The independent student newspaper of Goucher College

Category archive

News

Goucher Assesses Academic Programs

by

Goucher is currently undergoing a Program Prioritization Process. This process takes stock of programs that are currently in place and determines which programs are “healthy,” and “along the way we should discover what is working and not working within the programs,” according to Dr. Micah Webster, the faculty chair and Associate Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science.

The goal of program prioritization is to develop an understanding of the institution and its programs in order to direct Goucher’s resources towards programs that support the institution’s goals. To clarify, “program” refers to a course of study requiring the completion of a specified number of semester credit hours from among a prescribed group of courses that leads to a formal award, ie. majors and minors (Source: MHEC).

The data collection process for the prioritization process began last semester and should be completed by mid-June, according to Dr. Webster. This process is being conducted by the Office of Institutional Effectiveness, the Office of Admissions, the Office of the Provost, and the programs themselves.

A committee of faculty that includes the Curriculum and Budget & Planning Committees, as well as tenured and non-tenured faculty, and representatives from all major faculty committees, work with the Provost to make recommendations to the Board of Trustees. According to Professor Ann Duncan, the Chair of the Academic Policies Committee, though the process is intended to be faculty led, because the Board of Trustees set the process in motion, it will be they who decide if the faculty plan sufficiently addresses the college’s needs.

The “Why”
Program prioritization programs tend to begin for financial reasons. According to Robert C. Dickeson, who wrote an influential book entitled Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating Resources to Achieve Strategic Balance, the most commonly cited reason for program prioritization is financial stress. Other reasons may include prioritization being a recurring process or part of strategic planning overall, the unacceptability of making equivalent cuts in all programs, and the governing board wanting the college to prioritize. According to Professor Duncan, while the process is intended to be conducted independently of dollar amounts, “the Board of Trustees hopes this process will save money by right sizing the faculty to fit our student body.”

When interviewed, President Jose Bowen emphasized that the process is “routine.” Goucher’s last program prioritization ended in 2014, before the start of President Bowen’s tenure at Goucher, during which the process recommended the elimination of Chinese and additions to the Psychology Department.

President Bowen cited a couple reasons for Goucher’s current program prioritization: the college is scheduled for re-accreditation, and hopes to expand in the future. In order to expand and to create new programs, the college must withdraw resources from existing programs. “You can’t keep adding. At some point, you either add, or you move things around,” said President Bowen.

By keeping tuition costs the same for one year and choosing to increase tuition by only 1.9% in 2018-19, President Bowen has committed to making Goucher more affordable. However, this means a decrease in net tuition revenue for the college, while inflation continues to increase. It also means that existing programs cannot be added to if costs are to remain the same. If student class sizes shrink, faculty must be reduced.

One possible solution to rising costs is increasing costs is changing the faculty-to-student ratio. “Costs are getting so prohibitive that there has been more openness to different size classes and different pedagogy,” said education consulting firm leader Kent John Chabotar, as cited in an article entitled “Tuition Conundrum,” published on InsideHigherEd.com. Of course, this also means reducing the numbers of faculty.

According to President Bowen, Goucher’s student-faculty ratio hasn’t changed, and the future size of the faculty will depend in part on the size of incoming classes. “If we grow [the student body] a little bit, we’ll add faculty,” said President Bowen. “If we shrink a little bit, then we’ll reduce faculty.” According to the President, the goal for Goucher in future years is to “grow slowly.”
It seems unlikely, however, that class sizes will grow. Colleges are facing financial trouble across the country, particularly small liberal arts colleges. President Bowen discussed the fact that there are fewer college students across the country than there were ten years ago, so colleges are competing for a smaller pool of students. “Right now, there are a million fewer people in college than there were in 2010,” said Bowen. “So there are fewer people going to college [and in that smaller pool] there are more people going to state institutions.”

Despite this, Goucher plans to remain a liberal arts institution. When asked what his vision was for Goucher five years down the road, Bowen said, “The truth is, that if I am really successful, if Goucher is really successful, we will remain a liberal arts college. That may sound less ambitious, but we may be the last liberal arts college. Because if you read the paper, they’re closing, they’re merging, they’re adding other kinds of things, they’re adding [vocational] programs…We want to be a liberal arts college. So what matters is how we do that. What kind of instruction do we offer? How do we keep classes nice and small?”

The “How”
The “how” is where program prioritization comes in. However, while the process is intended to ultimately benefit the college, this does not come without difficulties. The process may result in recommendations to eliminate positions or cut back current programs. Because of the instability and insecurity that this creates, faculty and staff may be concerned about the future of their programs and positions throughout this process. “Those things are painful, but they are part of the normal process,” said President Bowen.

Because the program prioritization process is faculty-run, it also involves additional work for professors. Faculty must come to an agreement about how to best measure the effectiveness of programs and then collect all the relevant data. According to Professor Ann Duncan, one challenge has been that, when this process was announced, the faculty were already hard at work on implementing the new curriculum. Much of the work on the new curriculum has been stalled until staffing numbers and program status are clear.

According to Duncan, “faculty are incredibly excited about the new curriculum and the creativity and interdisciplinarity it allows.” However, it will be a while before it is put in place across the board. For the next two years, faculty must run two different curriculums at the same time, as some students remain with the Liberal Education Requirements, while others are fullfing the new general education requirements, called Goucher Commons Requirements.
Once the program prioritization process is complete, faculty may also need to determine how to implement the new curriculum with fewer faculty. “We passed this curriculum with a certain sized faculty and with even the promise that we might be able to grow a little,” said Professor Duncan. “The reality now is that there are a lot of positions that have not been filled and we may be losing some positions.”

On a national level, one of the largest issues facing program prioritization programs is a lack of faculty buy-in. Despite this, members of Goucher’s faculty do understand the need for a response to the current challenges in higher education, and express concern for Goucher’s future. “The faculty recognize that times are tight financially, not just for Goucher but for colleges across the country,” said Professor Duncan. “At the same time, we want to ensure that any process we participate in maintains the integrity of the Goucher education.” At this stage, the effects of the process remain to be seen.

The Curriculum and Budget & Planning Committees have formed the criteria for the evaluation of programs, which are: relevance, efficiency, opportunity analysis, evidence of impact. These categories include factors like relevance, alignment with college mission, internal and external demand for program, teaching effectiveness in programs, contributions to and in support of the programs, numbers of students in the program, evidence of engagement with students, operational efficiency of the program, etc.

Goucher faculty have also asked administration to consider a voluntary separation program, which would provide financial benefits for faculty who decide to voluntarily leave the college. This program would benefit the college by generating compensation savings that can be spent in other ways, while the faculty member would benefit from both the financial benefits and the voluntary nature of the program.

Correction: Edits for clarity have been made to the fourth paragraph.

MADELINE ST. JOHN and GREER TURNER

Featured Image Credit: Projects · Ziger/Snead Architects

Goucher Says Farewell to Professors

by

Throughout the course of a college’s life, professors come and go, leaving behind legacies that carry their names forward. Sadly, it is time to say goodbye to several committed faculty members of Goucher College. In 1983, when Goucher was still an all-women’s college and the Quindecim was called “The Weekly” (a strange name for a paper that was published once every two weeks), Barbara Roswell had just been hired as a writing professor. She will retire this year. Why? When asked, she chuckled, saying “I think a change once every thirty-five years is okay.”

Dr. Roswell and coworker, Mary Jo Wiese, are well known for their work n the Goucher Prison Education Partnership, a program which strives to give a college education to incarcerated members of society. “My two brothers are both judges in Ohio; my father also served as a judge. I grew up believing in the integrity of the judicial system” says Wiese, who is also leaving this year, “but, over time, I became painfully aware that we have a penal system, and not a correctional system.” Starting with a special edition of Reflections, a journal that was edited by Dr. Roswell, these professors saw the learning potential in those incarcerated in prison. Over the years, the program has changed the lives of potential students residing in the Maryland Correctional Institution for Women in Jessup, Maryland. Professor Wiese’s husband is also retiring from his job this year, and they plan to travel together.

