2008 Woodie Awards
Student-faculty ratio expounded
Lisie Mehlman
Issue date: 2/23/06 Section: News
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Admissions data affecting the College's national ranking was hotly contested among the faculty, who also discussed grade inflation and the Starr Restoration Project at a meeting on Monday in John M. McCardell, Jr. BiCentennial Hall.
The first order of business presented in the packed auditorium was the issue of the faculty's role in the admissions process. Associate Professor of Psychology Barbara Hofer spoke about the Admissions Office's interest in the input of professors while formulating their decisions about which student candidates to accept. Comments from professors such Charles A. Dana Professor of Political Science Murray Dry and Stewart Professor of English and Environmental Studies John Elder proved particularly helpful to admissions officers deliberating about students who were really on the brink. Hofer, asked if this was a practice that faculty members felt should be continued.?
Following Hofer's address, the meeting turned to the topic of the newly released student-faculty ratio, which has improved from 11:1 to 9:1. Faculty members like Vice President for Academic Affairs and Professor of English Alison Byerly voiced skepticism of the rather sudden, extremely positive change in the reported ratio. President Ronald D. Liebowitz and Dean of Planning and Secretary of the College John Emerson explained that, in the past, the College's method of calculating the ratio had differed greatly from the method outlined by U.S. News & World Report and followed by the College's peer institutions. Leibowitz explained that although the College's previous method is one that the administration considered more honest and accurate, it has now adopted the more common method, which has yielded a lower student-faculty ratio. Leibowitz claimed that by reporting the 11:1 ratio, the College was "handicapping" itself. Emerson explained that the old method was "more preferable and relevant. The problem is that there is no way of getting comparable data from peer institutions." The primary difference in calculations results from how part-time faculty is accounted for statistically. The school feels it is important that it compare "apples to apples," according to Emerson.
The first order of business presented in the packed auditorium was the issue of the faculty's role in the admissions process. Associate Professor of Psychology Barbara Hofer spoke about the Admissions Office's interest in the input of professors while formulating their decisions about which student candidates to accept. Comments from professors such Charles A. Dana Professor of Political Science Murray Dry and Stewart Professor of English and Environmental Studies John Elder proved particularly helpful to admissions officers deliberating about students who were really on the brink. Hofer, asked if this was a practice that faculty members felt should be continued.?
Following Hofer's address, the meeting turned to the topic of the newly released student-faculty ratio, which has improved from 11:1 to 9:1. Faculty members like Vice President for Academic Affairs and Professor of English Alison Byerly voiced skepticism of the rather sudden, extremely positive change in the reported ratio. President Ronald D. Liebowitz and Dean of Planning and Secretary of the College John Emerson explained that, in the past, the College's method of calculating the ratio had differed greatly from the method outlined by U.S. News & World Report and followed by the College's peer institutions. Leibowitz explained that although the College's previous method is one that the administration considered more honest and accurate, it has now adopted the more common method, which has yielded a lower student-faculty ratio. Leibowitz claimed that by reporting the 11:1 ratio, the College was "handicapping" itself. Emerson explained that the old method was "more preferable and relevant. The problem is that there is no way of getting comparable data from peer institutions." The primary difference in calculations results from how part-time faculty is accounted for statistically. The school feels it is important that it compare "apples to apples," according to Emerson.