Report on Activity of Strategic Student Involvement Committee, Graduate Student Council, Spring 2007 Submitted to: Academic Affairs Committee, Board of Trustees Deans and Faculty Executive Committee This report highlights themes that have emerged throughout the spring semester in continuing discussions and key events organized by the GSC Strategic Student Involvement (SSI) Committee and the GSC more broadly. Our goal is to clarify and highlight students’ priority issues, as well as document our understanding of discussions that have taken place with the Administration and progress toward resolving particular challenges that we have faced this year. The main body of this report consists of three sections, which roughly trace chronological activity of the GSC and SSI committee during the spring semester:
GSC and the SSI committee have worked hard to maintain a culture of problem solving, to reach enough specificity in defining student concerns to be able to construct positive initiatives for change. We hope that by clarifying and documenting progress made to date, we can continue constructive dialogue between students and administration and set realistic goals, timelines, and follow-up plans for continued improvement in our campus community. I. STUDENT PRIORITY ISSUES – PROVOCATIVE PROPOSITIONS MEETING The numbered themes below represent the collected opinions and priorities from school-based focus groups and surveys that took place in the fall semester, with additional elements from the Imagine CGU reports. Seven of the eight CGU schools participated in surveys and focus groups that contributed ideas to the improvement of their specific schools as well as the University as a whole. There was surprising consistency among the school focus group reports, as the themes below appeared repeatedly. These themes were discussed at the “Student Provocative Propositions” meeting, held 1. Implementing “student-centeredness” as outlined in Imagine CGU report a. Student engagement & participation in defining student-centered approaches to new initiatives, positive changes; ensuring student satisfaction into the future, through planning and implementation processes b. STRUCTURED MECHANISMS FOR STUDENT INPUT INTO NEW INITIATIVES 2. Student funding, tuition increase issues a. ISSUES OF TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN BUDGETARY PROCESSES (especially vis-à-vis tuition and doctoral study fee increases) b. Funding for research c. University-based funding for conferences (beyond the competitive GSC travel awards, which are insufficient) d. Funding for dissertations e. Tuition support in general, fellowships f. Consistency of TA/RA funding across schools (Some schools give support to doctoral study fee students, some do not) 3. Increased faculty and course availability as well as course schedule coordination a. FACULTY HIRING & STUDENT INVOLVEMENT, TRANSPARENCY, NOTIFICATIONS b. Core courses offered more frequently (and offered in the summer also) c. 3 year predictable core course cycles to allow for advanced planning; notice of faculty sabbaticals/absences in advance d. Consistency between course catalog and actual courses offered e. Clarify/improve relationship with 5-Cs; resource-sharing issues (this is already a priority for President Klitgaard) 4. Support for existing programs and sufficient faculty attention a. “Truth in advertising” – marketing material should not sell programs that are not supported--several schools delineated examples of this dynamic. Sense of being “conned” into coming to CGU only to find lack of support for a program that was highlighted in recruiting process, but lacks sufficient faculty and resources. Marketing issue, acceptance issue, recruiting issue, department and faculty support issues b. Improvements in advising, ensuring that all students have access to faculty time, not just students who have an “in” with particular professors 5. Career advancement and education a. Streamline relationship between three overlapping spheres of career support activity: PFF, Career Mgmt office, and school based outreach program based on SBOS model of two devoted staff for alumni and career/research opportunity outreach. (Please see third section of this report for more comprehensive proposal to address this item.) b. Teaching opportunities and relationships with 5-Cs (drop PFF requirement to TA at Colleges); and formal administrative coordination of offsite teaching opportunities c. Structured resource centers/staff at each school for customized “student connectedness” – coordinate stu/fac research opps, research institutes, connect students with research funding and training in research grant writing, internships specific to each school (SBOS model) d. Job fairs and career planning, better coordination with PFF, not restricted to Fellows e. Working with departments to orient new students to customized “academic career planners” – timelines, benchmarks to strive for in years 1-3+ (e.g. research tools to get started, when to start presenting papers at conferences, submitting for publication, initial career searches/applications, job talks, etc) f. PFF overhaul, make it more available to all students. Many students very dissatisfied with Fellows program, that it was not worth time expended, and that suggestions for improvement fell on deaf ears (Need focus group on PFF) 6. T-Course & Transdisciplinarity in general; rethinking engagement across schools a. Broad support within all schools for rethinking the structure and policies regarding the T-Courses; making it work better for students – how to define “student centered” with regard to T-issues b. Every department should have a Trans-D