Professor Jeanne-Rachel Leroux will also be leaving this year, having accepted a teaching position in Staten Island, New York. Before coming to Goucher, Professor Leroux taught at several public high schools in Japan, as well as one international school. She came to Goucher five years ago, and has lived with her students in the Language House ever since.“I liked the Language House aspect of the contract. It allows me to interact with students outside of the classroom.” As the live-in professor for Language House, Professor Leroux oversaw many of the language-oriented events held there. Whether it be cooking events, language meetings, or just the community environment, Jeanne-Rachel Leroux was heavily involved in the community and will be remembered for bringing students together.

Her track is not unique for aspiring professors. Professor Leroux was at Goucher on a contractual basis, which would be renewed after several years if all went well. However, it is now time for her to settle into a more permanent position. “I have a lecturer position at CSI next year… It’s a relief to have a long-term contract because I have not had that. Almost ever,” Professor Leroux said. Obtaining a long term contract with a university can be difficult. Professors must build up experience before being asked to hold a long-term position, and must be able to go where the offers take them.

Associate Professor of Philosophy Margaret Grebowicz will be leaving Goucher as well, and will be remembered for her diverse legacy. From her books (Whale Song, The National Park to Come) to her effort to translate Polish poems into English, she has been a very accomplished and well-liked professor. “She was really engaging and caring for her students and added a special dimension to the philosophy department” says Dustin Taylor, a senior philosophy major.

We must also say goodbye to Professor Bernadette Tutinas, Associate Professor of Mathematics. Professor Tutinas is the longest standing professor to leave Goucher this year, and has taught everything from MA100 to MA333. Known for her specialty in Graph Theory and Combinatorics, she engaged students in all different disciplines, spreading math along the way “Mathematics is important and useful, but it is also beautiful in its patterns and rhythms. One of the greatest pleasures of teaching is helping students to see this beauty,” says Professor Tutinas. Goucher has changed tremendously since her tenure began, as it was not yet co-ed in 1981. Though the school has and will continue to change, her contributions to the college will surely not be forgotten.

Finally, Dr. George Delahunty will be leaving as well. He is the Lilian Welsh Professor of Biology at Goucher College. With a specialization in Physiology/Endocrinology, Dr. Delahunty was responsible for numerous biology courses at Goucher College, from Intro to Biology II to Endocrinology. Dr. Delahunty engaged a wide range of students with his expertise and anecdotal information. “He’s really well versed in all the material he teaches and always has extra fun facts or examples to share with us”, says senior Spanish major Maggie Ratrie. He will be remembered for his impressive knowledge of the field and ability to engage students from any major.

While it’s saddening to say goodbye to the professors we love, it’s important that we remember them fondly. The legacies of educators are measured by their impacts on students, and everyone remembers an educational experience that changed their lives. Although these professors will no longer be changing lives at Goucher, teachers are always out to educate, no matter where they are. Or, as retiring professor Barbara Roswell puts it, “Often the most exciting things we can do together are just having a group of people sitting around in a circle, talking about a text.”

JOSHUA GREENBERG (Contributor from the Goucher Eye)

Featured Image: patch.com

Mental Health Resources

by

In order to clear up any confusion that may have been caused by an article published in the previous issue of the Q, the counseling center has a number of resources and systems in place that ensure that no student ever has to wait to speak with a mental health professional.

Student experiences with counseling center services are generally very positive—when surveyed, positive student feedback was higher than the national average, with 37% of students reporting counseling services as “very helpful” (as compared with the national average of 31%). The counseling center has also been able to meet the needs of 86% of students who have come to the counseling center, with 14% having been referred off campus.

The administration is also currently working to improve mental health and mental health treatment on campus, through efforts like partnering with the JED Foundation, constructing new counseling center facilities, conducting an environmental survey, and hiring a wellness coordinator.

Jean Perez, the Director of Sports Medicine, was recently named Director of Student Wellness. Her role, in her words, is to “coordinate a more holistic approach to well-being on campus, provide resources for students that address all dimensions of wellness, and to collaborate with other areas to integrate what all of the different offices are already doing to contribute to overall student well-being.” Part of this process will be to hire a campus recreation coordinator, who will “coordinate our club and intramural sports, create a campus recreation program and grow our outdoor adventure programming.”

There is also an abundance of people, offices, and resources available on campus that may be useful for students’ mental health—but sometimes it can seem like a bit of a scavenger hunt trying to find the right people or resources. The Q has compiled a list of these resources in efforts to make this process a little bit easier.

Name Contact Person Role Location

Counseling Resources

Counseling Center Counseling sessions are free and confidential. The center offers brief, individual counseling (typically less than 12 sessions), although there is no hard limit on the number of sessions students can have. The center typically schedules in-person intakes within 1-3 days. Even if there is a waitlist, students will still be able to complete an intake and no student with imminent safety concerns will be placed on a waitlist. Clinicians are trained in various empirically-supported treatment modalities appropriate to address a broad range of student experiences, symptoms, and diagnoses.  For students in need of specialized or long-term therapy options, community providers may be recommended. For more information: https://www.goucher.edu/experience/staying-healthy/counseling-services/ First floor of Huebeck (moving to Mary Fisher)
Urgent Walk-in Hours at the Counseling Center Monday – Friday at 1pm. Walk in to the counseling center if you are experiencing a mental health emergency.
After Hours Mental Health Hotline To speak with a mental health counselor after hours, call 855-236-4278. This service provides phone support by licensed clinicians. This is not just a crisis hotline—the clinicians can provide support for something more benign all the way up to suicidal ideation. As opposed to a national hotline, this service is provided in partnership with Goucher’s Counseling Center.   Clinicians are aware of resources both on and off campus.
Baltimore County Crisis Hotline 410-931-2214 A 24-hour hotline staffed by mental health professionals. The hotline is also connected with a Mobile Response Team of mental health clinicians and police officers that offer emergency responses to persons in need of urgent intervention.
Hospitalization Goucher has a memo of understanding with St. Joseph’s Medical Center to encourage ease of communication. If a student opts for hospitalization, they will be transported to the hospital in an ambulance, for safety reasons and in order to receive more immediate treatment. Clinicians work with students to explain the process.
Medical Withdrawal Andrew Wu manages the medical leave policy and consults with the counseling center concerning students returning from medical leave. For more information: https://www.goucher.edu/registrar/leave-of-absence-withdrawal-from-the-college/medical-compassionate-withdrawal-procedures
Psychiatry Services and the Health Center 410-337-6050 Students have access to psychiatry six hours a week through health services. First Floor of Huebeck

Committees

JED Committee Cameron Cox

Monica Neel

Andrew Wu

A committee formed through Goucher’s partnership with the JED foundation. Chaired by Cameron Cox, and led by Andrew Wu and Monica Neel, the group discusses what the college could be doing better in terms of mental health.
GSG Student Life Committee Noah Block

noah.block@mail.goucher.edu

Goucher Student Government committee working around wellness, mental health, and other aspects of student life on campus. Meets in Office of Student Engagement

People and Offices

Jean Perez (New Wellness Coordinator) jean.perez@goucher.edu “My role is to coordinate a more holistic approach to well-being on campus, provide resources for students that address all dimensions of wellness, and to collaborate with other areas to integrate what all of the different offices are already doing to contribute to overall student well-being.

Part of that is the hiring of a campus recreation coordinator, who will coordinate our club and intramural sports, create a campus recreation program and grow our outdoor adventure programming.  Her office will be located in one of the new residence halls (building 1C), in the Wellness Resource Center. We will also be opening an equipment issue room in the Sports and Recreation Center where students can rent out various sports equipment.”

Peer Listeners 443-632-7799 Peer listeners are available from 7pm-2am every night. Peer listening occurs in person. Every semester, there is a week long peer listening training, during which Peer Listeners do role playing and focus on listening skills and some content areas, such as stress, anxiety, sexual assault, and depression. They are trained in basic resources on campus so that they can provide references. They don’t offer personal advice. Peer listeners are a very confidential resource because they don’t report out–they report up, to Cynthia Terry. The program, developed by Roshelle Kades, has been in existence for over 7 years.
Office of Religious and Spiritual Life Chaplain Cynthia Terry

cynthia.terry@goucher.edu

and Rabbi Josh Snyder

josh.snyder@goucher.edu

Cynthia Terry: “As chaplain of this community, I am eager to work with all members of the Goucher College community—students, faculty, and staff—as they explore their spiritual values and commitments, express their religious traditions, search for meaning and value, and seek answers to their questions. I also understand that, as chaplain, I can be a companion in life’s journey, through the painful places of illness, depression, addiction, grief, and abuse, as well as through joyful celebrations of achievement, accomplishment, and important relationships.  I am a confidential resource.”

Rabbi Josh: “As a Rabbi, I’m available to students for pastoral counseling as they desire.  That doesn’t mean religion has to be a part of it, though questions of spirituality and meaning arise.  I’m available to any student regardless of religious background, and I can be emailed to set up a time. Mostly I am an active listener, a first step, and can help recommend other resources for students to seek out.”

Chapel (Chaplain); Interfaith Center (Rabbi)
Office of Student Development and Outreach Cameron Cox

Cameron.Cox@goucher.edu

and Alexandra Graves

alexandra.graves@goucher.edu

In the Office of Student Development and Outreach, Cameron and Alexandra support students through prevention, intervention, and support efforts for students across campus.  Both members of the office serve as case managers, supporting students facing hardships, those experiencing crises, and those struggling with other common barriers to success. We work differently with each student, so students have a personalized guide to help them develop and execute a support plan to get back on track.  Cameron and Alexandra assist students through various challenges such as: academic concerns, social/emotional distress, and other personal conflicts. In addition, Cameron serves as chair for the JED committee, a mental healthcare program on Goucher’s Campus, runs the Brother to Brother Affinity program, and serves as a member of the Residence Life staff.  Alexandra helps in leadership efforts for the department, works with students returning to campus from a leave of absence, and is currently working on the development of resiliency programming at the college.

You can learn more by visiting the Student Development and Outreach website, https://www.goucher.edu/experience/staying-healthy/case-management-and-student-support/

If you want to meet with Alexandra or Cameron, you can email us directly at care@goucher.edu

Welsh 205
Office of Accessibility Services Arnell Hadley

Best way to contact: email (access@goucher.edu or arnelle.hanley@goucher.edu ) or set up a Starfish appointment.

Office of Accessibility Services works with Goucher’s Counseling Services and Case Management Services.  Together we work to connect students to the appropriate resources on or off campus. Additionally, Arnelle frequently works with some student’s providers on creating accommodations that are appropriate for the various stages of their mental health. Her communication with the student and their provider is ongoing as things can change at any moment. Alumnae/i House 120
Office of Community-Based Learning (CBL) Santa Wallace sawallac@goucher.edu

Lindsay Johnson

lijohnso@goucher.edu

Cass Freedland

cassia.freedland@goucher.edu

The Office of Community-Based Learning (CBL) offers structured opportunities for engaging in community-based work, both through reflective volunteerism and classes that link their course content to off-campus community experiences. The connection between well-being and community engagement has received a great deal of scholarly attention; in fact, last year, Goucher’s CBL Office was part of a four-campus national study on well-being and thoughtful civic engagement. Studies have found that the work itself can be psychologically rewarding through connection with others in the community. In addition to this, when guided and reflected upon, community-based learning though volunteerism and classes can help to:

  • build one’s sense of a civic society
  • promote feelings of independence and freedom
  • encourage one to better understand one’s own privilege and identify power structures within colleges and communities,
  • and develop social connections that promote general well-being.

The Office of Community-Based Learning, in The Arsht Center for Ethics and Leadership, welcomes students to engage in one of our 8 volunteer programs, learn more about our Student Leaders for Civic Action program, or embrace the 30+ academic courses that incorporate community engagement each academic year.

Come to Van Meter 105 to talk and enjoy a cup of coffee or tea, or visit our website at https://www.goucher.edu/learn/beyond-the-classroom/community-based-learning/.
Title IX Office Lucia Perfetti Clark: lucia.perfetticlark@goucher.edu

and Peer Educators

The Office of Title IX connects students to short-term resources such as legal counsel and other victim services. Lucia oversees the sexual misconduct policy and the nondiscrimination policy. The Office only provides accommodations when a student requests them specifically, as each case they handle is unique.

Goucher Title IX: https://www.goucher.edu/title-ix/

ACE (Academic Center for Excellence) https://www.goucher.edu/learn/academic-support-and-resources/ace/request-an-appointment ACE provides self care sessions that include Sleep-Based meditation known as Yoga Nidra that supports the immune system and helps with restoring the mindbody and improves memory and retention.  Academic Coaching sessions with Peejo Sehr are centered around mind/body practices that address academic success from a holistic wellness lens. ACE offers holistic Academic Support and is not a mental health support provider. Our programs are focused primarily on stress management to support academic learning.

For more info: https://www.goucher.edu/learn/academic-support-and-resources/ace/

Julia Rogers Building, room 233
First Year Mentors First Year Mentors receive training about the transition to college and how that transition can impact mental health. In training, First Year Mentors talk in general about different situations involving mental health and how to refer students to the proper resources. Mentors help their group of first year students in their transition to college, and students can contact their First Year Mentor if they would like help figuring out where to go next.

Groups for students

RIO (Recognition, Insight, Openness) Tim Moslener (Counselor)

tim.moslener@goucher.edu

RIO stands for Recognition, Insight, Openness. The psychoeducation-based group is built around skill development and actively engaging in self-Reflection and learning. There are multiple sessions over the course of the semester, so there is always one about to open up again. Contact Tim Moslener for more information.
Meditation Group The Meditation Group meets weekly in the Chapel Undercroft, an excellent opportunity to learn and practice meditation. Chapel Undercroft
Student Bereavement Group Cynthia Terry

cynthia.terry@goucher.edu

Each semester, Cynthia Terry offers a Bereavement Group for students who are dealing with the loss of someone important to them. Chapel Undercroft

Events

Fresh Check Day Occurring in the fall semester, Fresh Check is a resources and activities fair with the goal of improving mental health through raising awareness of mental health challenges and providing resources with which to tackle those challenges. The event was developed and is supported by the JED Foundation, a national non-profit that works to promote emotional well-being and reduce the risk of suicide and serious substance abuse among young people.
Happiness Hunt Occurring in the spring semester, the Happiness Hunt is a multi-day campus wide group scavenger hunt involving the various offices associated with mental health resources.
Restore the Night Restore the Night is a weeklong campaign of events and workshops that intend to raise awareness, create a sense of solidarity, and ultimately work to put an end to sexual and gender-based violence. Past campaigns have included a resource fair, a masculinity workshop, an activism teach-in called “Know your Title IX,” and the creation of a zine featuring the voices of survivors.
Relaxation Stations The Office of Student Engagement (OSE) sponsors Relaxation Stations during finals week. The goal of Relaxation Stations is to offer some stress reduction activities during finals each semester as we know this is a high stress time.

Other

Kognito A self-directed avatar-based online training with specific tracks for students, faculty and staff. The training uses role play simulations of conversations to have participants try different approaches that they might use in real life and get feedback on those approaches. Made free to Maryland colleges through a statewide grant, the training is available to any interested student, faculty, or staff member at http://kognito.com/maryland. Peer Listeners and Resident Assistants have already completed the training.
Charm City Stories Intercollegiate Literary Journal for Mental and Physical Health On Friday, April 6th, Charm City Stories, Baltimore’s first student literary and art magazine of mental and physical health, released its first publication. Several Goucher students were published in the journal. The current team of Charm City Stories editors, consisting entirely of JHU students, hopes to have more students from other schools involved in editing the publication in future years. To read the publication online, visit charmcitystories.com. If you’re interested in applying for an editor position for next year, click here to fill out an application form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeV8pkhuw70NKOcwf_rL-jcQe-CIFfAuf3sSIrOTzwAHm_TZA/viewform
Commuter Student Lounge The lounge is open to commuter students to hang out and relax. Ath 147
Groups that have existed in the past Student Health Advisory Committee (SHAC): planned events, and tabled around issues such as eating disorders, sleep, and suicide prevention.

Mediation Group: Students were trained in mediation

Other student groups that may provide spaces to destress Outdoor club, Climbing Club (rock climbing), Cooking Club
 Resource Sheet Compiled by Neve Levinson and Madeline St. John

Featured Image from OneClass 

Study Abroad Requirement on Probationary Review

by

It’s a blindingly sunny Wednesday afternoon as trails of faculty members emerge from the academic buildings and dart across the quad toward Dorsey Center. They head toward the faculty meeting, which is dotted with students as the faculty members enter Merrick and find their seats. Included in the numerous items on the agenda for the hour and fifteen minute meeting is an update from the ad hoc Study Abroad Committee, which has done work throughout this year to review the study abroad requirement at Goucher.

Daniel Marcus, Nyasha Grayman-Simpson, and Brandon Arvesen took the floor to share their preliminary review, which focused on three factors: finances, recruitment, and learning objectives. This is the second year of a three-year faculty-initiated probationary review of the study abroad requirement. The committee explained that this is the first time anyone has started to do an extensive review of Goucher’s study abroad program, and that the committee could only provide a preliminary report for the time being.

Suggested entry/exit survey questions. Credit: Study Abroad Ad Hoc Committee

In 2006, Goucher College’s tenth president, Sandy J. Ungar, implemented the requirement for all undergraduate students to study abroad. This requirement came with a $1,200 voucher to cover extraneous travel costs and make up for income students would otherwise be making while living and working on campus. While the voucher existed for nearly a decade, it was removed in 2016. Now, many students cite finances as an obstacle involved with study abroad. As Eliezer Cartenega ‘18 (Argentina, Spring, 2017) said, “Study abroad was very stressful. And I felt like that stress detracted from the experience because I was so worried about my money situation.” The committee noted that the financial component is a significant part of the discussion, and that this element of the review was currently inconclusive, as it required an extended time frame.

Even with its complications, study abroad continues to attract prospective students. The committee referenced entry and exit reviews completed by 290 students in 2014 who said study abroad was a very important reason they chose Goucher. Anne Werkheiser ‘18 (Seville, Spain, Fall 2016) said, “ I work in admissions and talking about study abroad is always the best part of my tour; it’s really what draws students in and makes Goucher stand out.” The committee points out that the requirement may both attract and deter prospective students. Data collected from Goucher’s 2014 Admitted Students Survey found that 56.71% of Fall 2014 admitted students ranked study abroad as “very important” in their decision to attend Goucher; while 18.37% ranked study abroad as “very important” in their decision not to attend Goucher.

Students speak of how study abroad impacts Goucher. Kalee LaPointe ‘19 (Athens, Greece, Fall 2017) said, “ There’s just this sort of feeling you get when you talk to other students at Goucher about study abroad that is completely missing when I talk to students from other colleges.” Sarah Zaukus ‘18 (University of Roehampton, UK, Fall 2017) said, “I also feel like study abroad at Goucher is like a rite of passage, which in my opinion is really cool.” Further, Madison Hernandez ‘19 (SIT Uganda) said, “…one of the main reasons that I came here was because I didn’t have to choose between being an athlete and studying abroad…I knew that it would be extremely difficult for me to convince any coach to let me go abroad for an entire semester. However, when I toured here I realized that I could have both since whatever coach I had could not stop me from going abroad if it was a requirement for my major. “

Rather than detracting from the various other commitments student make on campus, the committee found that a majority of the major program chairs reported that study abroad served to enhance their major’s learning objectives. Regarding learning objectives, students connect study abroad to personal, academic, and professional development. On the personal level, Marina Lant ‘18 (Hansard Scholars Program, London, Spring 2016) said, “Not only did my time abroad challenge me to think about myself and my experiences in a completely different context, but it forced me to reevaluate my world view and think about the reverberations of all my actions.” Academically, Jess Solomon ‘18 (La Trobe University Melbourne, Spring 2017) said, “ It was 100000% beneficial to my Major, because I was able to take classes that I did not have any access to in Maryland.” Finally, regarding professional development, Rachel Grosso ‘18 (DIS – Copenhagen, Fall 2016) said, “I can definitively pinpoint my semester abroad as a turning point in my life; I’ve projected into the industry and career I’m pursuing as a direct outcome of my time in Denmark.” Further, Jonathan Davies ‘18 (University of Oxford, Spring 2017) said, “ I think if the school is set out to prepare students for the jobs that are yet to be created, then a crucial component, in my opinion, is this globally minded individual and that comes from the study abroad component.”

In the PCE 220 Organizing report, 16.4% of respondents cited study abroad as an area where significant gaps exist between expectations and experience. Meanwhile, 21.6% reported a desire to see further resources allocated to study abroad. Anne Werkheiser ‘18 suggested, “For example, there needs to be a more open and honest conversation about issues of race, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc; students may be blindsided by attitudes in certain areas.”

Since the ad hoc committee will officially disband at the end of the semester, they completed their preliminary report with recommendations for further review of study abroad. Their call for further review included internal and external reviews of the Office of International Studies, and a long-term financial report. At this point it is yet to be decided if another ad hoc committee will form to complete the third year of the probationary review, or if the review components will be delegated to a variety of Goucher stakeholders, as the current ad hoc committee has suggested. Regardless of this decision, the faculty will meet again in Spring 2019 at the end of the probationary period to vote on whether the current study abroad requirement will be renewed. Marina Lant ‘18 said, “It [study abroad] represents Goucher’s commitment to international learning and understanding your own context in the world and your more immediate environment. Even with all its flaws, I am proud of Goucher’s study abroad program. Taking away the requirement is a mistake.”

Featured Image: https://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/category/study-abroad/

 

Goucher Identity Survey and the Process Behind It

by

The purpose of Peace Studies 220 is to study the nature of organizing for social change. Throughout the class, we examined social movements, identifying a movement’s origin story, structure, strategies, how to keep the movement sustainable, and also how to assess the impact of a social movement. We studied organizing tactics on the left and the right, including a field trip to seeing Bread and Puppet Theater, a theatrical, transgressive mode of resistance. Each person in this class came from a different background and expectation of the class, but the one commonality among us was the motivation to learn how to mobilize for social change.

One of the course requirements is a practicum to apply what we learned. We had the option between two routes for the practicum: to individually join an already existing movement in Baltimore and learn by attending meetings and actions, or to work together as a class and create our own mobilization force among us. After debate and deliberation, from which Professor Seble was often absent from the room, the majority of our class chose to organize as a collective. Overall our class felt it would be too much of a lost opportunity of growth as organizers and activists if we did not organize together on the college campus where we all have a sphere of influence.

The second part of this decision was deciding what we wanted to do at Goucher. Our initial brainstorms included ideas regarding environmental sustainability, accessibility for people with disabilities, Facilities Management Services, and Bon Appetit workers issues. All of these fit under the umbrella of another idea one of our classmates came up with, and that is the issue of how Goucher spends its money. We identified this issue to be the nexus of all further questions regarding the extent to which we commit to environmental sustainability, our workers, or accessibility. This question of Goucher’s resources and spending, we also felt, was an interesting one in the midst of our physically (but also maybe emotionally) massive and obstructive construction projects.

