Session 5 Results
Sep 12th, 2008 by strategicplanning
Session 5 was held on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 from 6:30-9:00pm. Approximately 30 individuals, including faculty, staff and students, participated in this session. The results of two core activities are provided on this page.
The Landscape activity involved discussion of six topics by participants:
- Funding in Higher Education
- Enrollment Management
- The Value of a BGSU Degree
- Capital Planning – Facilities and Infrastructure
- Leveraging Technology
- Balancing Faculty Roles
Each discussion included brainstorming of things about the topic that made the group glad (“glads”), sad (“sads”) and mad (“mads”). Once the glads, sads and mads were posted, all participants were able to vote on the ideas resulting in topics that had wide support by the entire group. Landscape Results
The Enriching the BGSU Strategy activity involved identification of recommended adds, changes and deletes to the overarching elements of the starting point of the strategic plan: vision, mission, core values and goals. Like the Landscape, enhancements recommended by the tables were voted on by all participants and those with wide support were noted. Enriching Results
During the session, a brief evaluation was completed by each participant. Participants were asked how confident they were that the session would have an impact on BGSU’s future, where 1=not confident and 10=”watch our dust”. With 33 responses completed, the average response for Session 5 was 6, with 67% of responses of 6 or greater.
Comments on the posts are welcomed, both by individuals who participated in Session 5 and want to provide additional insight, and by those who were not able to attend and have thoughts to share.
9:46 am - 9-12-2008
I am a faculty member in the Department of Higher Education and Student Affairs and I was a participant in this dialogue session. For those who don’t know what Higher Education and Student Affairs involves, it’s the theoretical and knowledge base of the work that our student affairs colleagues do on this campus and across the country as well as the history, philosophy, curriculum, law, governance, organization and administration of higher education. In essence, I and my colleagues are spending our careers developing expertise in the very issues which stand at the center of this strategic planning process.
I thought the process was outstanding and I really enjoyed the discussion at my table with my colleagues and our students.
However, I would like to comment about one of the “mads” that came up regarding enrollment management in the Landscape activity. I am greatly concerned that one of the largest vote getters was being “mad” about “students being in college who don’t belong in college.” Who exactly belongs in college? This comment betrays a very elitist attitude in my opinion about the purpose of higher education and who should have access to it. Not only that, such an educational elitist attitude seems to run directly contrast to the traditional mission of BGSU to train and prepare first-generation college students, working class students, students from rural areas, and students from deep in our region’s urban centers.
It seems a very focused and real discussion about how we feel as a community about the purpose of a higher education and who should have access to it ought to be had in order for us to get on the same page or know what that page is. Answering those two questions is crucial to moving forward with this strategic plan and presenting the case for our uniqueness to the state, parents, and alumni.
IMHO,
Dafina Stewart
Assistant Professor
1:39 pm - 9-12-2008
As a TRIO program advisor for Student Support Services, I agree with Dafina Stewart’s statement about the idea that people are “mad” about “students being in college who don’t belong in college.” The greatest problem with this concept is that it attempts to shirk responsibility by using students as scapegoats. The vast majority of my students in Student Support Services can graduate from BGSU with a degree and the impression this statement sends is that of an elitist view that students of low-income and first-generation backgrounds and students with disabilities – the students I serve – are not welcome here. I can count on one hand the students that actually made me question this issue, while I could tell from the comments of people at my table that this issue was more of a blanket prejudice.
Why do I say it is an attempt to use students as scapegoats?
I wrote comments on the COF page regarding how our Educational Landscape has impacted our current situation that you may find interesting:
http://blogs.bgsu.edu/strategicplanning/2008/08/25/day-1-aug-25-a-new-educational-landscape/#comment-26
I attempted to pose this issue at the discussion, but apparently the idea was too complex to be understood in the time I was given. Thus the longer explanation. In the session, my presentation of this issue as something that was in my “mad” column, only one other person apparently understood the issue enough to see it as a problem. Not caring about it sounds more like negligence to me, although I suppose an argument that it should have been in the “sad” column instead might be reasonable. At least I know I was seriously bummed out at the lack of reaction to the issue of not making sure students are prepared to enter critical classes. I know some departments and professors do this, but the whole university should be on board because I was talking about BGP classes.
I apoligize if I was inarticulate on this issue that evening due to feeling rushed. Perhaps the additional information that I provided at the link will help.
5:54 pm - 6-3-2009
[…] Session 5 Results Posted by root 1 day 17 hours ago (http://blogs.bgsu.edu) Sep 9 2008 i thought the process was outstanding and i really enjoyed the however i would like to comment about one of the mads that came http blogs bgsu edu strategicplanning 2008 08 25 day 1 aug 25 a developed by cobl the center for online and blended l Discuss | Bury | News | Session 5 Results […]