Access
I’ve been struggling with writer’s block for the better part of a month as I’ve thought about a number of issues that have crossed my desk. Two issues specifically have been brought to me by others: grade-based prerequisites and departmental admissions standards. Both issues, in fact, have come to me from more than one place. For example, the Academic Standards Committee of the College Senate has been handling an increase in the number of departments requesting higher admissions standards into their majors than the 2.0 required for good standing at Keene State College. The Enrollment Planning Committee has also been dealing with department-based enrollment management. (This is the same issue, really, as departments regulate their enrollments by increasing standards for admission.)
Grade-based prerequisites and admissions standards, both of which are increasing at the moment, are certainly reasonable ways for departments to regulate demand for courses and majors. If we can’t meet student demand, shouldn’t we allow the higher achieving students into their majors of choice over other students.
On the other hand, if access is a core value, then what do we communicate when we agree as a community that a 2.0 grade point average makes a student a member of our community in good standing, but increasingly limit the options available to that student? Is it okay for us to say, “You’re good enough to be a student at Keene State, but your not good enough to be a (insert name of major here).
Some accrediting bodies mandate this approach. NCATE, for example, would have serious problems with our letting a student with a 2.0 GPA sign up for student teaching. Pre-professional programs particularly and frequently declare that a student must be above average to graduate with a specific major. But it’s becoming the norm. My concern is that it’s becoming the norm by default and perhaps not for the right reasons.
As department makes individual decisions about whether to raise admissions standards in particular majors, we don’t engage the College in a discussion of whether this is the right approach for us as a community. It might be the right thing for a particular department, but for a public, liberal arts college that names access as one of its core values? Shouldn’t we at least have the conversation (as difficult as that might be).
As for the reasons behind this increase in tactics that limit progress in a program, is it okay for a department to decide on its own that it has too many majors and, therefore, must weed out a certain number of students? Are there other reasons or better reasons that make this a desirable approach? Are there alternatives to department-based enrollment management that are within our means?
These are difficult and politically charged questions to ask. That’s probably why it has taken me a month to blog about them. Nonetheless, it seems we have to talk about these issues. We have many students with grade point averages below 2.5. What is our obligation to have programs available to them?
I’m actually looking forward to these conversations. Whatever we decide as a community will be better than falling into things because we never talked about them.