To the Editor:
Andy Schader's very thoughtful comments on the first-year proposals ("Intellectual Life Proposals Fall Short," Jan. 31) suggested to me that there are some aspects of the plan that have not been clearly communicated to the student community. First, the envisioned faculty presence in the residential clusters is to consist of far more than a single faculty member. Rather, the Faculty Associate would be expected to gather around him or her a group of interested and committed faculty members and other older adult members of the College community who would become a presence in the cluster over special dinners, evening discussions and the like. Since some form of faculty advising is likely to be organized through the clusters, we can expect that advisers would become a sub-set of the faculty affiliated with a given cluster. Indeed, a 350 to one ratio is a bit daunting, but that is not what has been proposed.
Second, perhaps we have not sufficiently communicated the fact that the intellectual vibrancy that we expect to result from the proposal is not to be imposed by edict upon students, willing or otherwise. It is instead my belief that the College owes to those students who wish it the chance to better integrate intellectual and residential components of their Dartmouth lives. Schader's mention of Professor Cook's lecture and the discussions following is a good case in point. True, many students did not participate in the discussions, but the survey my office conducted of the Class of 1998 regarding Orientation suggested that those who did generally found it to be a lively and provocative event.
Although not explicitly addressed in Schader's column, the intellectual life proposals have also been criticized for the manner in which advising is to be organized through the Freshman Seminars. Since this is a component of the report that must be settled by the faculty, and since it is not central to the proposal as a whole, it is unnecessary for the community to attempt to settle now the many issues that it raises. But it is worth noting that, in rethinking an advising system with which there is some dissatisfaction, the impulse was to capitalize on a pre-existing faculty-student relationship which is frequently substantive. Many seminar instructors report that they become the de facto advisers to their students, and it may be worth considering how we might profit from models of this kind in reconfiguring the present system.
Finally, I do not agree that "intellectualism is a personal characteristic;" rather I think that it is the function of a social environment, of a prevailing ethos, of moods, attitudes and values within a community. If we can agree that a more intellectually vibrant atmosphere should be made available to those Dartmouth students who came here in search of it, then perhaps we can work together in order to find the means of accomplishing it.
