On Monday, College President Phil Hanlon spoke to the faculty about his vision for the future of academics at Dartmouth. This speech contained many ideas of interest to undergraduates: an expansion of the Thayer School of Engineering, greater emphasis on interdisciplinary studies, the creation of residential clusters and the revival of a five-year, joint undergraduate-businessprogram. These ideas, as well as Hanlon’s proposed reduction in the future rate of growth of tuition, would certainly be important innovations. We are deeply concerned, however, by the undertone of the speech, which seemed to portend further shifts away from Dartmouth’s core focus on undergraduate education and the liberal arts.
Most concerning was the speech’s extensive discussion of graduate education and the new Society of Fellows. There are two particular problems here. First, graduate students require a lot of faculty time, especially for research supervision. While Hanlon did propose an expansion of the faculty, it seems all too probable that this faculty expansion will not be in line with the expansion of graduate and post-doctoral students. This is certain to curtail faculty time and attention toward undergraduates. Second, while Hanlon currently states that new graduate and post-doctoral students will not teach undergraduates, it is hard to believe that this will still be the case in five or 10 years. Part of being a post-doctoral student at a liberal arts college, as opposed to at a major research institution, is getting teaching experience. Math courses currently taught by graduate students are very hit-or-miss and, on average, do not compare favorably to courses taught by faculty members. Meanwhile, many other academic departments do not get help from graduate or post-doctoral students, yet have faculty members who balance research with excellent teaching. Introducing numerous graduate and post-doctoral students in other disciplines will only harm the pursuit of the College’s core academic mission.
Hanlon also asked for feedback regarding a proposal to make experiential learning a requirement for graduation. Our response is a firm negative. There are already, if anything, too many graduation requirements, and some might argue that experiential learning conflicts with liberal arts. In a liberal arts education, students should spend time reading Milton or learning about the Peloponnesian War. Working in a prison or completing a group design project may be equally valuable pursuits, but are also the kinds of things that one might do for the rest of her life, not just in college. Students can already find many opportunities for experiential learning if they wish. Expanding such opportunities might not be objectively bad, but it would be a mistake to make experiential learning a requirement for graduation.
Most importantly, Hanlon failed to substantively discuss undergraduate education in his speech. While we have previously lauded his outreach to undergraduates, we are disappointed that they received little attention outside the context of experiential learning. Topics such as study abroad, course selection and faculty quality were conspicuously absent from his remarks.
Dartmouth’s greatest strength has long been the way that it balances undergraduate focus, emphasis on the liberal arts and faculty research. While Monday’s speech may not be indicative of Hanlon’s priorities, a potential shift away from this balance is a future by which we cannot abide.
This editorial has been updated to reflect the following correction:
Correction appended: November 8, 2013
The editorial incorrectly identified the new proposed Tuck-undergraduate partnership as an MBA program. The 4+1 program will not grant students MBA degrees.
