Thank you for your video presentation and draft of your thoughts/plans/wishes for Wesleyan. Also, congratulations on being elected as President, not exactly an easy task in these days of economic difficulties for most if not all members of the community.

The comment I wish to add has to do with the ability to raise money for specific or general purposes. It seems that Wesleyan is good at supporting the desire of wealthy alumni who wish to give money for building buildings. Wesleyan is not alone in this but new buildings are a part of the infrastructure. Considering the success in this area, perhaps those alumni who are interested in this form of giving could be encouraged to broaden their outlook, if possible, toward giving in general, especially toward Wesleyan’s more immediate needs.

2) Wesleyan arbitrarily distinguishes between academic and technical subjects probably enforced by the faculty via departmental structure. Big problem. The point of view and the topics of classes now compared to twenty years ago is not as different as it should be.

3) Freshman should come in early August and have one month basic training: unit cohesion, overview of all major fields and analytical styles, introspection on goals, study skills (especially writing), and how Wesleyan communicates.

4) lots more non-Americans

5) lots more red staters

Basta,

Horace “Pete” Deacon

This major initiative has passed and been forgotten about by most of the Wesleyan community with barely a yawn. Despite having been sent to over 40,000 alumni, 3,000 students and 300 faculty, it generated a meager 25 responses, and since the last was over a week ago, it seems that may be the end of them. In contrast, when President Bennett began the process before the campaign, it drew an enormous flowering of ideas, excitement, and support from all corners of the community.

The difference is that President Bennett started by asking members of the Wesleyan community for their thoughts. These brief suggestions were then culled by a committee and developed into short working papers, and the best of those were carefully developed by stakeholders into actionable plans. Even if others were not involved, at least they could respect the process. In your case, you plonked these ideas down on the Wesleyan community from the start, and although they will require tremendous efforts on the part of faculty especially, they have not yet been involved in any serious manner (other than the College of the Environment) in generating them. Are you expecting to go this alone? Are you expecting to state a bunch of ideas you yourself think are great in the hopes the faculty and alumni (who will have to support them financially) are going to rise up and jump to it? Good luck with that!

As many of the respondents above have mentioned, you ideas are very, VERY expensive, and Wesleyan is running a very large deficit that you are well aware is only going to get larger under current models. Some of your suggestions, especially with regard to increasing the number of foreign students, may simply not be feasible given the university’s financial state.

I think you are going to discover that the manner in which you have gone about things is not going to generate the support from the Wesleyan community stakeholders needed to enact them in any meaningful way, and here is what you might consider doing.

First, the faculty are currently trying to figure out how to balance the university budget deficit. Give them a year to do so. This is a very trying process. It is emotionally draining, very time consuming, and they need to reach consensus on it. Also, a year from now will give us a better sense of where the financial world is moving.

Then, issue a call for papers and follow the model your predecessor did. (a) You may discover much to your dismay that some of your ideas are not all the well supported by other stakeholders, and while you might not want to learn that, the simple reality is that ideas that are not widely supported will not be enacted meaningfully anyhow. (b) Second, and very importantly, if you started by asking stakeholders for their thoughts, they will take ownership of what results, and the ensuing agenda will become *Wesleyan’s* agenda. Right now it’s just *your* agenda, and even if you are the president, if it isn’t supported by the faculty, alumni and students, it isn’t going to go anywhere.

Noting I have written is to say your ideas are bad. Rather, at the moment, they’re *you* ideas and no one else’s, and unless you pay attention to the process, you may quite well find yourself extremely disappointed with what results.

The thoughts about once more tweaking the freshman curriculum are very tired. Can we not launch our freshmen directly into the intro classes in a variety of disciplines, ideally with some of the most dynamic, experienced professors at the helm?

The lack of guidance in finding meaningful internships is also worrisome, and I would support much improvement in this area.

Is there some way to restore the small, intimate nature of the campus when it was half the size it is now, especially in promoting close relationships between students and professor/mentors? This too seems to have sadly diminished. Are there still places on campus where both students and professors congregate? I’m not sure Usdan is such a great success in that regard.

I would echo the comments of many of my colleagues regarded a dubious interest in increasing international students and the sad state of disrepair of many campus buildings. Criticism aside, I applaud the effort to recommit to our most deeply held ideals.

++ Wesleyan remains committed to providing a liberal arts education, as outlined in Mission (community draft);
++ Students are admitted on the basis of merit, not wealth;
++ The university hires and retains faculty who are effective teachers as well as scholars in their disciplines;
++ Broaden the global reach of the curriculum.

Challenges relating fo these concepts are many. Here are a few:
The financial aid portion of the budget is enormous, but I would be loath to place any arbitrary limit on merit-based aid. However, I have concerns about significantly expanding the number of international students, IF they would fall under the merit-based financial aid policy. I am assuming that after-tax income levels either for high-tax Europe of emerging nation families are lower than in the United States, so that the per-student financial aid cost for new international students could be higher than domestic. As a basic matter, though, I feel more comfortable in maintaining the present emphasis on domestic aid and not reducing it in favor of international – though I recognize that more international students would broaden campus diversity.
Curriculum review must be an ongoing exercise. Because of Wesleyan’s relatively small size, and cost pressures, we cannot afford to maintain a boutique array of courses no matter how obscure the material of how low the interest level may be. As newer global courses are added to reflect emerging educational needs, it is appropriate to make sure that the remainder of the curriculum still serves broad student demands. Perhaps shared courses with nearby colleges might alleviate some pressures, but Middletown’s somewhat remote location and transportation issues might limit this approach.

I really appluad the initiative with the release of this planning document. I was, however, a little disappointed to see that nowhere on your list of Goals and Objectives is the mention of ‘Promoting Religious Understanding’. I think this is a critical step in creating a tolerant campus environment and it adequately addresses the challenges of the 21st century. It also provides students with a foundational framework for learning from the diverse backgrounds that they represent.

I think our Office of Religious Life is comprised of some amazing leaders (many of whom I had the privelege to learn from) and I would love for the university to invest more time and money into their development.