Name: Bill Durden, President
Date: Thu Aug 28 2003—07:48
Message:

I find this "Weigh-In" always to be quite healthy and a good forum to work out various perspectives in detail and with sufficient logic.

I'd like to repond to the good thoughts of alum Kurt Scheib above. Kurt, I pass on to you words that I wrote yesterday to a classmate of yours, I believe.

They express the position of the College: "Thank you for your most direct response on the "Weigh-In to David Kirp's article. Your perspective on this aspect of Kirp's article (many other parts were indeed on target as you also state) is absolutely shared by me and all my colleagues.

Thank you for expressing it so eloquently. I can't tell you as a Dickinsonian myself how annoyed I was by Dr. Kirp's sweeping generalizations about the quality of Dickinson classes in the late 90s. As I said in my introduction to the article, Kirp appears to measure quality ONLY by data that is accepted for USNEWS rankings.

We all know the problems with conclusions about actual quality, achievement, productivity, contribution made from such data rather than looking squarely at the various talents of an individual and what those individuals have made of that talent...

And Dickinson is a college that doesn't even require the SAT! What would Kirp do with our first almost 200 years of history—then we required no SATS (wasn't even invented) [and little else that was empirical!]...

Were all our graduates of those years "Simpson-like"—a president of the US, a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, countless contributors to society? Please!!! And you—as well as I and all Dickinson alums—received a most outstanding education while here and we are all acting positively upon that education.

Again, I thank you and tell you unequivocally that I am extremely proud of all alums—ALL alums—for their completion of a Dickinson education and subsequent achievement. The more Dickinson excels now and into the future, the more all our degrees will rise in respect, esteem and value. This is the task ahead." I also expressed more concisely this disposition in my introduction to the original mailing of the Kirp article.

I not exactly sure, Kurt, how you conclude and state unequivocally from Kirp's piece that "many" faculty and the administration have a negative disposition towards the classes of the late 90s. Kirp cites several faculty who express frustration in certain aspects of instruction (of course, academic freedom is appropriately in place and faculty have the right to express their individual opinions) and then moves himself from there to broader commentary—his privilege also in such a journalistic piece. I again refer you to my comments above for what is in fact the institutional disposition.

I am also very appreciative of your good comments concerning your fears that Dickinson is becoming "elitist" (on the basis of accessibility) seemingly based on Kirp's writing.

You appear to base that in part on Kirp's assertion that a decade or so ago Dickinson has 22% of its population first generation and now it stands at 12%.

Kirp is correct, but the negative, comprehensive conclusion you draw is a bit premature since Kirp doesn't immediately link this statistic (and give import to the 12% in higher education today) with another observation about Dickinson today placed in his article further on.

Firstly, 12% is still a very high percentage of first-generation students for any national liberal arts college. Secondly, Dickinson was also concerned a few years ago about increasing significantly the diversity of the campus beyond first-generation (there was not tremendous diversity of other type in this group years ago, of course—and I was first-generation in '67-'71, by the way). Our students were demanding such diversity also (This has has been the case with generations of Dickinson students—including yours)—kudos to them—kudos to you—outstanding students whom we wish to attract of whatever race or perspecitve want to learn in a highly diverse atmosphere—and we all felt that such additional diversity was appropriate to achieve on all grounds, to include enhancement of the learning environment for all Dickinsonians. When you were here, the percentage of students of color was extremely low—3% or 4%.

Today that percentage in incoming classes is climbing over 11%-12% (the percentage of international students is also steadily rising). What Kirp does not indicate explicitly—but he does provide the data, in part, for a discerning reader to conclude—is that Dickinson is actually far more diverse than it was just a few years ago and far more than in its entire history. Additionally, the average family income of current Dickinson students is actually LOWER than that of the Penn State main campus! I also refer you to Dr. Massa's comments above indicating that at a 60% financial aid dispositon, Dickinson today is way, way ahead of most comparable colleges and univeristies in actual commitment of percentage of funds devoted to such critical assistance—most are at 25%-40%. Our 80% figure a few years ago was indeed financially unsustainable and if pursued further might have caused such financial damage to the College that its very existence would be in question.

I simply add this data and analysis to give context to the Kirp article. I greatly respect your concern that Dickinson not be inaccessible to deserving students. We, today, are very much about the task of translating such healthy concern into actual action that provides an engaging learning environment and at once, advances a financially viable college for the present and, as importantly, for generations ahead. Again, thank you, and all the best. Bill