2008 Woodie Awards
Staff Editorial: Dear Mr. Provost
An analysis of the new strategic plan from the editors
The Editorial Staff
Issue date: 3/25/08 Section: Opinion
[Editor's Note: This is the first in a series of expanded editorials on the university's strategic plan.]
Human experience shows us that it is often impossible to make solid plans even weeks in advance. The university's new strategic plan seeks to direct the growth of the university during the next 10 years. We can forgive its authors, then, for being somewhat vague. In the draft of the plan, Provost Nariman Farvardin and his steering committee have done a commendable job in identifying the areas in which changes and improvements are needed.
The strategic priorities of the plan are sound - improving undergraduate and graduate education, continued emphasis on research and community outreach. There are major initiatives planned for most of these areas. As is to be expected, the devil is in the details, or the lack thereof. There are parts of the plan that deal with crucial aspects of the university's future but are treated with little more than vague pronouncements. In some cases, the lack of clarity presents a danger to the university's academic rigor. We explore some of these areas in today's editorial.
Recruiting academic talent
At the beginning of the development process for the upcoming strategic plan, Farvardin delivered a presentation to the Strategic Plan's steering committee that focused heavily on admission, enrollment and graduation statistics. A startling fact that came up during the presentation was this state's position as the third largest net exporter of students in the United States. Census data show that we're the fourth most educated state in the nation, yet only 25 percent of students who score above a 1300 on the SAT enroll at this university. The lesson here is clear: Maryland is capable of attracting highly talented citizens, but we do not have academic institutions of adequate rigor and prestige to retain that talent or their children.
This is an issue of perception: We need to convince the best students in the state that our university is "good" enough for them to attend. While it would take decades for our university to rise to an academic stature comparable to Berkeley or Virginia, it is an absolute necessity to implement specific tactics to bring us on the way.
We need a shot in the arm. The most effective strategy might also be the easiest to implement: Overhaul the Banneker-Key scholarship program to make it more comprehensive. North Carolina's analagous award, the Morehead-Cain scholarship, is housed within its own foundation, allowing donors to be solicited specifically to support the program. With its own endowment, it is able to create and fund a coherent experience for its participants with a series of summer enrichment programs: before freshman year, recipients spend time at an outdoor leadership program; before sophomore year, they devote themselves to public service; before junior year, they engage in research abroad; and before senior year, they intern at a non-profit or private enterprises.
The program also maintains an extensive alumni base, who help recipients in their studies with guidance and enrichment opportunities. Along with giving its students experiences vital to developing a mature perspective to succeed in the world, the program gives its participants plump resumés to gain an edge in competing for prestigious national scholarships like the Rhodes, Marshall and Mitchell. The 2007 graduating class boasted two Rhodes Scholars and two Fulbright Scholars.
Year after year, our best students here try and fall short. How can we blame them with such an uneven playing field?
Who cares about CORE?
In addition to failing to improve the academic experience of our best students, the strategic plan fails to improve the education of all students. Instead of guaranteeing our students go into the world armed with the requisite knowledge to be productive members of society, the strategic plan bows to the banner of inclusiveness and proposes to dilute CORE to a point where it ceases to be meaningful.
We see two justifications for mandating requirements for general education, one philosophical and one practical. First, it addresses the need of common knowledge to encourage intelligent discussion and create an academic community. Second, since we are a state school committed to educating the citizens of the state, the general education requirements should ensure a basal level of understanding necessary to make educated decisions. This is why the government of Maryland created general education laws in the first place. As a significant source of funding for the school, the government is right to demand that its funds do not go to waste. It is right to demand that students graduate with an understanding of mathematics, English composition, hard science, social science and humanities.
The strategic plan's proposal would shirk the university's legal responsibility and even would require the university approach the Maryland Higher Education Commission for an exemption.
Instead of concentrating the responsibility for general education in the hands of five colleges, the plan would increase the "richness" of the program by allowing all 13 colleges to contribute.
Nonsense. As contrary as it is to the prevailing winds of academia, we must admit to ourselves that some forms of knowledge are more beneficial to society than others. We need to be sensible enough to realize that our students would be better off with a concentrated curriculum.
The surrounding community
It is impossible to deny the great need for an improvement in the relationship between the university and the City of College Park. The strategic plan has a section devoted to this problem titled "The Surrounding Community." The title itself gives the impression that the university is somehow separate from the community that happens to exist around it. It is true that it is very difficult to measure progress in this area - the vitality of a community does not correlate precisely with any known statistical measure. This, however, is no excuse for the vagueness of the proposals put forth for these improvements in the strategic plan.
The strategic plan relies heavily on the proposed developments of the College Park Town Center on East Campus. The planners hope that this combination of retail, restaurant, office and other facilities will help toward revitalizing the downtown College Park area. This is by no means certain, but the development will likely be positive. Other than this, the proposals include such ideas as "Revitalize the Route 1 Corridor," "Increase public safety," and "Encourage the development of additional housing and services." In short, all laudable goals that have always been priorities that never seem to be fulfilled.
To be fair, there are no easy answers to these problems. They all require serious research and thought to approach. This sort of research is not apparent in this draft of the strategic plan. The "surrounding community" must be given more serious attention in future drafts.
The plan seeks to make the university a "good neighbor that shares its artistic, cultural and athletic offerings with the community and supports community efforts in these areas." For this to occur, the community must become a place where people associated with the university desire to stay. Granted, College Park cannot boast the same charms as a place like Chapel Hill or Charlottesville. Still, the university must use its overwhelming presence to make itself part of the community, not merely an incidental presence.
One admirable provision in the plan is in its goal of improving K-12 education in the area by "adopting" Paint Branch Elementary. Such efforts must be encouraged and expanded. Ultimately, the way the university will be a part of the community is if faculty members want to live in College Park instead of in Potomac or Rockville. The plan recognizes this fact, but in its current form, does not put forth specific ways to address it.
What is to be done now?
One aspect of this process that has been unequivocally positive has been the way in which Farvardin and his committee have consistently solicited feedback from the university community. While comments on the website of the plan are no longer requested, the provost has been presenting the salient features of the plan to various bodies, including the University Senate. And tomorrow, there will be a town hall meeting for students and faculty to discuss points of the plan.
It is easy to make the claim that the university is too big to care about the feelings of individual students. But when such opportunities as this are given, there is no excuse not to take them. By submitting concerns or comments on the strategic plan, the student body has a legitimate and important chance to influence how the university changes over the next 10 years.
Human experience shows us that it is often impossible to make solid plans even weeks in advance. The university's new strategic plan seeks to direct the growth of the university during the next 10 years. We can forgive its authors, then, for being somewhat vague. In the draft of the plan, Provost Nariman Farvardin and his steering committee have done a commendable job in identifying the areas in which changes and improvements are needed.
The strategic priorities of the plan are sound - improving undergraduate and graduate education, continued emphasis on research and community outreach. There are major initiatives planned for most of these areas. As is to be expected, the devil is in the details, or the lack thereof. There are parts of the plan that deal with crucial aspects of the university's future but are treated with little more than vague pronouncements. In some cases, the lack of clarity presents a danger to the university's academic rigor. We explore some of these areas in today's editorial.
Recruiting academic talent
At the beginning of the development process for the upcoming strategic plan, Farvardin delivered a presentation to the Strategic Plan's steering committee that focused heavily on admission, enrollment and graduation statistics. A startling fact that came up during the presentation was this state's position as the third largest net exporter of students in the United States. Census data show that we're the fourth most educated state in the nation, yet only 25 percent of students who score above a 1300 on the SAT enroll at this university. The lesson here is clear: Maryland is capable of attracting highly talented citizens, but we do not have academic institutions of adequate rigor and prestige to retain that talent or their children.
This is an issue of perception: We need to convince the best students in the state that our university is "good" enough for them to attend. While it would take decades for our university to rise to an academic stature comparable to Berkeley or Virginia, it is an absolute necessity to implement specific tactics to bring us on the way.
We need a shot in the arm. The most effective strategy might also be the easiest to implement: Overhaul the Banneker-Key scholarship program to make it more comprehensive. North Carolina's analagous award, the Morehead-Cain scholarship, is housed within its own foundation, allowing donors to be solicited specifically to support the program. With its own endowment, it is able to create and fund a coherent experience for its participants with a series of summer enrichment programs: before freshman year, recipients spend time at an outdoor leadership program; before sophomore year, they devote themselves to public service; before junior year, they engage in research abroad; and before senior year, they intern at a non-profit or private enterprises.
