[UPDATE 2/12/16: The school's faculty has voted to ask the school's president to resign.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/catholic-college-reinstating-fired-professors-36905266]
The president at St. Mary's university has a new plan to weed out some freshman students.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/20/furor-mount-st-marys-over-presidents-alleged-plan-cull-students
The student newspaper also reported (and The Washington Post quoted a professor confirming) that Newman told some faculty members they needed to change the way they think of struggling students. He reportedly said, “This is hard for you because you think of the students as cuddly bunnies, but you can’t. You just have to drown the bunnies … put a Glock to their heads.”
And why does our intrepid president want to drown the bunnies?
The president, Simon Newman, acknowledged to The Washington Post that he was pushing a plan to intervene early on with students who may be having difficulties. But he said that this was to help them, although he said that the help in some cases might be for them to see that they might be better off a less expensive public institution.
It would also help improve freshman retention, since attrition in the first few weeks doesn't count against your numbers.
The emails quoted in the student newspaper, The Mountain Echo, suggest more than just trying to reach at-risk students. The emails describe using a survey given to new students to help identify those who may be likely to drop out. And then an email from President Newman says: "My short-term goal is to have 20-25 people leave by the 25th [of September]. This one thing will boost our retention 4-5 percent.
So, should schools look at having "at-risk" students leave early, saving those students from the expense and loans (St. Mary's plan was to issue a full refund to these students)? Or should the school focus on retaining (cuddling) these students, and allowing them to take on the cost and stress? Should the focus be on admissions and would that be enough?
↧