Dominique López-Piper
Dr. Martin
Critical Synthesis: What Good Is A University Without Its Students?
Without students to bring it to life, a university would just be a collection of buildings without meaning. In acknowledging that, one would think that students hold the most power and influence over a university’s actions, but that is not always the case, especially not at the University of Mary Washington (UMW). Using the Report on the Alternative Course Model (ACM), the ACM Faculty Straw Poll Results, the Budget Plan, and the article on students protesting the tuition hike, I will discuss how these foursources all demonstrate actions done for the good of incoming students, not current students, show the little say and influence given to current students, and exhibit the tendency of those in positions of power at UMW to assert the changes they are backing as being beneficial to everyone when they actually have ulterior motives to gain prestige and economic progress for their own benefits. The focus will be mainly on connecting the levels of power at UMW to both the ACM and the budget plan, but I will also draw from the article on the tuition hike protest and the Straw Poll taken to measure faculty opinion on adopting the ACM.
To begin, the University of Mary Washington’s Strategic Planning Task Force developed a report outlining the pros and cons of adopting an alternative course model that is structured around taking four 1-unit classes per semester. Implementing this new system would require students to take a total of 32 credits to graduate, instead of 120 credits. Also, there would be a lab component added to each class that allowed for additional time outside of regular instruction that could potentially be used to delve deeper into the subject at hand. While this new model was posed as something beneficial to all, the intricacies of the plan made it clear that it would benefit those in positions of power most of all and take advantage of the loyalties of current students in order to favor a more elite group of prospective students. The Straw Poll that is linked to it gathered information on the faculty’s opinion on adopting the ACM across disciplines and across each of the distinct colleges (business, arts and sciences, and education); the vast majority of faculty across the board opposed the ACM, but more members of the college of arts and sciences were in favor of it than members of the departments of business and education.
Next, to sum up the budget plan, the main changes for the 2015-2016 school year are to correct structural imbalances, provide an extra one million dollars in need-based student financial aid, increase the salaries of faculty and staff, support a full-time faculty for the new nursing department, allocate funds for the University Center, and to provide additional operating funds for the ITCC. This document also lays out a timeline for the changes listed above, shows the comparisons between our tuition and that of other schools, and provides a general breakdown of what tuition money goes towards. In response to these changes and to the approximately 400 dollar increase in tuition and over 1,000 dollar increase in overall student costs, students protested with fervor and anger at being pushed so far out of the loop (pg 7, Budget Plan). UMW Students United—a grassroots body of students troubled by financial inequality—spearheaded the protest and encouraged others to “speak out against tuition hikes” as well.
To begin, one of the most prominent weaknesses of the ACM is that it focuses more on attracting a prestigious, high-achieving group of incoming students—and keeping retention rates of these new students high—than on making sure current students are getting their voices heard and needs met (pg 7 ACM Report). This is evident in the construction of the ITCC and the Campus Center, which were created to capture the attention of a specific audience: high school students with high GPAs and standardized test scores who are willing to pay big bucks. On top of these renovations, there are several other projects being planned as well, such as updating the library and building a new performing acts facility (pg 17, Budget Plan). While the funds to construct these massive new buildings came out of our—current students’—pockets, they were not built with the intent of pleasing us, but rather of drawing in the new students who could bring more honor and status to UMW’s name. The ACM even focuses more on teachers than students, listing one of its primary goals as lessening the workload for teachers (pg 7 ACM report); similarly, the budget plan’s very first request in made with the intent of increases the salaries of faculty and staff (pg 14, Budget Plan).
Moreover, those in power—such as the administration and the Board of Visitors—frame the ACM and the Budget Plan as conceptsthat will benefit everyone, when in reality, they are pushing these plans in order to gainprestige and to benefit their own careers. The ACM does not stay true to UMW’s values of integrity nor does it fall in line with the school’s general culture of wholesomeness or our friendly environment of encouraging peers. Instead, we are trying to be something we are not; one of the main reasons to adopt the ACM that is stated over and over is the desire to be more like Ivy League schools and other prestigious schools in Virginia. The budget plan falls into this same trap, as the goals of the administration come with a substantial price to pay; this price is not only large in amount, but also in the influence it has on changing UMW’s environment altogether. It would be one thing to aspire to be like a certain school because you admire the example they set through the success and goodness of their students, but it seems our goal is to be like them simply to gain that heightened level of prestige and to increase our endowment. In fact, when the task force asked students and faculty through the Straw Pollwhether they would want to adopt the ACM, the overwhelming majority did not want anything to do with it.
While we already spoke about the weakness that comes with longing for prestige without meaning, it could also be a strength that the ACM has the potential to give UMW a more prominent position in the hierarchy of Virginia’s universities (pg 7 ACM Report); the budget plan goes hand in hand with this, as the structures and programs vital to creating a school in this image of prestige come with a high financial burden. That said, even though the university you attend should not matter more than your character and real-world application of your skills in the job world, unfortunately, oftentimes it does. First impressions matter, and although it would be nice to get a chance to present yourself in person however you so choose to make an impact, sometimes the first thing a potential employer or grad school knows about you is the information they see on your application. Therefore, the name and weight that comes with the university you attended can impact your success further down the line in academia as well as in the working world.
Additionally, although the front end of the work and for adopting the ACM would be a huge hump to overcome along with the hefty budget to attract the students that the administration is targeting, it would simplify the process of registration in the long run and make our campus more striking and impressive (pg 7 ACM Report). To clarify, developing a model for the new structure of each major and each requirement within that major would take a tremendous amount of effort and dedication. However, requirements could become much more simple and streamlined if the plan for the ACM is as thorough in application as it is in theory (pg 5 ACM Report). Even though this new model could simplify the lives of students and professors down the line, we come back to the question of whether the cost that would come to those individuals in the present would be worthwhile; in thinking about making plans towards progress, you have to consider both those who will be affected in the long-term, but those who will feel the impact in the short-term as well.
Lastly, when it comes to gaps in the sources,the ambiguous nature of the “comp fees” in the budget plan immediately come to mind. These fees amount to over 5,000 dollars and there is no indication of where that money is going (pg 7, Budget Plan). This is another clear indication that administration takes advantage of its position of power and of the students that are already enrolled in the school to raise tuition without asking for student input. Instead of considering our interests, they act according to what they think would bring the most appealing group of students and the greatest amount of money to the school. This trend of keeping students out of the loop and under-informed gives the tuition hike protest even more validity. In the article about the protest, student Noah Goodwin eloquently explained that “this tuition raise doesn’t affect the board of visitors. It affects us, and we should have a say in our education.” This telling statement ties the idea that the element of power is not in the hands of the individuals it should be, but rather in the hands of a select few who make decisions from their own positions of privilege for the greater population of students, without considering their opinions and needs nearly enough.
All in all, while I see how the ACM and budget plan do have potential benefits, I think they only sound and seem appealing from afar, as the reasoning behind making these changes has far more to do with image than with staying true to the school’s morals. Additionally, instead of trying to keep a happy, rigorous environment for the students that are already enrolled here, these plans focus far more on prospective students, and for all the wrong reasons; the underlying theme that appears time and time again in the report has to do with attracting a new set of prestigious students that will bring a heightened sense of reputability and esteem to the school. To me, the presentation of both the ACM and the budget plan provides a clear indication that UMW is losing sight of its motto of being a place where “great minds get to work” and devaluing the substance of the students who are already here by aiming to attract better minds with bigger pockets.
Works Cited:
Straw Poll:
ACM:
Budget Plan:
Student Protest: