Southern Vermont College

I’ve watched every Olympics since I can remember and, unless I am mistaken, I’ve noticed a change in the coverage of the Games this time around. In the past, the commentators primarily focused on either those who medaled or those who were expected to medal and then failed to do so. The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat were the reigning themes. And yes, there are exceptions to this rule like Eddie the Eagle and the Jamaican bobsled team.  But, the coverage at the Winter Games in Vancouver seemed different somehow.

At the opening ceremonies, one commentator observed that for some athletes (and some nations), just being in the opening ceremonies was reward enough.  As the event coverage progressed, I have been struck by the repeated references to athletes achieving a “personal best.”  In speed skating, figure staking, ice dancing among other sports, the athletes were being measured against themselves.  Of course winning still matters but uber-winning seemed less important.

Take this example.

Joannie Rochette, the Canadian figure skater whose mother passed away unexpectedly in Vancouver, was heralded for her effort (both in the short and long skate).  Yes, it was terrific that she medaled but what seemed to matter was that she kept skating a personal best.  

This changed approach to Olympic coverage provides an important lesson for higher education – actually, for education more generally.  If we just focus on the gold, silver and bronze students, we fail to recognize the achievements of our “non-medaling” students and in so doing, we fail to honor their tangible progress.  In many ways, the progress of the struggling students is more remarkable and more rewarding than the continued excellence of the A+ student.

In my years as a law professor, I count among my biggest successes moving a student from a grade of “D –“ in his first course taught by me to a grade of  “A-” in the third course of mine.  It is not the grades themselves that matter; it is the learning evidenced by the improved grade.  And, for the record, law school grading is blind, so I had no way to detect the name of the student in the evaluation process.

I think this non-medaling approach can also inform how we grade our students’ work in courses.  If we use a blended average of the papers and tests and oral exams (assuming that the testing devices themselves are quality measures of skill acquisition), we favor the consistent student or at least the student whose first score is relatively strong.  And, we most assuredly disfavor the late starter.

If we were to weight the later tests more, then we are rewarding learning, which is  — assuming basic competency — what matters.  Dropping the lowest test score in another method.

Don’t get me wrong.  I am not suggesting for a minute that the student who progresses from an F to a C- in Anatomy & Physiology is entitled to progress into a nursing program.  Reflecting on the Olympics, the very presence of an athlete there signals basic competence; even the weakest Olympic athletic exhibited strong skills.

Consider two students: one student has test scores across the semester of 80, 82, 82 and 76 (the last grade awarded), for a blended average of 80. Another student has a starting score of 63 and then progresses to a 75, 85 and 97 (last grade awarded) for a blended average of 80. Which has evidenced the greatest progress and in which would one have the most confidence in terms of future trajectory?  I’d take the second student any time. 

It is unclear to me whether the shift in Olympic rhetoric has changed as a conscious effort to contextualize winning in light of our miserable economy or the death of the Georgian luger or the catastrophe in Haiti and now Chile. What is clear to me is that the current broadcasters are reframing and expanding the definition of winning. Yes, a gold medal is one way to win. But there are other ways.

Winning within higher education for vulnerable students has a lot to do with improvement and progression. Sure, there are vulnerable students who are academic Olympians and these students progress into some of America’s most elite institutions of higher learning.  But, there are other vulnerable students for whom for whom personal bests are important and continuing benchmarks on a pathway to learning and success.

With the Games over, the broader measure of winning promoted by the commentators in the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver is worth remembering and periodically circling back to.  It can help how we frame and evaluate winning in higher education.

In the current issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, Southern Vermont College and Bennington College are featured as two schools that are changing the paradigm for what it truly means to be a liberal arts college in the 21^st century. Both institutions think the “traditional” way is not working and have charted a new path.

 (Click here to read the article.)

SVC is committed to training the leaders of tomorrow to have critical thinking and problem solving skills.  With a liberal arts core, we are fostering learning through a laboratory, hands-on approach, rooted in engagement in the community and partnerships with those outside the walls of the institution.

The Chronicle article captures the essence of SVC, and I am pleased that, together with our neighbor Bennington College, we are seen as places that are working to provide quality higher education in a changing world.

Our students, faculty and staff can be proud that our story is being told. I, too, am proud.

Although it is most assuredly hackneyed to speak about transportable lessons learned from sports, I still cannot resist that temptation today.  In the past 36 hours, several things have occurred that demonstrate – yet again – what sports can teach us all.

