91��ý

Detweiler (2021) has recently shown that a vibrant intellectual residential academic community is related to long-term positive life outcomes. 91��ý has aspired to be such a community, and experiences both strengths and limitations in realizing this aspiration. What would be required to realize our full potential as a vibrant and engaging academic community for undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty and staff? Are there existing programs, structures and systems that hinder the College from achieving such a goal? How radical would new programs, approaches and systems need to be to differentiate us in the marketplace and would a more radical approach be attractive to prospective students, faculty and staff? Would an even deeper investment in the creation of academic community strengthen the student experience, as measured by higher retention rates, graduation rates, alumnae/i satisfaction? What structural changes and investments would we need to make to create a sustainable model? How might we think about this strength in the ways that we organize advising and student life (e.g. living-learning communities) and co-curricular programming? How might this impact faculty/ student/ staff experiences of belonging and inclusion?

Board of Trustees Representatives

• Mary Clark
• Lorelai Vargas

Senior Staff Representative

• Tim Harte, Provost*

Student Representatives

• Abhi Suresh
• Marcos Cadena
• Kate Southerland
• Clara Schilling

Staff Representatives

• Matt Gray
• Charles Heyduk
• Mary Beth Horvath
• Beth Kotarski
• Tonja Nixon
• Kelsey Obringer

Faculty Representatives

• Leslie Cheng*
• Maria Cristina Quintero

Athletics Faculty Representatives

• Paul Stinson
• Katie Tarr

*Chairs

What is the optimal size of the undergraduate student body?  What are the strategic advantages of undergraduate student population growth for the campus experience of students, faculty and staff as compared to our current size?  What criteria should we use to evaluate the optimal size? How do externalities (impending demographic cliff, interest of international students, transfer student growth potential) impact our choices and their outcomes?  What are the revenue and cost implications and constraints on these choices — how will they impact/shape our available resources and how we use them?  What are the impacts on our residential capacity and our commitment to being a fully residential campus? What are the implications of changing the size of the undergraduate college for pursuing “no loan” or “need blind” financial aid policies?  What role do transfer students play in shaping our optimal enrollment and how do we offer a pathway program that enables them and other first-generation students to thrive?

Board of Trustees Representatives

• Kiki Jamieson
• Amy Loftus
• Ruth Lindborg

Senior Staff Representative

• Cheryl Horsey, Chief Enrollment Officer*

Faculty Representatives

• Kaylea Berard*
• Jonas Goldsmith

Staff Representatives

• Caitlin Brown
• Christine D'Ascenzo
• Jeanine Molock
• Sakinah Rahman
• Nichole Reynolds
• Jodi Mulhall (HC)

What is the academic mission of 91��ý and how do we define interdisciplinary and disciplinarity? What do we value about both curricular paradigms? How do we invest in our departments so that faculty can train students in their disciplinary areas of expertise and, should they so desire, also contribute to the courses and programs that connect our curricular endeavors and inspire interdisciplinary inquiry across our campus?  How do we support interdisciplinary programs without diluting/depleting departments and departmental resources? How do we clarify the pathways through departments and programs, majors and minors, so that students understand the distinctions between and among such academic opportunities and decide on the sorts of courses and contexts that will enrich their undergraduate experience and position them for different post-graduate trajectories? How do our requirements help or hinder the fulfilment of our academic mission? What are the implications of our queries for our students, faculty, and our relationships with external academic partners?

Board of Trustees Representatives

• Lore Perine

Senior Staff Representative

• Brooke Jones, Chief Investment Officer*

Faculty Representatives

• Penny Armstrong
• Jen Callaghan
• Xumei Cheng
• Madhavi Kale
• Mike Noel
• Lisa Saltzman
• Catherine Slusar

Student Representatives

• Abby Fortune
• Jamie Frueh

Staff Representatives

• Janet Shapiro*
• Sarah Theobald
• Erin Walsh
• Laura McGrane (HC)

What are 91��ý’s strengths, capabilities and resources? Which of them can be better leveraged to create reliable (and potentially alternative) revenue streams within our existing time and space constraints without detracting or distracting from our core mission/ programs?  What changes, opportunities and challenges are coming societally (e.g., demographically, technologically, environmentally, new knowledge/skills needs etc.)? How can we best prepare such that BMC will thrive in the next decade and beyond? Are there promising possibilities beyond the traditional academic year and beyond BMC’s traditional undergraduate population?  Are there places we may want to streamline or allow ourselves to stop doing something so that we can free up resources to invest in our core mission/programs and current priorities? 

Board of Trustees Representatives

• Lore Perine
• Gina Kim

Senior Staff Representative

• Kari Fazio, Chief Financial and Administrative Officer*
• Bob Miller, Chief Alumnae/i Relations & Development Officer

Faculty Representatives

• Paul Hintz
• Anita Kurimay

Student Representatives

• Daniella Jacob
• Colin Webster
• Lia Wong-Fodor

Staff Representatives

• Sharon Bain
• Nina Bisbee
• Katie Krimmel
• Sarah Robertson
• Tracy Weber

We would like to underscore that Working Group 2 has expanded our definition of optimal enrollment to include optimal student experience, enrollment composition, and retention.

Following the Campus-wide Town Hall, we received requests to consider the following during our discussions. We have also included some updates below.

• On the importance of speaking with offices that support counseling students via programs, such as Career and Civic Engagement/ addressing demands of funding, career connections, Praxis, and experiential learning: the working group identified early on in our discussions that Career and Civic Engagement would be an office we would invite to one of our weekly meetings to listen to their perspectives on these issues. We look forward to that discussion later this semester. 
• On the pressures that student support staff, such as counseling, advising, career counseling, etc. already experience at our current size:  these pressure points are being considered in our discussions and we have spoken with many Student Life offices as a result (as reflected in our revised key questions we presented at the Town Hall).  We have also further modified one of the central questions in the charge we received to emphasize our focus on concerns: Where are the barriers/pressure points (on students, faculty, staff, facilities, programs, etc.) at our current size (1,409 UG in FY23) to achieving our aspirations for the student academic experience?
• On the demands on study abroad: we will seek information from Tracy Weber, Director of Global Education.
• On the inclusion of housekeeping in the conversation:  the directors of Facilities and of Residence Life have each been asked about housekeeping in our meetings with them.  In addition, we will solicit feedback from Denise Romano, Director of Housekeeping. 
• On ways to encourage a more balanced utilization of 91��ý and Haverford resources, including curricular offerings: we have had some discussion of  Bi-Co resources at our meetings, and a Haverford College staff member is a member of our working group.  We are meeting with student focus groups and will include questions to gain a better understanding of how 91��ý students may be able to benefit more from Haverford resources than at present.
• On the McBride Scholars program:  the College looks to enroll a competitive and diverse class (traditional age, nontraditional age/ transfers, etc.). The McBride Scholars contribute to the richness of the student body.

We are grateful for the feedback we have received thus far, and we welcome more comments and questions.