The program also maintains an extensive alumni base, who help recipients in their studies with guidance and enrichment opportunities. Along with giving its students experiences vital to developing a mature perspective to succeed in the world, the program gives its participants plump resumés to gain an edge in competing for prestigious national scholarships like the Rhodes, Marshall and Mitchell. The 2007 graduating class boasted two Rhodes Scholars and two Fulbright Scholars.
Year after year, our best students here try and fall short. How can we blame them with such an uneven playing field?
Who cares about CORE?
In addition to failing to improve the academic experience of our best students, the strategic plan fails to improve the education of all students. Instead of guaranteeing our students go into the world armed with the requisite knowledge to be productive members of society, the strategic plan bows to the banner of inclusiveness and proposes to dilute CORE to a point where it ceases to be meaningful.
We see two justifications for mandating requirements for general education, one philosophical and one practical. First, it addresses the need of common knowledge to encourage intelligent discussion and create an academic community. Second, since we are a state school committed to educating the citizens of the state, the general education requirements should ensure a basal level of understanding necessary to make educated decisions. This is why the government of Maryland created general education laws in the first place. As a significant source of funding for the school, the government is right to demand that its funds do not go to waste. It is right to demand that students graduate with an understanding of mathematics, English composition, hard science, social science and humanities.
The strategic plan's proposal would shirk the university's legal responsibility and even would require the university approach the Maryland Higher Education Commission for an exemption.
Instead of concentrating the responsibility for general education in the hands of five colleges, the plan would increase the "richness" of the program by allowing all 13 colleges to contribute.
Nonsense. As contrary as it is to the prevailing winds of academia, we must admit to ourselves that some forms of knowledge are more beneficial to society than others. We need to be sensible enough to realize that our students would be better off with a concentrated curriculum.
The surrounding community
It is impossible to deny the great need for an improvement in the relationship between the university and the City of College Park. The strategic plan has a section devoted to this problem titled "The Surrounding Community." The title itself gives the impression that the university is somehow separate from the community that happens to exist around it. It is true that it is very difficult to measure progress in this area - the vitality of a community does not correlate precisely with any known statistical measure. This, however, is no excuse for the vagueness of the proposals put forth for these improvements in the strategic plan.
The strategic plan relies heavily on the proposed developments of the College Park Town Center on East Campus. The planners hope that this combination of retail, restaurant, office and other facilities will help toward revitalizing the downtown College Park area. This is by no means certain, but the development will likely be positive. Other than this, the proposals include such ideas as "Revitalize the Route 1 Corridor," "Increase public safety," and "Encourage the development of additional housing and services." In short, all laudable goals that have always been priorities that never seem to be fulfilled.
To be fair, there are no easy answers to these problems. They all require serious research and thought to approach. This sort of research is not apparent in this draft of the strategic plan. The "surrounding community" must be given more serious attention in future drafts.
The plan seeks to make the university a "good neighbor that shares its artistic, cultural and athletic offerings with the community and supports community efforts in these areas." For this to occur, the community must become a place where people associated with the university desire to stay. Granted, College Park cannot boast the same charms as a place like Chapel Hill or Charlottesville. Still, the university must use its overwhelming presence to make itself part of the community, not merely an incidental presence.
One admirable provision in the plan is in its goal of improving K-12 education in the area by "adopting" Paint Branch Elementary. Such efforts must be encouraged and expanded. Ultimately, the way the university will be a part of the community is if faculty members want to live in College Park instead of in Potomac or Rockville. The plan recognizes this fact, but in its current form, does not put forth specific ways to address it.
What is to be done now?
One aspect of this process that has been unequivocally positive has been the way in which Farvardin and his committee have consistently solicited feedback from the university community. While comments on the website of the plan are no longer requested, the provost has been presenting the salient features of the plan to various bodies, including the University Senate. And tomorrow, there will be a town hall meeting for students and faculty to discuss points of the plan.
It is easy to make the claim that the university is too big to care about the feelings of individual students. But when such opportunities as this are given, there is no excuse not to take them. By submitting concerns or comments on the strategic plan, the student body has a legitimate and important chance to influence how the university changes over the next 10 years.
Submit a letter to the editor or post a comment below.
Be the first to comment on this story