Start with the story of Dutch Olympic speed skater, Sven Kramer (who already had a gold medal in his pocket).  A clear winner in terms of time in the 10,000 meter race, he ended the race on the “wrong side of the track” so to speak and his victory evaporated.

When he learned of his disqualification, he threw his goggles, he kicked a lane marker, he pushed away his coach’s arm from his shoulders, and he explicitly blamed the coach for the error.  While his frustration was understandable, this was hardly exemplary behavior. 

The Olympic athlete in question is young (23 years old).  Before listening to and following the instructions of his coach gesticulating on the side (the coach being the true “adult/advisor” here), the athlete actually was on the right track and on his way to an Olympic record time. He was clearly exhausted from the grueling race, which might account for his behavior. 

But, the rules are the rules, right?  Sven Kramer won but he really didn’t.

Here’s another example of a poor display – the NCAA website’s recent  advertisement for Focus on Families (now removed) which appeared in apparent violation of the NCAA’s own rules and commitment to diversity and inclusion.  And, then there is the Trinity College senior squash player and team captain who lost his composure in a championship match against Yale when he seemed to attack his opponent.

Now the counter-point example.

On Tuesday night, Canadian figure skater Joannie Rochette entered the Olympics short program just days after her mother died of a massive heart attack.  She had every reason to make mistakes; just getting onto the ice was an act of enormous courage.  And, she skated a program that, in terms of scoring, was a personal best and placed her in third place for the moment.

In an emotional landscape which often has no boundaries, Joannie Rochette actually followed  the rules.  She abided by the rules regarding mandated elements in a short program, the unspoken rule that when you are chosen to represent your nation – the host nation — at the Olympics, you perform no matter what and her personal rules in terms of how to grieve for and honor her mother. 

As one commentator put it, “Rochette may not earn gold. It’s even possible she won’t medal. But her effort Tuesday … night was a focused athlete overcoming the odds – both physically and emotionally – and letting sheer will and determination carry her through a performance.”

Here’s my point.  

Neither Sven Kramer, the NCAA nor the Trinity College athlete behaved like role-models – when we expected them to be just that.  Joannie Rochette was a role model when we would have been well-prepared for her not to be.  In short, in a situation where we would have permitted her to violate the rules, Joannie lived by the rules.  In so doing, she can teach all of us about not only talking about rules but embodying them.

Southern Vermont College’s Athletic Director, Chris Cruz, invited me to attend a panel at Williams College recently where she and the other panelists were to address the greening of collegiate athletics.  I have to admit that linking athletics and environmental sensibility was not a topic that was anywhere on my radar screen.

Chris spoke about the need to think about sustainability as part of social responsibility – which is what we strive to teach our students through athletics. Another panelist, Andrew Gardner, the coach of the Middlebury College Nordic Team, spoke about how his team was concerned about its environmental footprint and purchased carbon offsets to address the issue (conceding that this was akin to purchasing indulgences).  Another panelist, Robert Nutting, an owner of the Pittsburgh Pirates, spoke about waste at sporting events and the need to collect and then recycle the multitude of discarded products. 

The panelists chatted about teams walking — not driving — to practice, identifying a team member as a “green” coordinator and addressing the environmental impact of turf fields.  Someone mentioned Green Laces, a non-profit organization that encourages athletes to support the environment – evidenced by their wearing green shoelaces. 

I attended this panel only days after returning from the NCAA’s annual convention in Atlanta, an event attended by literally thousands of coaches, AD’s, college/university presidents and NCAA staff.  I have since learned that the NCAA is teaming up with the relatively new Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, an organization of colleges and universities in the United States and Canada, working toward achieving a sustainable future.

That linkage and new commitment notwithstanding, the NCAA convention itself, as best as I could tell, was hardly a paradigm of environmental sensitivity (despite some bio-degradable drinking cups).

Thousands of people flew to the event and took cabs or rented cars to get to the conference hotels.  No carbon offsets purchased – at least by me.  There were two specific meals for the college and university presidents, both of which seemed to be overflowing with more food than was necessary.  Then there were the conference handouts – plenty of paper (much of which gets discarded in the hotel rooms) and the official conference schedule, which was printed in color on heavy coated cardboard paper stock and spiral bound.  More waste.  And, each day, the NCAA printed and distributed a newsletter printed on glossy paper in color.  Maybe I shouldn’t go into the electricity burn as the projector in the Marriott Atrium beamed statistics about the NCAA as one rode up and down the elevator.