Once we agreed to this topic, more and more questions arose. Who makes the decisions? Why don’t students stay at Goucher? What even is Goucher’s identity as a school? What does our budget look like? And why don’t we know the answers to these questions? If we didn’t know the answers to these questions, did other Goucher students?

These led to more questions about the Undaunted campaign’s intention for the future of our campus, and our collective stake in this institution’s future. So, we banded together to answer questions about Goucher’s identity, which seemed to be in contention as different student groups have felt slighted or unheard. Our organizing involved research, in which we conducted interviews with several administrators and one board member to learn about Goucher’s Capital and Operating Budget, about Board meetings, and about our retention rate. We created the student survey that circulated around campus, yielding the incredible number of 255 responses, a 17.2% response rate. Our objectives as a group were to gauge student experience, educate the student body on Goucher’s budget, and to catalyze community-wide dialogue. The survey was a way of collecting data from Goucher’s student population about their expectations of Goucher versus their reality and locating sources of these discrepancies, and about student perceptions of Goucher’s identity as a school and how our spending as an institution aligns with this vision.

Our community talk-back was Wednesday, May 9th during Common Hour in the Welsh Piano Room, a public space accessible by all members of the Goucher Community (see Open Letter on pg. 14). Additionally, we took the information we gathered from our student body and provided it to the Board of Trustees by handing out leaflets to them during their May meeting.
Our hope is that the information passed on from the student body to the Board inspires questions and topics of discussion for Board members, and injects our student voices into the conversations of the most crucial decision making body of Goucher College. We know that we could not tackle this issue alone within just a semester, but we joined the student body in hopes that we might inform our peers and empower them to further advocate for their interests.

RACHEL LUCE ON BEHALF OF PEACE STUDIES 220

Featured Image: Goucher Identity Survey Results. Credit: Peace Studies 220

Political Science Capstone Investigates Ideological Diversity at Goucher

by

The Goucher Political Science Capstone has spent the entire semester focusing on issues of college campus ideological diversity, campus speaker protests, and the overarching issues of free speech on campus. We examined this issue because of the importance institutions of higher education have in American life, as well as the growing political and cultural dissatisfaction with academia, particularly on the right. According to a Pew poll conducted in June 2017, 58% of Republican leaning Independents say colleges and universities are having a negative effect on the way things are going in the country, a 21-percentage point increase in this attitude from the same group two years prior. This development may suggest that funding for higher learning could very well become a political football in our polarized electorate—if it is not already.
The first half of the semester was spent trying to understand if this so-called “campus free speech crisis” even existed and if so, what its roots were and what could or should be done to address it.

We looked into issues of faculty ideology across the country: The professoriate is about 30 percentage points more liberal than the rest of the country—about 19 percentage points more liberal than it was in 1990. We examined campus speaker protests: According to FIRE’s (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) campus speaker protest database, there have been 368 instances of campus speaker protests across the country since 2000, at public, private-religious, and private-secular institutions alike. Of these instances, 31% have been from the right side of the ideological spectrum and 69% have been from the left. This dynamic of protest from the left has become more pronounced in recent years—since 2014 there have been 121 instances of speaker protest, 18% of which have been from the right and 82% of which have been from the left. Of the 121 total instances of speaker protest since 2014, 45% have resulted in the dis-invitation of the speaker. In short: Protests of speakers on campus are rapidly becoming more frequent, they are being conducted in large part by students on the left, and nearly half of the time, colleges are rewarding these protests with the dis-invitation of the speaker.

Data collected regarding perception of faculty ideology. Credit: Political Science Capstone

We debated, at great length, the meaning of these statistics and actions, their validity, what consequences there should be for them, and Goucher’s place in this story. Implicit in someone’s understanding of freedom of speech at the university is their conception of what the purpose of the university itself is. Generally speaking, people fell into two camps on this matter: Either the fundamental purpose of the university is to pursue truth through questioning and learning at the risk of offending others, or the fundamental purpose is to more or less create an open community where risk of offense to all groups is mitigated at the expense of open expression for all groups. There was also a middle ground on this issue, where people found themselves agreeing with portions of both purposes of the university—a tricky stance to hold once concrete policy details are considered.

 

The second section of the class was built around assessing the Goucher community’s attitudes on these topics. We sought to address questions like: What is the ideological breakdown of the student body? How do students perceive the ideological orientations of their professors? What would student’s reactions be to a controversial speaker coming here? These were only some of the dozens of questions we wanted empirically supported answers to. To achieve this, we designed a survey and focus group protocol over the course of several weeks, sent the survey to the field and subsequently carried out our focus groups, and then analyzed our results. We procured some very interesting results, however, the most important findings (from my perspective, I do not speak for the class—we will have an executive report detailing our findings) are in part, what wasn’t there—conservative viewpoints.

The survey, which was sent out to every single student email on campus, was completed by 257 students; a representative sample large enough to make statistically significant statements about the campus population. Of those 257 students, 3% identified as conservative, 22% identified as moderate, and 60% identified as progressive or liberal. This is not only a low number of conservatives compared to the country’s general population, but it is so small as to make it impossible to make any generalizable statements about the group. To remedy this, in our analysis we had to combine conservatives and moderates into a single category to compare against progressives/liberals. The combination of conservatives and moderates has significant implications for analysis because we do not know what someone means when they self-identify as a moderate—whether they consider themselves center-left, center-right, or legitimately middle of the road—and comparisons between these two groupings (conservatives/moderates and progressives/liberals) should be looked at with that caveat in mind. However, even noting this, the largest differences of opinion in our results were still between ideological groups, rather than between other factors such as race, gender, age, religiosity, etc.

Many of our questions yielded little difference in opinion, but several highlighted distinct differences among students of differing ideology. When asked to pick between two options of “Which it was most important for colleges to do” either “(1) create a positive learning environment for all students by prohibiting certain speech or expression of viewpoints that are offensive or biased against certain groups of people” or “(2) create an open learning environment, where students are exposed to all types of speech and viewpoints, even if it means allowing speech that is offensive or biased against certain groups of people?” the majority of respondents (60%) chose the second, more free expression oriented option, but a sizeable minority (25%) chose the first. Among ideological groups, 77% of moderates/conservatives chose the second statement (9% chose the first) as opposed to liberals/progressives, of whom 53% chose the second statement and 29% chose the first.

When asked if “Students in your classes are willing to share and discuss different ideas and beliefs,” nearly a quarter of respondents disagreed with this assertion, and when broken down by ideology, conservatives/moderates disagreed at an even higher rate of 36%, while only 20% of liberals/progressives disagreed. Additionally, when asked to agree or disagree with the statement “Students should be allowed to express their opinions in class, even if those opinions are offensive to other students” 27% of students disagreed—22% of conservatives/moderates and 31% of progressives/liberals doing so.

Students also answered questions pertaining to what they perceived the ideological makeup of Goucher’s faculty to be. When asked to think about the personal politics of the Goucher faculty they have interacted with and whether they were conservative, moderate, or liberal, 97% of students of all ideologies said that “a third or less” were conservative, 73% said that “a third or less were moderate”, and nearly half said that “two thirds” were liberal (see chart to the right). Despite this ideologically monolithic perception of Goucher faculty, students are still more likely to conceal their particular political viewpoints from peers out of fear of consequences than they are to conceal them from faculty and administration—33 percent of respondents noted concealing political opinions from peers, while only 15 percent concealed opinions from faculty.