advisor that knows the classes and requirements at other schools, and can offer genuine advising on constructing cross-school fields and degrees. Must be a designated person whose responsibility is to seek out schedules, degree requirements, and to know the schedules/course offerings at other schools c. As above, better coordination between and among administrations of each program d. Implementing the “modular” t-courses, making it easier to apply Trans-D coursework to particular fields e. T-Credits instead of T-courses – credits for taking courses at other CGU schools that may more closely apply to fields than currently required T-Courses f. T-courses could be project-based, problem-centered, applied to “real world problems” 7. Physical space issues a. Lockable, individual study space, especially for ABDs b. Better & more student spaces to meet, study, hang out – lounges with more resources – social, community, dialogue across schools c. Emergency and stop gap maintenance for student housing – final wireless solution? d. More outdoor seating with tables for conversation e. Art building leak 8. IT issues a. More email & storage space b. Improved “Claremont Conversation/Imagine CGU” website to include blog, CGU planning docs, space for creating new, innovative conversations c. Access to IT resources for Botany program 9. Additional potential projects to improve student experiences a. Structured mentoring programs at each school, cohort systems b. Dissertation groups at each school c. Summer “math/quantitative bootcamp” for incoming students d. Work study jobs in Hagelbargers to support extended hours e. Optional meal plans to eat at 5-C’s, or discounts for grad students f. PFF issues II. OUTCOMES OF TUITION AND BUDGET DISCUSSIONS After such a productive year and the positive, inclusive dialogue surrounding “Imagine CGU”, the symbolism of the tuition increase and the disproportionately high increase in the doctoral study fee was experienced as a major blow to students who felt excluded from the conversation. Students from every school expressed a great deal of angst, anger, and cynicism in scores of communications to the GSC. The fee increase was simply the “straw that broke the camel’s back,” underscoring a perception among many students that the Imagine CGU day was simply window dressing to mask much deeper problems, including lack of resources, support for students, and appreciation of student’s deep financial sacrifice to attend programs that they perceive to be falling apart at the seams. GSC and the SSI committee worked very hard to combat the deep cynicism accumulated from previous administrations, and continued to emphasize the capacity at CGU for students to solve problems by taking initiative and promoting constructive dialogue throughout the tuition increase discussions. Nevertheless, the emotion surrounding the fee increase unfortunately strained the relationship with the administration. The issue highlighted the importance of transparency, and clear, timely, and inclusive communication with students on issues that affect them. It raised concerns about the implementation and operationalization of the “inclusive, collegial culture” emphasized at Imagine CGU. It is not the intent of this report to repeat the conversations that have taken place since the announcement before spring break, but rather to document the constructive outcomes and agreements that resulted, in hopes of maintaining an open dialogue and clear understanding by all parties to the agreements and commitments that have been made, by both students and administration. 1. Outcome of breakfast with President Klitgaard The majority of students at this meeting felt very positive about the willingness of the administration to listen to student concerns of which they had been previously unaware. Most students left the meeting feeling that we had made significant progress toward mutual understanding. While students were disappointed at the lack of specificity regarding opportunities to participate in critical decision-making processes, there was a sense of optimism that the discussion would continue, and that genuine effort would be made to “ease in” current doctoral students, gradually increasing the rate. Students recorded the following outcomes from this breakfast meeting: a. Administration commitment to greater sensitivity to student perspective, operationalized by restructuring communication around tuition increases and financial decisions that affect all students II. Greater and more timely information sharing on major expense items such as faculty hires, and especially revenue issues related to tuition and fee increases III. Exploration of involving students in appropriate decision-making committees and processes b. Exploration of possible “grandfathering” of current doctoral students at lower doc study fee rate c. Ensuring that all doctoral students receive value for doc fees II. Commitment to examine issues of faculty advising to ensure that all students receive sufficient advising III. Commitment to implement student suggestions for improvements in services to doctoral students (see last section of this document) 2. Outcome of budget meeting with Bill Everhart This meeting served as a very important step toward relieving student concerns about budget transparency. We would like to thank the administration and Bill Everhart in particular for taking the time to go through the full budget with the entire GSC and broader student community. The conversation was open and constructive, and resulted in several agreements that went a long way toward repairing the disappointment experienced by students after earlier communication.
