In his May 12 column “Going Global,” Abhishek Parajuli ’15 advocates for the creation of a second Dartmouth campus, in Asia. While I struggle to understand how such a project would be feasible, my greatest concern surrounds Parajuli’s emphasis on “dramatically [increasing] our international reputation and presence.” Though there is nothing inherently wrong with strengthening Dartmouth’s prestige around the world, this should not be an institutional priority.
I chose Dartmouth because of its differences from peer schools, not its similarities. I wanted a small, rural school focused on undergraduate education and strong community, not graduate programs and international reputation. Unfortunately, some members of the Dartmouth community view these factors that drew me to Dartmouth as the College’s weaknesses, not its strengths. These individuals lament Dartmouth’s “weak” international ranking, instead of examining whether international rankings matter or challenging the questionable methodology used by Shanghai Ranking Consultancy, the institution behind the list of international university rankings, that places Dartmouth between Colorado State University and Florida State University.
As Dartmouth enters an exciting period of change, headlined by the recently announced housing initiatives, it is crucial that the College enact reforms that advance Dartmouth’s mission, which cites “independence of thought” as a core tenant of the College’s value system. Many recent suggestions actually deviate from Dartmouth’s mission, molding institution into something entirely different.
For example, a post on “Improve Dartmouth” that recommends changing the college’s name to “Dartmouth University” and creating a “university that encompasses the breadth of research deserving of an Ivy League institution” deeply disturbed me. Dartmouth should not be this sort of institution. Even if we had the necessary resources, such an expansion would undermine our niche as a smaller, more intimate and undergraduate-focused alternative to its peer schools.
Reforms that would deviate from Dartmouth’s nature as a small, undergraduate institution are not confined to “Improve Dartmouth” and other casual venues. Several recently announced initiatives, such as the new Society of Fellows postdoctoral program, seek to arm Dartmouth with traditional “university” credentials. By draining faculty time and supervision and increasing the number of courses taught by graduate students, excessive focus on graduate programs and global recognition will erode Dartmouth’s undergraduate emphasis in a way that is inherently antithetical to the College’s core mission.
Building a second Dartmouth campus so we can compete with institutions like Yale and Duke by having more in common with them would hardly comprise “independent thought.” Similarly, students like Parajuli who identify a compelling need to boost Dartmouth’s international stature seem to suggest that a Dartmouth degree alone, rather than independent thought or the “lifetime of learning and responsible leadership” also cited in the mission statement, entitles graduates to immediate success and prestige.
For people so concerned about rankings, let’s not forget the one category in which Dartmouth tops the list year after year: undergraduate teaching. Faculty quality is not without constraints, and spreading Dartmouth’s faculty too thin by opening up a second campus and expanding graduate programs, the necessary measures to increase international prestige, would greatly diminish the quality of undergraduate teaching.
Striking this balance is a game of tradeoffs. A higher chance that an international employer has heard of Dartmouth probably means a lower chance that a professor can do research with an undergrad. A higher chance that Dartmouth’s graduate programs rank highly may mean lower chances that undergraduates learn from professors, not TAs. When making these tradeoffs, I urge those in positions of power to prioritize the voices of those who wish to maintain Dartmouth’s undergraduate emphasis over those who wish to make Dartmouth more like Yale by emphasizing graduate programs and global prestige.
Yale is probably a great place. Dartmouth is a great place, too, and it does not need a second campus for that to remain true.