These numbers suggest a narrative that Goucher College could consider both a warning sign and an opportunity. Conservative students are in a tiny minority on this campus, likely less than 5% of the population; many students of any political persuasion have concealed their political opinions due to fear of repercussions from peers; and the entire student body agrees that the faculty are composed of not only less than 5% conservatives but are at least somewhere between 60-80% liberal.

Additionally, out of the 63 students that answered our open-end question concerning other “thoughts, comments, or perspectives” they had on viewpoint diversity, free speech, and campus speakers, 16 specifically noted a desire for more diversity of opinion on campus, while 10 specifically noted groups or individuals they did not support having at campus under any circumstances (all traditionally associated with the right, perceived or actually), and most everyone else was conflicted. This suggests that Goucher has an opportunity to teach students how to grapple with unorthodox opinions, and in fact many of these students are not only willing to learn about diverse viewpoints, but some are even requesting such an introduction. Nearly a quarter of respondents noted that they were “not aware of Goucher’s policies” concerning free speech—this could be a good place for the administration to start.

Dr. La Jerne Cornish Leaves Behind a Legacy

by

This year, the Goucher community must sadly say farewell to our Associate Provost of Undergraduate Studies, Dr. La Jerne Cornish, as she moves onward to her new position as Provost and Senior Vice President of Educational Affairs at Ithaca College. Dr. Cornish first came to Goucher as an undergraduate in 1979, and will leave behind a legacy of strength, integrity, and quality education.
The Quindecim spoke with Dr. La Jerne Cornish about her time here at Goucher College, what she will miss most about the community, and how she has seen the institution change and grow. The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

Q: What was the most rewarding aspect of working in the Goucher community?

Dr. Cornish: I adore the students. I love my colleagues. I have wonderful relationships with faculty and staff, but the highlight of my day, every day, is my relationships with the students.

Q: Do you have a favorite student story that’s particularly meaningful to you?

Dr. Cornish: Early on, there was a student who was a history major with a concentration in secondary education, and he was constantly getting in trouble for making poor decisions. I pulled him into my office one day, and he was about six feet tall, much taller than I. I looked at him and I said to him, “You are so much better than this, and it is time for you to start making informed decisions, and it’s time for you to start handling your business. Because if you don’t, things are not going to turn out the way you’d like them to turn out.” Fast forward 20 years and this young man is a history teacher par excellence. In a few years, he reached out and got in touch with me as he was coming through Baltimore. We went out and got lunch together, and I know that I made a difference in his life.  Things like that matter to me.
A few years ago, I took another student to South Africa on my ICA, and he was really struggling here and did not feel worthy. He did not feel like school was for him, or that he could make it. We went to South Africa and had this amazing experience. He taught math and English to students in middle grades (5,6,7) and found himself. He recognized the agency that he has. He too is a teacher today and is doing just great work.
Last story–a [Communications] major was graduating and did not know where to go to graduate school, and received an offer from Northwestern, which is a top com school. I was going to a conference in Chicago to present a paper, and I said, “you know what? Come with me. I’ll take you to Northwestern, and we’ll go look at it.” She flew out with me, I did my conference, and then we toured the school. Today this student is a well-regarded reporter for the New York Times. I’ve had a chance to really make a difference in the lives of our students.

Q: What about your South Africa ICA will you miss the most?
Dr. Cornish: Well, truth be told, I am going to talk with the folks in the Ed department at Ithaca to see if they can partner with Goucher, and if we can have an Ithaca/Goucher partnership, so that my ICA can continue with students from both schools.

Q: Can you tell me a little bit about your background after graduating from your undergrad at Goucher, and how you’ve seen Baltimore change as your home city over the past few decades?
Dr. Cornish: I started teaching in the Baltimore City public school system, so that was my first career. I was a teacher and an administrator in the school system that educated me. I received a quality education there, and the people with whom I worked were stellar teachers in the classroom. Over the years, I’ve seen our school system decline, because we had this period where people were going into teaching who weren’t certified to teach. They were taking alternative routes to education and sometimes that works. However, schools that need the most ability also need teachers who know how to teach, who are in this for the long haul, and not for the short term. That is one of the things that I’ve seen in the time that I’ve been here, is the school system struggle. Even as it gets smaller, we still have schools that are very successful and some schools that are under-performing horribly, and I struggle with that. What can we who are in the teacher/education business, if I could use that term, do to provide more quality teachers for Baltimore City public schools, and to make it a place where people want to work? Often people are afraid to work in the city, so how do we combat those negative stereotypes about the system and the city in particular?

Q: How do you see Goucher’s larger role in that environment?
Dr. Cornish: Goucher has always had a social justice focus, mission, understanding, and commitment, so we have been very active in the schools, through community based learning and through our education department. We have three or four professional development schools within the Baltimore City public school system and we are committed to doing that work.

Q: What do you think you’ll miss the most professionally about working at Goucher?
Dr. Cornish: I loved this position most of all, the one that I currently have. I really enjoyed being the Associate Provost for Undergraduate Studies. It gave me a chance to support my colleagues on the faculty and staff. It gave me an opportunity to work with colleagues across different divisions of the college. It gave me the opportunity to be a student advocate, and that’s what I love most of all. Students knew if they needed help that they should come here. I appreciated the fact that they trusted me with their joys, with their sorrows, with their disappointments, and with their challenges. I got a chance to bring all of me to this position, and so that’s what I’m going to miss here, but also what I look forward to doing at Ithaca.

Q: Do you have any favorite Goucher events?
Dr. Cornish: I love new student convocation, because we are welcoming new students into the academy and we get a chance for them to see our traditions. That’s a new tradition that started with President Bowen. I love Get Into Goucher, well, some parts of it (laughs). If I’m being honest, there were other parts of it where I was worried about students making informed decisions, so I would always say to my students on GIG, “I need you to watch out for one another. I need you to make informed decisions and if someone’s doing something to excess, I need you to look out for your peer and just make sure everybody stays safe.” I love Baccalaureate and I love Convocation. I love to see our students celebrated for the honors they’ve achieved each spring.

Q: How does that feel, watching students that you’ve built relationships with for 4+ years graduate?
Dr. Cornish: I gave birth to one child, but I’ve had the opportunity to be a role model, and a mother figure, for many students, hundreds of students. I am as proud of them as they leave here as I will be of my own child when he graduates from here on May 25th.

Q: Considering how many students you have helped and guided throughout their time here, what would you say to the students currently leaving their undergraduate careers here?
Dr. Cornish: Continue to believe in yourself. When you are struggling, seek help at the moment of the struggle. Don’t wait until it’s too late, or until you feel it’s too late. Continue to strive and to do great work. Continue to make a difference in the world, because that’s what Goucher students do. They make a difference in the world. Continue to question what you see, and continue to challenge that what you think is wrong. Continue to believe that the education you’ve received here will indeed enable you to embody and live up to the Goucher motto, which is “Prove all things and hold fast that which is good.” That would be my message.

Q: What is the biggest change that you’ve seen in the community and institution in your time as Associate Provost?
Dr. Cornish: The positive change is curricular and co-curricular people working together. You know, one used to talk about the academic side of the house and the student affairs side of the house. Over the last few years we have been focused on having one house, and how these sides can come together to support our students in all ways. To me that’s the biggest positive change that I’ve seen.

Q: How do you see that moving forward after your time here?
Dr. Cornish: I think that we need to continue to collaborate across divisions and to seize opportunities for collaborative work. As you may know, OIS is moving over here (Van Meter), so having OIS, CEO, and CBL within the academic building, creates this synergy where it makes sense for us to work together curricularly and co curricularly to help our students achieve success.

Q: What is the biggest obstacle you’ve seen the college overcome in your time here?
Dr. Cornish: We’re still working on retention, and that’s everybody’s job. It doesn’t belong to just one person, it belongs to all of us. How do we make sure that one student who enters Goucher in the freshman year, graduates from Goucher four years later? That’s our challenge. It’s one that I think we can meet, but it’s going to take all of us to meet it.