The Williams College panel got me thinking more and more about ways we could all improve in the environmental arena.  Now, I don’t want to pick on my friends at the NCAA, but I hope that this blog entry might encourage the largest organization related to collegiate sports to further their commitment to the environment and athletics by leading by example at prospective conferences. 

In the world of environmentalism, deeds speak much louder than words. And at next year’s NCAA conference, if the NCAA were to demonstrate sustainability actively, those very acts would open the door to serious conversations about the important connection between sustainability and athletics among coaches, AD’s, athletes and presidents. 

I look forward to the possibility of being at next year’s ‘greener’ NCAA convention.

Snow on the gate at Everett Mansion. photo by Alan Nyiri.

As we approach the start of the spring 2010 semester on Jan. 19th, I keep wondering why we (and other academic institutions) call it “spring semester.” At least in Vermont, where we are, it is hardly spring. Indeed, in Vermont, spring does not arrive until April – and that is when our spring semester is about to end.

Cynics among us might argue that we name it as a means of encouraging spring’s early arrival, as a form of wishful thinking. Perhaps for some but not so for me.

I adore winter. I like the cold. I like it when snow falls. I like winter sports (both the ones I do and the ones I watch.) I like the winter Olympics too. I like the way the snow sticks to the trees and other surfaces, and I adore the way our campus looks during the winter months.

So, to our students and staff, welcome back to SVC. Enjoy the start of the “spring” semester and your new courses. And of course, bundle up to stave off the cold, drive carefully and ski and snowboard safely. And, if you get cold and damp on your way to the Mansion, stop by my office where, from time to time, there is a fire in the fireplace to warm the body and encourage the soul.

Our son was recently set to fly from New York to Denver on a well-known carrier. When he logged online to obtain his seat, he faced an array of options – unbundled services that needed to be purchased separately and which, if purchased, would give him some clear benefits that did not come with the price of the original seat. He could buy more legroom. He could get an aisle seat. He could get priority lines for security and boarding. He could check his baggage more cheaply (baggage fees are pretty standard now), and he could use a special baggage check-in area to speed things along. You get the idea.

Colleges and universities have created something similar: there is a new push for separate fees for everything imaginable and the dollar amounts are not inconsequential, sometimes adding thousands of dollars to the cost of education.

Look at this list of published college and university fees at various institutions: a student life fee, technology fee, a course or lab fee, a single room fee, a graduation fee, a healthcare insurance fee (absent proof of other insurance). A quick search of several institutions reveals some newer types of fees and their amounts: ID card fee ($30 per card), freshman orientation fee ($400), laptop insurance fee ($170), athletic fee (approx. $211 for a full time student), infirmary fee ($410 whether one is sick or not), “college” fee ($12.50). Some colleges have an overall, undifferentiated student fee, which in some instances exceeds $1000.

Don’t get me wrong. Running a college/university is expensive. As we presently price tuition (and for institutions in states where the legislature fixes tuition), we cannot make ends meet. I appreciate that fees augment much needed institutional revenue. But, there is one key difference between the airlines and higher education in this fee push: most of the fees in higher ed are mandatory and most of the fees in the airline industry are not.

Sure, a student can forgo a lab or art course or a more expensive academic program and can choose to pay to live in a single room. Likewise, one can fly without checking luggage and eating onboard and pay to upgrade to business class.

But, in higher ed, most of the fees are not about student selection of optional luxury benefits — like more legroom on planes or a sandwich. Instead, these fees are a way of creating revenue without explicitly increasing tuition. Unlike the airline situation, you can’t attend (fly) without buying these “options.”

I am just wondering whether we would both be better served and would better serve our students if each institution just had one comprehensive price of attendance, which will necessarily be adjusted to reflect the various grant/scholarship options. My point is that there would be no added fees. No unbundling of services. One cost … all in. Think then about how students and their families could more easily compare and contrast real prices.

I appreciate that an all-in price for higher education will likely never happen on our campus or elsewhere. On the other hand, Southwest Airlines is making quite the statement by doing just what I am suggesting with respect to baggage fees: they aren’t charging separately for this service. Perhaps they are onto something.

In his best selling book Outliers: The Story of Success, Malcolm Gladwell observes that the presence of “concerted cultivation” accounts for the success of some students.  The more successful students had parents who worked hard to insure enrichment opportunities were regularly available (think summer programs, after-school activities, available books, travel, academic support and constant assurances of potential). 

 Gladwell’s observations offer something to the Higher Ed community, particularly for institutions like Southern Vermont College – which is working hard to insure the success for many first generation students.

