April 30, 1998
In attendance: Tom Ellett, Sandra Hurd, Horace Smith, Suzy Nelson, Adrea Jaenig, Susan Bonzi, Kelley Bishop, Anastasia Urtz, Dave Potter, Bill Pollard
Tom indicated that Suzy Nelson would report on Greek Life before starting the subcommittee discussion. Suzy distributed handouts on the study of the impact of Greek membership on academic achievement (GPA) and retention rate and on the Division of Student Affairs assessment approach and assessment activities for 1997-1998. It is clear (1) that affiliation with a Greek organization is related to high retention and (2) that, over the course of a student's undergraduate career, affiliation with a Greek organization does not have a detrimental effect on GPA. However, belonging to any number of other organizations may have a similar relationship with such positive outcomes. The key question is how to get students involved in the kinds of organizations that support the vision and core values of the University. We need to start where students are.
In the Division of Student Affairs they have begun to ask deeper questions that focus not just on satisfaction, but on impact. They have begun to ask about the purpose of activities and about the outcomes to which they aspire. They realize that (1) what they do and what they don't do has an effect, (2) what each areas does has an influence on the other areas of the division, and (3) they need to share what they have learned, and use that information to drive decisions. In addition, they need to ground practice in theory or data.
Bill Pollard asked, what would it be like without student affairs? Where he first taught, the faculty members were the student affairs staff. There has to be something about SU so that whatever we do with students here makes them a cut above everyone else. Assessment can help us achieve that goal.
These questions were raised: how do we involve people outside of the classroom? How should we focus our energies? How do we not limit our conversation about what goes on in other areas outside the classroom? Where do we go from here? What do we want to know? What do we already know?
The handout on assessment activities for 1997-1998 lists studies that track need, services provided, attendance, and satisfaction. They do not track involvement consistently in areas other than Greek Life and, therefore, can not relate such involvement to retention and learning. They do not study alumni who were or were not involved as students. Perhaps we should organize some focus groups to gather information on the impact of involvement on current students and alumni. Questions: How do we mediate what students experience? What happened while they were here that they later realize had an impact? Did we make a difference? What made a difference? How did we influence changes in students? Did we influence changes in them regarding development in ways that they wanted to develop? Are there some tangible or intangible things in our structure that make for certain experiences: residence life structure (pattern of residence assignments), admission to different schools or colleges, the Dome, Skytop apartments, Greek Life, student organizations, etc. (These areas suggest an overlap with the Retention Council. In this regard, Horace Smith distributed a copy of the Retention Council Issues for Discussion.)
We should consider studies that look at such characteristics as citizenship, independence, social consciousness, ethical development, and other values. These studies should be based on answers to the questions: what do we want students to be like when they "emerge" from their undergraduate careers? Is there something unique about an SU grad? Are there some intangible characteristics that get to the heart of what it means to get an education (to be educated)?
It would be helpful if we could regularize a process of having students reflect on their experiences (such as that proposed regarding the essay of aspiration).
We have to strike a balance between what influence we want to or should have and what students want to achieve. There is a tension between our expectations and those of students. We can put before them experiences, but how they react is up to them (above a minimum standard of civility). We have to set these standards and clearly communicate them. (We have a shot when they come in and when they leave.) We have to know, who are our students and what expectations do they bring with them?
We need to help them see threads among experiences such as violence (e.g., home, family, community, society).
We need to help them connect the SU academic and student affairs worlds. There are some areas where there is a definite separation between academic units and student affairs offices. Everyone is in their own pocket. There is no dialog. We need to help students reflect on their experiences. Students' way of learning is not compartmentalized the way we're organized. They don't know or can't see the connections. They are confused. How do we help them pull it together and how much is it students' responsibility to pull it all together? Is their education about what someone else wants or expects or about what they want?
We are good at presenting a thesis and stimulating antithesis, but often we do not help students with synthesis! We need to be there to help student synthesize. We have to create environments that let that happen, one student at a time. (Regarding this topic Peter Gray distributed, How I Really Learned to Live at Cornell by Craig Gfeller, which appeared in the Agriculture and Life Sciences News, a publication of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, May 1998).
We don't all have to agree on our expectations for students, but there is some point where it's counterproductive if we don't at least know what each other thinks and expects. For example, can we agree that there is a need for students to be able to solve problems so that they don't come up to a brick wall and do nothing? Many courses and student affairs programs teach problem solving.
We also should try to connect resources and needs of faculty members and student affairs staff. To do this we need increased communication between them and increased formal and informal opportunities for interaction in meaningful situations (e.g., mixed committees and task forces). We need a plan to identify resources campus-wide and ways to communicate what we're all doing. A good example is the learning communities project that combines academic and students affairs staff. Other opportunities may be around advising or the presentation of training sessions for students and staff.
We should come up with a set of questions, which will help us to be more reflective and intentional. Faculty members could help identify research questions related to problems or areas of concern identified by student affairs staff. Perhaps we can identify a theme of the year and develop research studies and student affairs programming around it, for example, student self-actualization. We could design programs to foster this and assessment studies to determine how and if it's happening. Another way to integrate efforts may be through Freshman Forum and other gateway courses, which faculty members and student affairs could co-teach.
We have a very diverse environment related to students and what they experience. We have to look at who we are teaching. Our students are more than demographics. There is no simple response. We have to identify the similarities among faculty and students and staff regarding their background, experience, ethnicity, race, home and family situation, first generation college, economic situation, etc. so that we can offer students support.
What should SU be like in the 21st century given who our students are today? We need to hold conversations among faculty members and student affairs staff around this question.
Meeting notes: Peter J. Gray