Enzerink GS: Helping grads helps undergrads
Will the strategic plan benefit undergraduates? The question can be answered succinctly: yes. While the phrasing presupposes there are discrete interests for the constituencies within the University, most commitments made in the plan will reverberate beyond the body that receives actual funding. It is not competition, but rather cooperation that defines the University.
One example of such impact is the ambition articulated to give graduate students the resources to become “more effective teachers.” The ability to fully devote time to teaching is directly contingent upon funding. All of this acquires extra immediacy if the University decides to go forward with the proposed “modest growth” in the size of its student body, as the liberal arts are grounded in low student-faculty ratios and close personal mentorship.
Let me start by saying this: Being a graduate student is a privileged position. Coming from a large public university, I am cognizant of the fact that being at Brown multiplies the privilege. I get to pursue what I love, work with some of the smartest, most encouraging people I’ve met — faculty members and peers — and work to push the boundaries of understanding. I get to share my knowledge through a variety of media, from publishing to conferences. But I mostly get to share it through teaching. I am a new graduate student, still — perhaps naively — invested in the idea that teaching and researching are not only compatible but in fact enhance each other. I count the days until I can start being a teaching assistant and talk with undergraduates about topics I think matter.
But this requires that I have the time to immerse myself in such dialogues.
Undergraduates frequently ask me what graduate students do on a day-to-day basis. As a first-year student, I’m somewhat of the odd one out. But picture this scenario, elevated to an almost mythological status in the graduate community: It is 11 p.m. You are reading for comprehensive exams while trying to figure out how to keep your apartment for the summer. The devil on your shoulder looks a lot like the National Science Foundation chair, reminding you that job prospects are abysmal and that the last thing you need is a loan because you wouldn’t be able to meet your five-year deadline. On your desk is a sizeable stack of lab reports or papers waiting to be graded.
Naturally, self-interest will prevail — not for lack of good intention, but with the prospect of a student loan ominously looming overhead. Grading might get short shrift, let alone writing elaborate constructive criticism. This obviously sells all parties short.
If Brown wants excellence in research and teaching, it needs to alleviate the tensions between scholar and teacher. This is why the extra funding going to the graduate programs will benefit undergraduates just as much as graduate students. In short, it will buy them time. Time that graduate students can spend with them or on them as teachers.
I’d like to think a one-on-one conversation with a graduate TA or instructor on how to avoid those pesky run-on sentences, on how to read that 18th-century primary source or on how to go from lab data to an argument is a lot more helpful than reading the MLA handbook or Schmoop. It is direct contact with faculty and graduate instructors that will benefit undergraduate students the most, and vice versa.
When I think about my time in school, the first thing that comes to mind is not the essay on the Frankfurt School or the “Sopranos” episode I watched for class — yes, I was a humanities major — but the professor who showed me how texts spoke to each other and how I could analyze them in a meaningful way. The buzzword for tools such as these is “transferable skills,” and they are only cultivated through close personal interaction.To give undergraduates the time they deserve, graduate students need continued and expanded support from the Graduate School.
This is what the strategic plan commits to, and I hope the administration will keep its promise when it starts filling in the framework proposed in it. As Provost Mark Schlissel P’15 recently said in a different context, “the devil’s in the details.” The plan holds significant promise for the undergraduate community and not just under the section that carries its name.
Suzanne Enzerink GS is in the American Studies department, and likes teaching so much that she spent one year doing it before coming to Brown.
Montes '16: Plan shortchanges undergrad education
The strategic plan is probably not good for undergraduates.
Brown is known for its undergraduate focus. It is what attracts prospective students and what sets us apart from rival schools. But President Christina Paxson’s newly released draft of her strategic plan seems to threaten that. It highlights graduate programs, campus expansion and an increase in student numbers.
These are all great things. Under Paxson’s vision, the University will thrive. But the question is, will it thrive in the right ways?
The plan states, “A major focus in the coming years will be to continue to improve the quality and visibility of Brown’s doctoral programs” and to “expand and diversify master’s education at Brown.” Essentially, the University wants to work on improving departments beyond undergraduates. Under the plan, Brown would evolve into a university known for its graduate institutions.
A focus on master’s and doctoral programs will change Brown’s undergraduate center. The University will put essential resources towards graduate programs, which will hamper our undergraduate experience. With this change in priority, graduate student needs may be priotized over those of undergraduates. While this will probably increase our national recognition and prestige, I can’t help but wonder — do we really need it?
Brown’s foundation is its undergraduate core. It is a university devoted to providing an intimate academic setting for its students. Why change that? The plan seems to call for changes that could transform Brown permanently.
Paxson also wishes to increase the number of undergraduates, graduate students and faculty each year, expanding the campus in order to facilitate these changes. Brown will become bigger. An increase in students and an extension of the College Hill campus could harm our undergraduate experience. With more students, Brown will become less intimate, a quality the University prides itself on.
In addition to its goals, the plan’s omissions alone hurt undergraduates. The lack of details in regards to financial aid reveals where the University’s priorities currently are.
Changes are coming, and we can only hope that what defines Brown will remain constant.
Jessica Montes ’16 can be reached at jessica_montes@brown.edu.
Isman '15: Undergraduates must trust administrators
The publication of President Christina Paxson’s strategic plan has caused doubt and confusion rather than the desired confidence and support. The student body seems unhappy with many of the things that were left unsaid or remained vague. But we have to put more faith in our university’s leader and believe that whatever she is planning will be for the best of the student body.