 “Concerted cultivation” is something that can be provided by a college (belatedly in loco parentis). The irony is that in a tough economy, the very activities that enable success are the first and easiest to cut. (Read a recent article in Change Magazine by Dr. Gross)

These enrichment opportunities are the opposite of fluff.  The living and learning experience – the engagement opportunities where students connect to each other, to the community, to a faculty and staff member – are what enables success.

The recent Pell Institute study on success in progression from community colleges to four-year colleges, comes to the same conclusion, using different nomenclature.  For educational progression to occur, the study notes, there needs to be academic support, confidence building opportunities, engagement, and active learning. 

Sounds Gladwellian to me.

The challenge is how best to provide the needed cultivation and to make sure that it is the last, not first, thing to be jettisoned.

I enjoy writing about and sharing my thoughts on topics in higher education on my blog. But, I would be remiss if I didn’t periodically mention the latest Southern Vermont College news and upcoming events here too. I am delighted to announce that a colleague from my law professor days, Anita Hill (now a professor at Brandeis), has accepted an invitation to join the SVC Board of Trustees. Professor Hill brings a wealth of talent, experience and wisdom to SVC. She understands the needs of vulnerable and first generation students and brings extraordinary sensitivity to conversations on contemporary social issues. She also has a strong interest in healthcare and healthcare delivery systems and can help shape the future of SVC’s many healthcare initiatives.

Secondly, next week on Friday, December 11, we welcome Harvard professor and literary scholar Dr. Henry Louis Gates to our campus and to the Bennington Center for the Arts for a 7 pm lecture entitled, “Genealogy, Genetics and African American History”. I met Dr. Gates at the annual Council of Independent Colleges College Presidents meeting last January where he singled out Southern Vermont College as a place doing great things for first generation students here in Vermont. I invited him to campus, and he challenged us to become one of the first colleges in the country to utilize his innovative research on genealogy in our curriculum. SVC Provost Al DeCiccio has done this masterfully in the first year course he has taught this semester called, “Exploring Faces of Diversity: Building the ‘I am.I am from’ Exhibit at Bennington Museum.” The students enjoyed the research journey, and their exhibit is ready for viewing. You can read more about the class and the upcoming lecture in a recent Rutland Herald article.

Last but not least, we host two upcoming events on campus, geared towards putting students on the fast track to thriving careers, a worthy goal in these economic times. On Monday, Dec. 7, 5 – 7 pm, SVC will host a Healthcare Career Info Session in Greenberg Atrium, open to prospective students interested in learning about exciting educational and career opportunities in three thriving fields: nursing, radiologic technology and healthcare management and advocacy (and our Sim Lab will be open for viewing). A second info session, on Saturday, Dec. 12, is also for prospective students interested in learning more about the College’s programs.  Prospective students will learn about, among other things, Kindle learning, Sports Management and the Sim Lab.  The second event starts at 1 pm in Greenberg Atrium and caps off with a favorite campus activity, a Men’s Basketball game in the Field House, at 3 pm. Space is limited for both sessions so RSVP early at  SVC Admissions, 802-447-6304 or e-mail admissions@svc.edu.

 This is an exciting time at SVC, and I look forward to seeing many of you at the upcoming events.

I recently attended an event where I was surprised to hear the featured speaker refer to the field of nursing as a ‘pink ghetto’. The term was coined 30 years ago as a way to describe low paying jobs for women that limited their advancement and the quantum of professional respect they received. As applied to nursing today, this is a flawed term – an anachronism in the healthcare workplace.

At Southern Vermont College, we have both female and male nursing students training to become the healthcare leaders of tomorrow, and their prospective workplaces will be neither “pink” nor a “ghetto.” Indeed, these graduates comprise a critical part of our workforce.

Read the rest of this entry »

I participated in a recent conference sponsored by the New England Board of Higher Education, aptly titled “After the Crash: A New Reality for Higher Education.”  At this event, there was considerable discussion about how to navigate today’s educational landscape, given the state of the economy, state capacity to fund higher education, the costs of higher education, changing demographics and the Administration’s push for more degree recipients.

The data documenting the state of higher education do not paint a pretty picture, as observed by Dennis Jones, the president of the National Center for High Education Management Systems, a presenter at the conference. His most recent data for NCHEMS, which analyzes data on higher ed policy decisions, can be reviewed here. The Delta Project develops data and policy tools to improve productivity and public accountability for performance in secondary education. Click here for their latest reports.  

Read the rest of this entry »