Since becoming students at Saint Anselm College over three years ago, we have seen the Office of Residential Life and Education attempt to find new ways of engaging students. One program that they have instituted this year is the beginning of Residential Learning Communities. What that means is that three apartments in Father Bernard Court have been taken over so that twelve people (less than ¼ of 1% of the student population) can further a common interest by living together. In return for not having to participate in that God-awful Housing Lottery, these “RLCs” are supposed to provide significant programming and opportunities for the larger campus community. The idea of putting students in an apartment in order to foster a worthy interest and then to promote it to the student body is an admirable endeavor. In our experience, it only looks good on paper. Thus, we would like to pose a question to “Think BIG Think Green,” “The Art House,” and “The Un-Armed Allies”; what have you done for us lately?
A couple of years ago, the college began a Greening Initiative. We applaud this effort and want to do our part to help; in fact, we have. As members of the Knights of Columbus, we established the first effective recycling program on campus. Every Saturday, we borrow one of the physical plant trucks, collect recyclables from students in the Uppers, and then from the Goffstown Women’s Prison, finally bringing all of it to the Goffstown Transfer Station. Last year we recycled over 2,000 pounds of material receiving no assistance from any of the college’s three greening programs. Since the beginning of the semester, we have not seen anyone from Think Big Think Green, the Green Team and “Greening the College” at our weekly pick-ups. Frankly, this is an embarrassment. After Think Big Think Green sent a school wide email, simply with directions to the transfer station, the Knights decided to take it to the next level by offering to pick up the recyclables. Think Big Think Green is in its second year of existence and their actions have been non-existent. Where do the funds from the $3 Christmas cards go? If the money that is raised is used to provide recycling bins for each apartment, your mission would be realized. Where are the weekly greening tips we were promised? Guess they stopped after we were told to pick, not buy, flowers for Valentine’s Day only to realize that there was three feet of snow on the ground. What have you done for us lately? Where is the accountability? As for The Art House and The Un-Armed Allies, we’re not even sure of your purpose. Un-Armed Allies, we just figured out what your name was three days ago, let alone what you do. Art House, kudos on the Art Competition you are holding, that’s what you’re supposed to do. We would like to see more of both of your houses promoting events on campus and further integrating yourselves. However, now, we believe that you programs are draining funds from the college (a.k.a our tuition dollars) for not much return on our investment.
This is by no means meant to be a personal attack on the twelve people who want to further the missions of their houses. Again, the RLC programs sound good on paper; they simply need to be explored further. We hope that this article will help you realize that you not only have a programming, but a public relations problem as well. You could be doing many quality things; we just don’t know that they are happening. So please RLCs, we think you could do something great, so be like Nike, and just do it! In the meantime, we will continue to ask, what have you done for us lately?
The points that McCarty and Ricci underscore have a high resonance with calls for accountability. Accountability in higher education is a call that is echoed far and wide throughout the postsecondary spectrum: as tuition prices outpace the rate of inflation (when looking at the cost comparative in real dollars – dollars that have been adjusted for inflation) and resources become tighter both in a thinner economy and among institutional grants & endowments across the country, many people are pointing their calls for accountability in the direction of results in the allocation of educational resources.
ReplyDeleteConsequently, demanding data for these programmatic investments is a justifiable, but not always viable call. While residential learning initiatives across the country are certainly "de rigueur" these days in student life programs, measuring their quality has proven difficult, largely because there is a lack of a proper taxonomy to measure quality. For example, McCarty and Ricci voice their opinion on the outputs that these RLCs are believed responsible to produce. I wonder largely then “on what learning outcomes are the RLCs based on?” Said differently, are the RLCs predicated on the quality of the students entering the program or are they based on process – what is actually taking place within these communities? Do we know what kind of guidelines, stricture, and actionable goals are being held to this end of the bargain? In some ways, the RLC should seek to achieve multiple goals and realize these outcomes with greater agency. It should reflect an ongoing process aimed at understanding and improving learning experiences outside of the classroom while making expectations explicit and public; it should seek to systematically gather data, analyze, and interpret evidence to measure how these outputs are matching expectations.
In multiple ways, student learning is a goal that must be carried and supported by all members and stakeholders in the institution. It is too anecdotal, too “feel-good” to suggest that the establishment of three RLC programs can be called ultimately successful. It is too much of a stretch to create a program and suggest that such programs are benefiting students, producing clear educational gains, and representing an allocation of resources that reflect a wise investment without empirical evidence to systematically understand its accomplishments. I cannot say that the establishment of three RLC groups has been entirely without profit. There are cases of very strong engagement within the community, especially from the “Think Big, Think Green” group. The extent to which their outcomes are a result of their own talent and drive (as inputs) or their framework and scaffolding as developed by Residential Life (as process) unfortunately will remain a debate as long as there are no benchmarks to measure outcome relative to inception.
My point here is to neither side with those who would seek the demise of the RLC program nor is it to suggest that what is being done is enough. However, when such living-learning communities integrate both purposeful planning and high-ability student inputs, the results can be transformative, if not remarkable. Unfortunately, in order for this to happen, I thoroughly believe that other departments must and need to be involved in the process. It is not because Residential Life is not trying – far from it. Anyone who sees this program as adaptive for positive change should applaud the work of the people who are trying to incorporate new energy and thinking into a system that could just as easily be nothing more than “dorm life” without any more support than a cement foundation. However, more constituencies need to answer the call that Residential Life & Education is putting out to the community and volunteer to be a part of what has proven to be a dynamic solution and tool of student engagement. Without such responsiveness, assessment, and development, the RLC initiative may only be as successful as the students you put together in a room.
lol Mr. Anonymous, don't you have a final to study for?! I have two more until Saturday!
ReplyDeleteNice work, you took your time on it, and it is another venue in which our initial article was a conversation starter
Haha, thanks. Your article took a lot of courage. You both have a point regarding outcomes and it's not unreasonable to want to know how the RLCs function, what those outcomes effect, and more about the scope of the program. This is all how engagement starts! Thanks for starting a diagnostic dialogue.
ReplyDelete