Dr. Cornish’s South Africa ICA is one tradition from her work at Goucher that she hopes to continue, and her program there has unquestionably had an impact on the students that she has taken. Alumni Chris Riley remembers his relationship with La Jerne, and the ICA he went on in 2013 as transformative. Chris said that, “Before the ICA, like many others, I thought I knew what South Africa was like. While there we were teaching reading and writing to students, I remember a specific evening while at dinner, one of the Goucher students brought up the differences in what we hold as values between their culture and ours. Through that dinner we had some of the most engaging conversations I’ve been a part of. La Jerne was there at dinner with us, asking about our perceptions and thoughts on how values and cultures differ. She steered and engaged in the conversation with all of us. It is because of this specific conversation that my views of education around the world changed completely. Because of Dr. Cornish, and the trip she lead, I have become a better, more aware person. I can say without a doubt that, like many others, Dr. Cornish has changed my life for the better.”

Dr. La Jerne Cornish has changed and touched many a student’s life for the better during her time here, and she will be missed greatly. As one of the first women of color at a predominately white school, Dr. La Jerne has been crucial to forming a sense of community for people of color on campus. Senior Amielia Gilbert said that, “Dr. Cornish has made a positive impact on my Goucher experience. Academically, she has helped guide me in the right direction as far as my major and minor and in finding my niche. Her presence and dinners at her house made people of color on this campus feel very welcomed and loved. Coming in as a freshman, not knowing anyone, the upperclassmen people of color who knew La Jerne connected with us and helped us form a big happy family. She will be missed.”

Photo Credit: Dr. La Jerne Cornish. Photo Credit: goucher.edu

Students Dive into Goucher’s Budget and Identity

by

For the past semester the Peace Studies 220 (PCE 220) class has been learning about different historical and current approaches and methods of social movements and activism. For the fieldwork component of this class students needed to choose an issue or organization at or near Goucher to immerse themselves in in order to apply what they have learned to the real world. They identified important issues in the Goucher community and chose to immerse themselves and address these issues.

PCE 220 students want to “bridge the disconnect,” as one student put it, between Goucher’s administration and current student body. While they avoided talking on behalf of other students, many students in PCE 220 said that they sense general discontent in the student body currently. They said that some of this may be due to the fact that Goucher markets itself in an accurate way. They also want to address information gap about Goucher’s budget, and provide students with their research on how it works. They are also trying to learn about the decision making process at Goucher and our Board of Trustees. Students pointed out that before this project many of them did not have any knowledge about these issues but that as they looked into them more they became more curious and began to care more.

Through researching Goucher’s tax forms (9-90 forms) the students gathered information about the budget and by creating and releasing a student survey (which went live April 25) they hope to gather data about students’ opinions about Goucher’s identity and whether we are actually the school we are marketed as. After they analyze data from their survey the students of PCE 220 plan on having two open dialogues to discuss their findings with the wider Goucher community.

Several students in the class emphasized that they are not trying to incite anger in the student body or criticize the administration. Their main objective is to share information and create conversation. They feel that sharing this information will benefit students by allowing us to have an informed opinion of how our school is run. Many students in the class said that they think that the administration will benefit from their work as well, especially from the data they will gather from the student survey about Goucher’s identity.

PCE 220 has been very thorough in their research. They read from Nathan D. Grawe’s book Demographics and the Demand for Higher Education which examines the issues of liberal arts colleges financial sustainability on a national scale. With the guidance of a former Goucher finance employee they studied Goucher’s 9-90 tax forms of the 2012 through 2016 fiscal years. They sought out the help of statisticians when crafting their student survey. In the week after my interview with them they had made plans to  speak with a Goucher staff member about Goucher’s retention rate and exit data. They were also planning on speaking with someone who sits on Goucher’s Board of Trustees to talk about the decision making process at Goucher.

When asked about Goucher’s transparency, the students of PCE 200 had different opinions. The students agreed that the staff and faculty they reached out to were very responsive and helpful. One student said, “Goucher does do a phenomenal job as far as producing their tax forms to the general public.” Another student said, “Legally we [Goucher] have to share that information [tax forms]” and pointed out that while Goucher’s tax forms are available their contents are not accessible to most people who do not know how to decipher them. Another student said, “Goucher could be a lot more transparent but students have not demanded this.”

The students of PCE 220 are shedding a light on the budget which is a topic that is not in the forefront of most student’s concerns and is not an issue students have time to look into for themselves. The student survey will also reveal data about current student opinions and perceptions.

Below is a summary of Goucher’s budget made by the PCE 220 students.

Goucher Budget 101

Goucher College has two types of budgets (an amount of money that goes toward paying for specific types of expenses)

The Capital Budget is money that goes toward paying for fixed assets (resources that will last more than 5 years such as buildings and vehicles)

Capital Budget Sources of Revenue (Where the money comes from):

Debt (like a mortgage), Donations/Campaigns (like the Undaunted Campaign)

The Operating Budget is money that goes toward paying for everything else (such as salaries, materials, uniforms, debt repayment, and other ongoing expenses)

Operating Budget Sources of Revenue: Tuition, Housing/Dining

Expenses, Endowment (invested money that has been donated), and Grants.

*73% of the operating budget comes from tuition and room and board expenses.

Source: a presentation to our class on Goucher’s finances by a former Goucher finance employee.

Cecile Adrian

No Long-term Mental Health Treatment On Campus

by

On Campus Counseling Services Are Unable to Support Students with Long-term Mental Health Concerns

Last semester, Olivia Robertson, ’19, was having trouble sleeping and, as she put it, “things weren’t going well” with her mental health. She couldn’t remember the details of her appointment with the counseling center because it was “a hazy, emotional time,” but she remembered being told that by the center that they couldn’t help her because her situation sounded like a more serious, long term issue. She recalled a counselor telling her something like “we don’t think that we can really treat you here.”

Goucher’s counseling center, like almost all college counseling centers, operates on a short term treatment model, which ranges from 8-12 sessions. There is no “hard” limit on sessions, and they often see students for the duration of a semester, but they do typically recommend that students with needs for specialized services and/or persistent counseling, seek services off-campus. The center is only open ten months out of the year and it doesn’t have the capacity to serve students with long term or specialized needs.

A high percentage of Goucher students suffer from mental health conditions that are more long term and serious than coming-to-college anxiety or anything that a few trips to the counseling center might fix. According to the 2016-17 Healthy Minds Study, 14% of Goucher students screened positive for severe anxiety and 20% for major depression, 15% reported suicidal ideation, and 38% reported self-injury. 38% of Goucher’s undergraduate population means about 560 students.

Nationwide, mental health demands in institutions of higher education are increasing, and it is typical for students to come in for one or two counseling sessions. However, it is less typical at the national level for students to come in for more than ten sessions. In contrast, at Goucher many students use the counseling center for the length of a semester, and others are in need of even more prolonged services. “Pragmatically, I just don’t know that there’s a way we can manage that,” said Monica Neel, the Director of Counseling Services.

The counselors at the center are also “generalists,” Neel explained. “We need to be able to treat anything that walks in the door,” she said. For students with long term or more serious mental health concerns, it is important that they have access to more specialized care.

When students are advised to go off-campus, however, they might not seek services elsewhere. Through a Google search, Robertson found a therapist that she consulted with for a while, but she didn’t follow up with the off-campus resource list provided by the counseling center.

Robertson was also discouraged by the services she did receive from the center. They provided her with a list of local service providers and asked her to fill out a plan for suicide prevention. “[It was] a very DIY [Do-it-Yourself] kind of sheet, like ‘instead of trying to kill myself, I’ll call my mom,’ which is not…super useful? It was just a lot of information that I could’ve just googled…It serves the purpose but is not the same level of usefulness as actually having counseling available.”

