot more exercise during the speech than Republicans did, which might suggest they need health care reform less.

The brief but pointed support for higher education was of course cheering. Those of us in 4-year institutions will seek to expand creative links with the more-targeted community colleges, out of self interest but also an awareness that more community college students will ultimately create demands on and opportunities for the rest of us as well. (Mason has a new degree program ideally suited to help people who thought community college would be enough but later realize they need more.)

The even briefer presidential aside, that higher ed should learn how to keep its costs down, was inevitable. I worry here about the confusion between higher tuition rates that really simply respond to reduced state support – not, in other words, reflecting some new profligacy — and higher rates that really should be stemmed by greater cost control. This is not an easy PR moment; noting a responsibility for careful self-evaluation is fair enough.

The push for more exports might seem to have little to do with higher ed, but it does prompt a final reflection. American colleges and universities that attract international students actually generate our 6th-largest export industry. We receive very little federal support or encouragement (and a number of roadblocks), at a time when competitors like the UK and Australia have quite focused and successful government policies. I wouldn’t expect this detail to reach State of Union level, but I hope the feds realize that there is an opportunity here that should be more widely discussed.

There were, in sum, a few things to think about from the higher ed angle.

First, I hope we all take complaints seriously. Students can be annoying, and they are often wrong and/or manipulative, but it is important not to prejudge, for a given complaint (even from a difficult student) might be valid.

Second, it is amazing, though happily rare, about the packages complaints come in. We recurrently get stuff from parents, that really should come from students themselves. I doubt that extreme helicopter parents read this blog (and the category is small), but we really need to encourage more students to carry their own flags, for legal reasons among other things. There are sometimes some other issues here, about parents misunderstanding what the problems are or even outright misrepresentation by students themselves, so some real caution is warranted. The old days when institutions were assumed to have been probably correct, students probably wrong, had their own flaws, but we need some balance.

Then, whether from parents or not: please do not immediately threaten to disclose the issue to the governor, state legislators, and the United Nations. This actually risks making us shut down in response, rather than take a careful look. Now, if a problem has been run through the system and either not addressed or stalled, I grant some heavier artillery may be needed, but the initial impulse here, the fruit of extreme helicoptering combined with facile technologies, is not helpful to anyone. (A variant of this: I will never contribute another dime to the University. Often this comes from people who have yet to show us a nickel, but whatever.)

The point is: mistakes happen. As officialdom I hope we don’t too quickly get defensive, and I know that sometimes we really need to admit not just that a mistake happened but that a defective policy is uncovered for remediation. But complainers can help too, by giving us a chance and not throwing up smokescreens that actually make constructive response more difficult.

And if all this improves the situation one iota, I will be amazed. But blogs are therapeutic, so forgive me.

For several years we have submitted comments as well as statistics from student course evaluations to department chairs or their equivalent, prior to giving to faculty. The results help in the assessment of certain kinds of faculty, most notably adjuncts, but the main purpose is to allow chairs to offer some guidance in cases where repeated concerns are expressed. There is no intent to have the comments shared beyond the chair level, or to have them referred to in promotion actions.

Some faculty apparently object to this, and the spread of electronic forms has rekindled some debate. (In point of fact I think the question of electronic vs. paper will prove irrelevant to the discussion.) I do find these faculty concerns misplaced, without wishing to throw down any gauntlet this early in the new year. I believe the utility of the comments in guidance (where numerical data alone often do not provide adequate indication of problem areas) outweighs other risks, and as far as we can determine most faculty largely agree. Frankly, I worry more about cases where chairs do not pay attention to indications of remediable teaching lapses, with the result that concerns become inescapable when  promotion time rolls around, than that there will be some misuse. I believe our chairs are fully capable of recognizing when a hostile view simply reflects an aberrant student experience and can let this sort of thing go without remark. I also note that most programs now combine some other assessments of teaching with the student material, which is a highly desirable complement.

So I do think we should continue present practice, all the more in that student comments through other electronic media are becoming increasingly available; it’s good to have one set of reactions formally involved in our own procedures.

I might note that the regular faculty evaluations of upper administrators often include comments from which a faculty committee selects for publication to the entire campus community. The result is sometimes painful, sometimes enlightening  (and the two results can be coterminous). I am not of course advocating comparable publicity for student comments.

Finally, it’s worth observing as well that many students think we don’t take survey results seriously, whether quantitative or qualitative. Pretty clearly that’s not the case, and both faculty and administration can help students understand that the whole operation is a significant element in our self-reflection process.

And it’s an occasion additionally to note broader relationships between the Peace Corps effort and what we do at Mason. We’ve had over 240 Mason graduates serve in the Corps. I know from talking with students what a great fit this kind of service is with Mason training and with longer term career aspirations. It turns out, as well, that the Corps hopes to expand and also that other kinds of focused collaborations may be worth discussing, where for example both the Corps and the university are targeting new initiatives (for example, in Sierra Leone).

So the chance to celebrate something that’s worked and to build additional elements for the future was a welcome one at a time of year when simply keeping one’s head above water often seems challenge enough.