a. Commitment to hold more meetings with GSC at critical junctures in budget planning process b. Meetings held with entire GSC, not just officers c. First meeting gathers input from students, second (January) meeting presents more limited options to students for input into final decision-making, before budget materials are mailed to the Board of Trustees 3. Outcome of Town Hall meeting on Wednesday, April 25 a. Commitment to resolve parking lot and parking issues b. Follow-up on change of bus route since there is no longer a stop close to CGU, which is an increased difficulty for our students. c. Understanding of symbolic nature of reaction to tuition and doc fee increases – not about the money, more about communication style, transparency, bad timing after Imagine CGU and just before spring break. Fee increase as symptomatic of resource problems that leave students feeling that programs are not supported; programs and even whole departments are collapsing due to lack of faculty III. SPECIFIC PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVED SERVICES FOR DOCTORAL STUDENTS Many of the specific suggestions for improvements in student services are referenced in the “provocative proposition themes” listed in the first section of this report. These themes will be taken up by next year’s GSC administration, and we look forward to many constructive follow-up conversations. Specific to services for doctoral students vis-à-vis the recent tuition discussion, three proposals have been raised. We are pleased by the dialogue with the administration to date on progress related to two of these specific proposals, and look forward to implementing the third, which may require additional conversations regarding systemic, institutional issues of streamlining the compartmentalization that is antithetical to our mission of crossing boundaries. a. Diagnosis of problems with advising structure, understanding why some students are dissatisfied with the level of attention they receive from advisors prior to and during dissertation phase. We are pleased that some students are already involved in improving survey designs and look forward to a more specific, jointly-designed action plan to address this issue. b. Free audits for doctoral students, i.e. audit classes listed on transcript with no corresponding fee. We recognize and appreciate that this proposal has already been implemented so that ABD students can take one free audit class per semester. c. Improvements in career services, specifically, streamline three overlapping spheres of activity: Career Management, PFF, and most importantly, School-based outreach activity. GSC would like to advance a proposal to better coordinate “student-centered" customized (as in per school) career advancement and "student connectedness" (as the language in the Imagine CGU report uses) for every student at CGU. Each school would have a job/internship/research grant “outreach coordinator” and “alumni outreach” staff, modeled on SBOS’s excellent program. SBOS students and alumni maintain a tight community and boast a tremendous level of school loyalty, in no small part due to the ongoing professional networking that occurs through the outreach efforts of this excellent program. Planning for implementation at the other schools must occur at the university level, while simultaneously involving the deans of each school to determine exactly how to structure the program for their specific needs. Until such time as resources can be allocated in the macro budget, staffing could at least start with RA's assigned to each school to do a job similar to John Lavelle's at SBOS. Perhaps even more importantly, the program would involve a massive coming together and major coordination of the three now independent spheres of related activity, i.e. the Career Management Office, any school-based efforts that currently exist, and the PFF program. (Interestingly, John Lavelle of SBOS also works for Laurie Richlin and could provide detail on that as well.) We envision a central website, with a student-centered approach to finding the right service provider, structured by questions that a typical student would ask, such as "where do I go to get help finding a teaching job at a local community college?" "what other jobs are there in my field?" "how do I write a research grant to do my dissertation work?" "where can I find a part-time internship that relates to my research interests?" This kind of systematic, efficiency-enhancing, close coordination at the university level would require a mandate from the administration, to ensure consistent implementation. IV. FOLLOW UP PLANS, GOAL SETTING AND TIMELINES GSC plans to follow up on the above mentioned agreements over the summer and continuing into the fall. We hope to work with the administration to determine a realistic timeline for implementing the ideas and agreements mentioned in this report. It is the goal of the GSC and the SSI committee to report back to students on progress toward specific improvements in services, such as the free audit for doc study students, improvements in coordination of career services and school based outreach, specific meeting dates for budget decision-making, and other substantive proposals mentioned here. In addition, GSC plans to continue its own research and planning process regarding the following topics: 1. GSC plans to circulate a survey regarding the T-Course, which will provide data for additional suggested reforms to the T-Course program, as mentioned above in section I. GSC plans to seek a meeting with Dr. Martin in the fall to coordinate discussions. 2. GSC also plans to seek out and develop relationships with key committees instrumental in budget planning and other critical decision-making bodies at the university level, and explore additional opportunities for interaction and input into various Board of Trustees processes. 3. GSC is exploring the possibility of surveying all PFF alumni as a prelude to a focus group session on what can be done to improve the program, perhaps with a survey over the summer and focus groups begin in the fall, etc. This is in the early development phase and GSC would welcome further dialogue with the administration about potential plans to research and address this issue 4. GSC will continue to follow up on logistical and transportation issues such as parking and the Foothill transit bus stop, in conjunction with Dean Whitaker. 5. Additional follow up plans will be developed by the next GSC administration. GSC is pleased with the progress toward real improvements in campus life accomplished in this unique transitional year, and would like to thank the administration for devoting time to improving communication with students, and working to understand the unique student perspective on “student-centered graduate education.” We look forward to rewarding and productive dialogue in the coming year. Strategic Student Involvement Committee Members: Karen May – Chair Tharon Smith – President, GSC Gerard Pacificar – Vice President, GSC Max Fruend – Representative, SBOS Jackie Hidalgo – Representative, SOR Yolanda Romanello – Representative, SES
Ideas and Provocative Propositions: Student-Centered Initiatives (use back of page if more space is needed) I. Project Title:______________________________________________________ II. Provocative Proposition & Brief Description: III. Who needs to be involved – stakeholders and roles (staff/faculty/student/admin, etc): IV. Time Horizon, i.e. time to implement (check one): ÿ Short Term, immediate: can finish within one semester ÿ Medium Term: 1-2 years ÿ Long Term: 3+ years V. Budgeting considerations, additional resource inputs
VI. Outcomes: How does this relate to ongoing plans or themes from VFS or Imagine CGU? VII. Outputs: measurements of success VIII. Implementation Map – steps needed to begin implementing
Contact/point person, email and phone:_________________________________________________ Appendix b: School-based statements on tuition/fee increase dialogue – submitted before first breakfast meeting with President Klitgaard I. SPE: SPE students recognize the need for standard tuition increases to accommodate inflation and certain cost increases. Beyond this standard increase, however, students are requesting a greater degree of transparency and accountability with regard to fee increases. Specifically, students request further information regarding:
Further,
II. The
|