Robertson didn’t schedule a follow-up on-campus appointment, and she hasn’t returned to the Goucher counseling center since. “I think it was discouraging because they were sort of saying that there weren’t really the resources here to treat me, and I guess I would extend that to say probably any real sort of mental health issues, compared to like, short-term, adjusting to college issues,” she said. And she’s right. The counseling center isn’t able to treat students with severe or serious mental health issues. Like almost all campus counseling centers nationwide, they must operate on a short-term model.

The counseling center is “tremendously well-staffed for a school our size,” according to Monica Neel. The nationally recommended number of counselors is 1 per 1400 students enrolled, and at Goucher there are 3.5 staff for an undergraduate student body of 1,473.

The counseling center is reaching maximum capacity simply because so many students need and use the center’s services. In the past school year, the counseling center completed 354 individual intakes and there were 97 crisis walk-in sessions, for average of three a week.

This semester, the counseling center did not reach a wait list level, but it has had one for the past three semesters. The counselors do their best to manage it; the average wait time is 7-12 days. The counselors assess students over the phone for safety before putting them on the wait list. While there is an assessment of immediate need made within 1-3 days of a request for an appointment, simply knowing that there is a wait list can discourage students from seeking on-campus help. “It’s unacceptable,” said Olivia Siegel, ’18, who works as a Resident Assistant and Peer Mentor. “No student should ever have to wait to speak with a mental health profession in person.”

This wait list may also soon improve with the new counseling center space in Mary Fisher. However, even with the new larger facilities, increased counseling staff, and longer clinical hours, the on-campus counseling center won’t be able to treat students with long term or specialized mental health concerns.

The counseling center hopes the short term restrictions will not deter students from at least making an appointment and completing an intake form. In situations in which counselors recommend off-campus resources, they typically provide a minimum of three clinicians, taking into consideration the student’s clinical needs, transportation situation, and insurance type.

There are also additional resources available like the after-hours mental health hotline that provides phone support by licensed clinicians. “They are there for students who need some support, and it can be something more benign all the way up to suicidal ideation,” said Monica Neel. These clinicians are familiar with Goucher and Goucher’s campus. They have a map of campus and can provide students with information on where to go to get help. Goucher also has a communication agreement with St. Joe’s Medical Center to ensure a smoother process if students need to be hospitalized.

Alexandra Graves and Cameron Cox are Goucher’s case managers, and they can collaborate with students to create individualized plans of support.

Faculty have some basic training in mental health through the counseling center, and Residential Life and Public Safety staff complete their own training.

Goucher also offers access to psychiatry, through health services, although it is limited. The psychiatrist is only on campus six hours a week.

Other on-campus resources that may be helpful for students include Peer Listeners, the Student Bereavement Group, the Academic Center for Excellence (ACE), the Center for Race, Equity, and Identity (CREI), and the Office of Accessibility Services.

Addendum: [This information was published in a earlier article but it was deemed beneficial to include it on the same page on the website to create a more holistic picture of mental health services at Goucher]

Many Goucher students are taking action regarding their mental health, and those that use the counseling services generally have positive things to say. According to internal statistics, in 2016-2017, the Goucher counseling services completed intakes with 354 individuals, which is roughly 25% of the student body. 1,349 individual counseling sessions occurred, and there were 97 crisis walk-in sessions, for an average of three a week while classes were in session. Of the 2017 graduating class, 45% of graduating seniors used counseling services at some point during their enrollment at Goucher.

“I’ve personally had a really good experience with counseling center,” said Monthie. “They technically say that they do have a policy you’re not supposed to go back-to-back semesters but I’ve done it. You just fill out a new form.” Director of Counseling Services Monica Neel confirms that there is no hard limit to the number of sessions that students can have, although the center does operate from a short-term treatment model.

In the Healthy Minds Study, students also reported high satisfaction with the counseling services. 87% of students reported having knowledge of mental health services on campus, 37% thought counseling was “very helpful” for mental health, compared to a national average of 31%. Student satisfaction with hours, scheduling and quality of therapists at the campus counseling center was all in the high 80% range.

The stigma surrounding mental health and mental health services is also relatively low at Goucher. In the Healthy Minds Study, only 38% of students reported perceived stigma, considerably less than the 47% nationally, and only 4% of students reported that they would think less of someone who received mental health treatment, compared with 6% nationally. “[At Goucher,] it’s pretty accepted to take a mental health day,” said Adina Karten, ’18.

Correction: An earlier version of this article included the phrase “turn away” which does not accurately represent the services provided by the Goucher counseling center.

Teach For America Faces Cuts Under Trump Administration

by
Teach For America provides opportunities for both limited income students and recent college graduates. Photo Credit: teachforamerica.org

Teach for America (TFA) has served underprivileged American children for 27 years, and has helped to improve the education of millions of kids, from Louisiana to Idaho, and now faces issues such as budget cuts and teaching grants repurposed as loans. A fair number of Goucher alumni join the program, with six Goucher alumni joining the 2017 corps, as Madeline St. John reported for the Quindecim this past year. The Trump administration’s proposed budget for the 2019 fiscal year has all but eradicated federal funding for the program. Additionally, at least 12,000 TFA teachers have had their grants turned into loans they are now required to pay back by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Education (DOE), according to a recent government study reported by NPR.

One of the draws of working for TFA to many aspiring undergraduates and soon to be graduates is the grants offered in return. More specifically, the Department of Education’s Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) grants, which are $4,000 a year, and come with requirements that teachers must meet. Teachers are required to teach a subject, such as math or science, in a low-income school for at least four years, and must submit paperwork annually to remain certified for the grant. If a teacher fails to meet the qualifications to continue their certification for the grant, it is then turned into a federal loan with interest. This is where TFA has recently experienced issues.

Unsurprisingly, the grants (and then loans) are not actually handled by the Department of Education, but contracted out to a third party called FedLoan. This March, NPR discovered a Department of Education study (both linked to below) that found that 63% of grant recipients failed to continually certify their grants and had them converted to loans. While a significant portion of that 63% was disqualified for legitimate reasons, at least 12,000 teachers are now being forced to repay their grants as loans in full, with interest that began accruing before some were even aware their grants had been converted.

Teachers affected said that they sent in their forms to FedLoan annually for certification, and had met all requirements, only to be told by FedLoan and the federal government that their paperwork was not processed correctly, and that they must repay the new loans in full. In response, lawsuits have been filed by former teachers and the Massachusetts Attorney General, who says the Trump administration DOJ and DOE  has mandated that companies such as FedLoan are not subject to state laws or lawsuits. This means that you now have much less legal protection, or likelihood of a successful lawsuit, if you are a  TFA member who has accepted grants or a hopeful undergraduate applicant to the program in the future, in the case that the Department of Education or FedLoan incorrectly processes your paperwork.

To add to the TFA’s difficulties, the Trump administration’s proposed budget for 2019 does the organization no favors. The proposed FY19 budget cuts DOE funding by $3.6 billion, and includes elimination of funding entirely for the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). This is not a direct cut to the TFA, but does not need to be, as the CNCS runs AmeriCorps. AmeriCorps is important to the functionality of the TFA, as they declared in their response to the budget “…AmeriCorps Education Awards reduce the financial barriers to service, enabling Teach for America and other organizations to provide a route to service for a diverse group of individuals.”

While both of these issues are not either direct conversion of grants to loans or federal budget cuts leveled by Trump directly l at TFA, they hamper the organization’s ability to function, and show a lack of regard for the program’s continuation. Both recent developments additionally paint a worrisome future for TFA. Besides the outrage stories such as grant-loan conversion due to a government agency incorrectly processing paperwork, and budget cuts to federal community service programs may rightfully inspire, they may also dissuade future Goucher applicants from applying to work with TFA.

1 2 3 5
Go to Top