Members of the Stephen F. Austin State University Campus Roundtable convened on the evening of July 11, 1995, for dinner and conversation. This second of two sessions, held under the auspices of the Pew Higher Education Roundtable, resumed the following morning and continued through the day
Overcoming Institutional Silos
The conversation opened with reports of a positive campus reaction to the roundtable's first session. One participant conveyed to the group that a member of the campus community, known for habitually complaining about the University, was impressed by what had occurred at the first meeting. This report convinced participants of the importance of sharing With all members of the campus community the themes discussed by the roundtable.
The group acknowledged that a major barrier to communication at Stephen F. Austin (SFA) is the fragmentation of the campus community into specialized and isolated units, departments, and functions--what one participant called "silos." Each silo focuses primarily on its own unique concerns and remains uninformed about What the other silos are doing. Even the institution as a whole was perceived to be a kind of macro-silo, disconnected from the world outside, including potential students.
As a way to get outside of the various campus silos, the roundtable made reference to the annual summer camps that take place on campus. Participants recommended that the University take advantage of the opportunity these camps provide by reaching out to the attending high school leadership and student council groups in ways that instill in them the desire to come back. While these groups are on campus, the University might distribute a package of informational materials, give presentations about SFA traditions, or perhaps have SFA students serve as campus hosts. The group expressed the conviction that this kind of activity would have the added benefit of bringing the campus community together as they worked to assemble an inventory--one that could be adapted for other groups and situations--of all the good things happening at the University. Faculty participants thought that presenting papers at professional symposia, finding Ways to go out into the community to teach, and teaching SFA 101 seminars were Ways to "give back" to the educational process and get out of silos.
Row Crops and Roses
Citing passages from the Pew Higher Education Roundtable's publication Policy Perspectives, a member of the roundtable decried the market mentality that was perceived to be driving some of the changes overtaking American colleges and universities. "The academy should be leading society," this individual declared, "university faculty should shape the future and point the direction." "To What extent," someone asked, "should academic administrators and faculty bend to the public? Should we simply respond to the market?"
Participants expressed the perception that the mission of colleges and universities was once well defined but that now the line between secondary and postsecondary education has become blurred. In addition, the public is exerting considerable pressure on higher education institutions to provide vocational training resulting in good jobs for graduates.
One member of the roundtable made the distinction between two kinds of outcomes that can be expected from colleges and universities. Faculty were characterized as horticulturists whose job it is to cultivate students. The education process was deemed to be one that could either treat students like row crops--producing graduates as if they were identical units to be somehow stamped with a uniform curriculum approved by the various professional accrediting agencies--or treat them like roses. The rose garden metaphor was thought to be the most congenial to the SFA community; students were thought to receive close and individual attention from faculty. In personalizing the institution's relationship With students, the roundtable urged that special attention be paid to the growing population of nontraditional students who have family and career responsibilities in addition to their academic concerns.
Relevance arid General Education
Although not questioning the value of SFA's tradition of strong, personal faculty-student interaction, some participants believed that there is not a consensus among faculty of Chat an education is supposed to do." It was said that SFA faculty do not know how the things they do in the classroom relate to general education. What does it mean to be an institution that provides a "good education?" they asked. Student members of the roundtable confirmed that, although the information and skills imparted by general education and the formation of a "well rounded" person were important outcomes, the "ultimate goal" of a college or university education for students generally is a job.
A discussion of What is relevant in an education marked a split in faculty and student opinion. What faculty consider relevant is their own determination of the facets of their specialty that are important to a well-rounded understanding of the discipline's content. Students, however, emphasize skills and information that have some immediate vocational payoff. One participant explained it by saying that students want "something vocational from each course that you can put into action."
There was agreement around the table that SFA should provide both technical skills and an excellent general education. Nursing students, it was noted, enter the program expecting to receive technical skills. Although these are an essential component, the particular skills instilled by the program at a given time wilt not remain the same as the field and the profession continue to change and develop. What students really need--and most seem not to understand this--are critical thinking and communication skills and the ability to continue learning throughout their lives. What's more, the roundtable observed, the evolving job market is projected to demand graduates who have the flexibility to make the transition among several jobs and careers in the course of their working life.