I believe that the vagueness of the plan could work to our advantage. As a university, Brown has always been known for its focus on undergraduate education. The shift from referring to Brown as a university-college to just a university is a result of the growth we have already undergone. Additionally, it represents the openness to continued growth and expansion of our global influence, both of which are part of Brown’s mission. Paxson is not going to change what Brown stands for: its amazing undergraduate experience. The emergence of stronger and larger graduate programs means that we will be attracting brighter minds to our campus. This could be a huge benefit to undergraduates, who would get to work with faculty members at the forefront of their fields.
Paxson acknowledges the possibilities that this opens for undergraduates by saying that “we will continue to emphasize close interactions between students and faculty.” Her ideas for increasing the liberal learning curriculum and creating sophomore seminars as well as new undergraduate courses prove that she has undergraduate education in mind when discussing Brown’s future.
This is not a large change from what the University stands for today. The plan strives to mainstain Brown as an institution of higher learning respected throughout the world.
The plan includes ideas to connect Brown courses with actual international fieldwork, mainly through Undergraduate Teaching and Research Awards. These programs provide students with the possibility of putting the skills they learn in classrooms to use without having to work without pay. They allow students to continue learning what they want and to make use of the Open Curriculum at their discretion, even in the summer months. This will lead to a wider range of possible internships and research opportunities for undergraduates.
The separation of Brown into an undergraduate hub on College Hill and a graduate space in the Jewelry District and downtown will not harm undergraduates. In fact, a common complaint from many undergraduates today is that there is not enough space for classes and student groups. Paxson’s plan to increase the availability of these spaces will mean more opportunities for students to enjoy all that Brown has to offer. There will be less competition with graduate students for space on College Hill, which is undoubtedly a good thing.
The planned changes for Brown all involve undergraduates in some form or another — this plan was drafted with us in mind. While a large part of the plan focuses on graduate programs, it seems unfair and selfish for the undergraduate population to expect the plan to be completely centered on us. Brown also must focus on the improvement of its professional schools. Though Brown is an undergraduate-focused institution, the University is not just for undergraduates. We have to remember that Paxson’s plan is not proposing changes itoBrown’s mission and focus — it is trying to improve them.
Sami Isman ‘15 wishes everyone were more positive. She can be reached at samantha_isman@brown.edu.
Upadhyay '15: Plan ignores key student needs
The strategic plan in its current form is insufficient in meeting undergraduate student needs and is downright unrealistic. It fails to propose improvements to critical concentrations, doesn’t key in on the most relevant student concerns and glosses over funding requisite to make these changes.
President Christina Paxson emphasizes further developing the humanities in conjunction with medical education, creative arts and a few other disciplines. Yet little to no attention is given to Brown’s economics concentration. Since 2009, economics has been the University’s most popular concentration. Because Brown doesn’t have an undergraduate business degree, those interested in finance and business flock to these courses to learn about corporate finance, investments and markets. Compound that with the near-full enrollment in classes such as ENGN 0090: “Management of Industrial and Nonprofit Organizations,” ENGN 0900: “Managerial Decision Making” and ENGN 1010: “The Entrepreneurial Process: Innovation and Practice,” which attempt to teach basic managerial decision-making and case study analysis, and Brown is left with insufficient resources to meet growing demand from its students. Paxson does not necessarily need to create an undergraduate business degree, but doing something to offer real management courses to the droves of Brown students interested in the material would be appreciated.
The strategic plan does not propose serious changes to two important student concerns: housing and food. Renovations to the Sharpe Refectory and unnamed dorms are mentioned, but this should be a focal point, not a side note. Not only are items at many of Brown’s eateries marked up for the sheer purpose of matching the value of one meal credit, such as sandwiches at the Blue Room and Josiah’s, but the quality of food offered also pales in comparison to what’s served at surrounding restaurants on Thayer.Street. Making changes to existing dining halls isn’t enough. Paxson needs to find a way for Brown students to get a wider selection of quality food, even if it means bringing in outside enterprises like Stanford University has done.
Serious changes need to be made to Brown’s housing, as well. The quality discrepancy between dorms has ballooned in recent times. While Metcalf Hall and Miller Hall boast spacious personal bathrooms with finished sinks, Graduate Center bathrooms are filled with shoddy light fixtures and cramped showers and stalls, all expected to be cleaned by students. Some dorms come with lounges on every floor, while others don’t even have a communal area for their residents. This growing inequity leads to student stress over the housing lottery, since a randomly assigned number determines a student’s quality of housing. This is a matter that deserves more than one line in the plan. Paxson should be forthright in outlining which of Brown’s dorms she intends to renovate, identifying to what degree these changes will address some of the issues listed above and setting a strict timetable to follow.
Without giving any direct cost estimates, calculations or projections, the strategic plan claims it will do everything from fostering Brown’s educational programs to expanding and diversifying the faculty to becoming fully need-blind. Paxson claims funding will come from new revenue streams, grants, donations and cost control.
A shorter way of saying this is higher tuition and student fees to subsidize the University’s expenditures.
Look no further than Brown’s 5.6 percent expansion of financial aid for fiscal year 2014 enacted last February. The change was accompanied by a 4 percent increase in total undergraduate tuition and fees, raising them to $57,232 per year. Given that the University’s balance sheet and endowment are significantly smaller than those of other Ivy League institutions, this likely won’t change on the basis of a vague, eleven-page plan. The administration will almost definitely pass increased costs on to students.
If they’re going to do so, then they should at least focus on undergraduate needs. The strategic plan should enrich Brown’s economics program, genuinely address housing and food problems and maintain its overall ethos of making Brown need-blind and socially responsible. Until it does that, I don’t see how it can have any serious positive impact on the undergraduate body.
Jay Upadhyay ’15 can be reached at jay_upadhyay@brown.edu.
ADVERTISEMENT
