Listening to Students

During a series of meetings, the president learns what is on their minds.

By President Ronald D. Liebowitz

During the fall semester, I organized a series of nine student lunches and held expanded office hours in an attempt to hear our students’ opinions on issues related to their Middlebury experience. These meetings provided me with a refreshing and thought-provoking picture of our students and the education they are receiving at the College.

Though they are, as I learned, very content at Middlebury, most of the students loved the opportunity to speak openly and critically about many aspects of life at Middlebury that they would like to see improved or changed.

Here is a brief summary of a few of the issues covered in the lunches, along with some thoughts I take forward from those encounters. I should note that the gatherings were not with specific groups of students, such as the student government leadership, the Campus editorial board, or the Commons Councils. Each meeting consisted of a random mix of students; in many cases, few students knew other students at their particular lunch. These random compositions produced discussions that included diverse opinions from students whose voices are not typically represented by official student organizations.

In the category of “not surprising, but heartening to hear,” students were nearly unanimous in praising our faculty for their commitment to undergraduate teaching and their ability to convey effectively the excitement and relevance of their fields. Such a reaction by the students supports the flattering, albeit unscientific, top ranking our faculty received this past year from The Princeton Review in the category “Professors Get High Marks.” Only one of the approximately 100 students who attended the lunches voiced criticism of the quality of teaching and level of engagement of our faculty.

I heard many examples of faculty extending themselves to help students understand the subject matter, help them write and argue more precisely, and guide them in effectively communicating findings from independent or collaborative work to peer and external audiences.

Students voiced concern more than once about the academic workload, claiming some assignments in too many courses seemed gratuitous. This issue was raised during the strategic planning process, and there was much discussion about the pressures some

faculty—especially the younger faculty—feel to assign a certain quantity of work to avoid the reputation of being too easy, even if the marginal gains for students are minimal. The extra work, students argue, promotes a self-fulfilling “work hard, play hard” mentality that results all too often in irresponsible drinking and limited social endeavors.

It also, students claim, reduces the amount of time available for reflection and to pursue meaningful activities outside the classroom.

Students asked when the Monterey initiative would provide opportunities for them. Many would like to see a semester or yearlong program through which students would take international-oriented courses not offered at Middlebury, including courses in, and related to, business. They would also like to see the establishment of a “4+1” program through which students would earn a B.A. from Middlebury and an M.A. or M.B.A. from Monterey in one of a number of internationally focused areas. In addition, students are seeking summer and winter term internship and research assistant opportunities at Monterey’s world-renowned Center for Nonproliferation Studies. All of these programmatic ideas will be engaged this year by Middlebury and Monterey administrators and faculty, and we are hopeful we can turn these ideas into opportunities next year.

I heard a number of students voice concern over the College’s formidable bureaucracies—about offices with staff eager to help, but which, the students maintain, has the unintended consequence of stifling student initiative and creativity. Many students have been able to cut through such bureaucracies (the Organic Garden founders, the Sunday Night Group, the Middlebury Musicians Guild), but far too many, apparently, have not. This issue was a theme particularly of students who visited during office hours.

Students questioned the College community’s commitment to diversity, tolerance, and mutual respect. Many said they would like to see a more racially and socioeconomically diverse student body to enrich Middlebury’s learning environment. Some students said they believe their views are not welcome in class or in general discussions around campus, and that the strong support for diversity efforts excludes a desire for a learning environment that fosters and welcomes diversity of thought. The recent controversy over the College accepting a gift to establish an endowed professorship in honor of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist was the most recent example cited by the students.

There were many thoughtful comments and important questions raised about our Commons residential initiative. Students, in general, are far more supportive today of the Commons system than they have been at any time since it was introduced. The good work of the Commons heads and deans in establishing a richer environment for learning beyond the classroom and in strengthening communication with faculty about student issues has contributed significantly to this more positive attitude. Yet, the student body remains divided when it comes to the soundness of the philosophy that lies behind the system, and to its prescriptive nature.

The strongest supporters of the system point to the benefits of creating smaller communities within the larger 2,350-student body; to the decentralization of the dean of students office and the greater personalization that has come with having a dedicated dean in each Commons; to the greater likelihood of students meeting faculty and staff outside the classroom at Commons-sponsored events; to new student leadership opportunities on the five Commons Councils. Those who question the system’s “fit” at Middlebury claim the student body is already small and dividing it up into five communities limits interaction that is the lifeblood of an already isolated campus; that the system provides too much structure and too many support systems for students—that students today should receive less rather than more guidance (or what some students labeled “handholding”) if they are to make a successful transition into a world that requires independent action and thought more than ever; that the rigidity surrounding where students can live, especially juniors and seniors, is overly prescriptive; and that trying to build continuing residential communities across all four classes when such a large percentage of the student body studies away (around 60 percent of juniors) seems incongruous.

Several students asked about College finances and the cost of completing the Commons infrastructure. With the infrastructure of two of the five Commons in place, completion of the system will require adding three new dining halls and at least three residence halls. Students wanted to discuss what the College might not be able to do in the future if it were to allocate such a significant commitment of resources to complete the Commons infrastructure. They asked if such an investment is more worthwhile to the College than using the funds for other purposes identified in the College’s new strategic plan: improving access to Middlebury through increased financial aid, adding faculty to ensure small(er) classes and more student-faculty collaborative work, and enriching our existing academic and co-curricular programs.

And finally, I heard from several students about our student body’s “hidden” or “underground” talents—talents that several lunch participants claimed are not acknowledged or supported at Middlebury as strongly as they should be. Students cited with great passion the interest in activities including debate, public speaking, music, and art, yet noted how these activities required, but did not receive, significant institutional support outside the academic program.

So what did I take away from my semester’s worth of lunch and office-hour meetings with students? Our students are remarkably happy at Middlebury. They are extremely

content with the quality of the academic program and the time and attention they receive from our faculty. They are far more thoughtful about our Commons residential system—its strengths and weaknesses—than is often portrayed or mentioned when faculty and administrators discuss the further development of the system. They would like fewer bureaucracies on campus to make it easier for them to pursue new initiatives that are not “official” programs sponsored by the College, and they asked that the College create spaces where student-led activities, outside of our academic program, could thrive.

These issues, plus several others that were raised at the lunches or during office hours, will frame some important discussions on campus next semester. I will keep you posted on their progress.