Thus, in giving the public what it wants--jobs for graduates--the roundtable concluded that SFA must provide students with the skills instilled by the highest quality general education: critical thinking skills, the ability to communicate, and the capacity to continue learning. Without these skills, participants believed that graduates would remain stuck in entry-level jobs. The roundtable stressed that the issue of relevance needed to be defined with the long term in view--20 to 25 years after formal education. It is this aspect of education the public does not seem to understand. One participant,suggested that the University could market the value of its general education by advertising: "SFA will help you in your life, not just your first job." Another characterized this help as self-empowerment.
Alluding to the chorus of criticism being heaped upon colleges and universities, the group asserted that no one is telling the story of what higher education is doing right. Participants cautioned against allowing critics to control the debate over higher education; they should not be allowed to establish the premises of the dialogue. Citing a remark by Maxwell Anderson--"To surrender what you are is more terrible than dying"--one member of the roundtable declared that the SFA campus community must revitalizes celebrate, and renew who and What we are. "We need to think of the big picture," they said, "beyond the silos of accrediting associations and individual college requirements."
Ownership
The roundtable turned its conversation to consider a set of topics related to ownership. The feeling of ownership--the feeling on the part of each member of the community that they make a difference--was thought to be crucial for an institution. An owner wants something to be better; they recognize that they have a stake in what they own. SFA was described as an institution having multiple ownership: students, faculty, administration, support staff, and alumni work in the field of their own special competence but are simultaneously interdependent. One participant added that the community of Nacogdoches seemed to be pulling together to support the University.
The group noted that there is growing autonomy at SFA for individuals anddepartments to do their own tasks in the best way each sees fit. This decentralization--what one participant referred to as "down-powering"--was thought to be a way to empower members of the samples community to make decisions, to be involved in the process of running the institution, and to lay a claim to ownership of it.
Several mechanisms that nourish faculty ownership at SFA include:
*Departments control the curriculum. The strong disagreements that often break out in departmental meetings regarding the curriculum were thought to be good for nurturing the feeling of ownership. The opportunity to be heard and the ability to listen to others provides everyone with a stake in the process and the outcome. The group also viewed the relaxation of mandatory advising for the majority of students as an opportunity for departments to look at advising in a new light: How can departments relate to students in ways beyond course advising?
* Faculty have the freedom to be creative. Individuals can become institutional owners by designing and teaching a course. The roundtable reported that faculty are given broad latitude to exercise their creativity in developing new ways to ignite students' passion for learning.
* Faculty sponsor student organizations. Participants remarked that sponsorship expresses a commitment to students and to the institution.
* Faculty choose faculty. Because faculty are responsible for hiring new faculty, they play a pivotal role in shaping the institutional character. Given that a substantial portion of SFA's faculty will retire in the coming decade, the roundtable proposed that the University explore ways to select candidates with the traits and values prized by SFA. Participants observed that Ph.D. programs train faculty to be closely involved with their respective discipline or profession. Service and commitment to a particular academic institution has been reduced to a secondary consideration. One participant articulated this attitude with these words: "I have no idea What other areas of the University are doing, and I don't know how to relate to the larger University mission." Some in the group asserted that there was a need for a "Faculty-Staff 101" to inform everyone of what SFA is about and to overcome the ethos disseminated by contemporary graduate schools. Others believed it is not necessary to develop a new program but to get people out of their silos and involved in the University.
* Evaluation of tile Faculty Senate. An upcoming self-examination of the role of the Faculty Senate can be used to tie it more closely to the institutional mission and give members a greater sense of responsibility for and ownership of the mission.
* Annual Evaluation. The yearly evaluation process provides faculty with the opportunity to assess what they have accomplished in the areas of teaching, research, and service. Several participants remarked that faculty did not know how their role related to the SFA mission. It was suggested that evaluations be carried out With an eye to how the three areas serve the institutional mission.
The roundtable expressed the opinion that bringing a sense of institutional ownership to alumni is important, but that this would be difficult as their relationship to S1 A is primarily through the athletic program. "how do we get them to think like us?" the group asked, "How do we get alumni excited about the academic program?" Participants affirmed that the University would have to give alumni something besides athletics to root for, without attacking athletics.
One member of the roundtable suggested that faculty cultivate a dialogue with the Alumni Association and increase faculty visibility--perhaps in the alumni magazine--by communicating what they are doing both inside and outside the University. Another offered that a "day in the life of SFA" program would help to create good will and a greater community network among the alumni and the campus community. As the group conceived it, the program would entail inviting groups of alumni, their spouses, and various campus representatives to a dinner at the president's house or at the homes of college deans. The next day alumni would tour the campus, meeting with members of the community as they went about heir day's work. The program would include opportunities for alumni to meet with students and events that allow the campus to "sell" specific programs that may need support. Such a program seas characterized by the group as one that builds slowly over time and requires considerable effort . In addition to drawing alumni into the campus community, it would also create an area for faculty and administrative staff to work together and build trust.
The group identified enrollment in campus organizations as a way to promote student ownership. Participation in student organizations connect students to the campus and create the disposition--the nostalgia and fond memories--that will keep them involved as alumni. A personal connection to faculty, which gives students a stake in SFA, can be nurtured through advising and mentoring in the form of taking students on field trips and to professional conferences. The roundtable depicted SFA as a public university With a private college ambiance. The relatively loser student-faculty ratio, the larger-than-average number of tenured faculty teaching 100-level courses, and the personal sense of responsibility faculty feel for students make students feel that they are "roses" With a special claim to faculty attention.
Participants observed that faculty are more involved in sponsorship of Greek organizations but neglect a substantial portion of SFA's students who live in the residence halls. The roundtable asked, "How can we connect the one-thirdof the student body living in dorms to the University mission?" A member of the roundtable observed that students are favorably impressed When a faculty member seeks out a student in a dorm room to discuss a problem. The group expressed the opinion that SFA should explore ways to involve faculty with dorm students.
Linking the academic element of the University to the operational was believed to be an attractive selling point that could give SFA an edge in the competition for students. Most of SFA's strengths listed by the group were not perceived as sufficiently differentiating the University from its competitors.
One suggestion for linking the academic program to residential living was that academic departments could cluster their students into certain dorm spaces and provide some kind of faculty presence. Noting that dorm study space is inadequate, the roundtable proposed making arrangements for good study areas With provision to have a faculty member nearby. Computer labs and work spaces for tutors were also considered by the group to be distinct academic advantages that should be provided for students in the residence halls.
The issue the roundtable thought most excited students and parents is What one individual characterized as "student success and achievement." Participants noted that admission initiatives should emphasize not What students need to get into SFA but what they will have when they get out. Department chairs, it was believed, know best what this entails for their areas and therefore should take the lead in exploring how SFA can best nurture student success and achievement. One member of the roundtable proposed setting up a Pew-type structure to discuss in detailed terms what this means for the University. Another suggested that the question addressed by such a roundtable ought be more inclusive: How do we create an environment where student and faculty success thrive? A computer bulletin board to which members could autonomously express opinions about how to facilitate success and achievement auras believed to be a way to contribute to the discussion with less personal risk. Participants expressedthe conviction that in this area SFA could "do something different, better, and more profound than sister institutions."
One member of the roundtable expressed the conviction that the credibility of the faculty and administration depends upon well thought-out follow-up action. Participants proposed that SFA assemble focus groups and mini-roundtables across the campus both to explore further the ideas and issues raised by the group and to broaden the process of institutional renewal begun by the roundtable. The role of the facilitator was thought to be crucial for a successful roundtable, the group thought it might be necessary to bring in trained facilitators from outside SFA. Other ways suggested to foster widespread discussion included: faculty colloquia or seminars that bring in people With experience in business and higher education; a formal structure to facilitate administration-faculty and faculty-faculty dialogue; and campus-wide picnics and socials--a "potluck among the pines"--to open the doors of communication and nurture the feeling of community. The most important thing is to broaden the process, perhaps with an enlarged, more representative roundtable playing a central role, so that the whole campus community can claim ownership.
President Dan Angel announced that SFA had been selected as one of only 26 institutions of higher education in the nation--from a pool of 3500-- to participate in a three-year transformational leadership project. "That distinction," the president remarked, "for Stephen F. Austin to participate in this leading-edge, prestigious undertaking will be exciting, meaningful, and significant."