<p>
[quote]
hey all, this is a very serious problem. The administration says that everything is status quo, but as most of us are seeing, things are anything but! Classes are overcrowded, fewer classes are being taught so we have less choice, profs are stressed and its harder to get time with advisors. The fact that the administration says that nothing is wrong when it's obvious that something is wrong is very troubling- they know what's going on because they set it in motion- now it's backfiring, people are unhappy, Smith will slide even further in rankings, and they aren't willing to admit a mistake and make some corrections. So speak out! Write to the deans, and to the trustees, and don't let them get away with weakening the value of your education!
[/quote]
Interesting comments found on the Jolt! Seems President Christ has been talking about the "new Smith" and is cutting back on non tenured positions of faculty members. I know, before anyone says something like "don't take the Jolt too seriously"...I don't! Just want to know if anyone else has heard similar stories going round?</p>
<p>Any responsible CEO (which, in effect, a college pres is) always has to keep an eye on the bottom line, continually re-evaluating priorities and expenses.</p>
<p>That said, I have not heard complaints from my senior D about class sizes or prof availability. As a matter of fact, last Sunday afternoon she cut off an IM session with me to go meet with the prof of one of her elective classes --"He has Sunday office hours," she explained. </p>
<p>The cuts/revisions to the dining program are well known.
Several international J-term options, which were heavily subsidized by the school, have been discontinued as well. :( Fortunately, my D had taken advantage of them her first and second years at Smith. </p>
<p>I heard President Christ speak this year, and while I can't recall all the specifics, she made sense to me, and handled the "no holding back" question and answer session with aplomb. IF I recall correctly, she made a strong case that any cuts would be directed at non-essential aspects of college life, and that academics would not be sacrificed. </p>
<p>Just as one example I know of, certain meetings, including some attended mainly by students, used to have catered meals. These have been discontinued. </p>
<p>Naturally, there are some programs and majors that are growing, and some that are not. Staffing decisions would reflect that. Are the problems showing up in certain majors?</p>
<p>According to the OP.....(one econ. prof, one engineering prof, one soc. prof, and one spanish prof...) In another post, the person says that they are still about 11 tenure track positions away from their goal.</p>
<p>I totally understand the cutbacks in dining options; that's really no big deal, except some alumnae are upset about those losses. There is also the talk from President Christ about cutting back on admissions by about 60 women per class beginning next year. That would certainly put the class size back to a reasonable number.</p>
<p>A friend at dinner speculated that Smith might be increasing the number of tenured positions while eliminating more contracted jobs (if you check the front Smith page, there's a press release that 19 professors were just tenured or promoted). There are a few overcrowded classes in topics such as children's lit, which everyone seems to want to take and there wasn't a cap placed on it. My largest class this semester is about 35 students, but there are two lab sections. This class (statistics) is offered every semester, is required by the bio major and can be used to count as a quantitative class for a few other majors, so the size is pretty typical.</p>
<p>Borgin...obviously, you have not seen nor heard of such happenings at Smith. I'm glad to hear that. Have you heard any other students complaing about these issues around campus. I wonder if the cuts (if there really are any) are in certain majors, rather than across the board?</p>
<p>If you check the archives of the meetings with alumnae, you'll find that the plans for the cuts were made three years ago, at the end of an endowment downturn. Since then, the endowment has increased from $790 million to well over $1.05 billion. They are currently talking about a host of new initiatives. </p>
<p>Three years ago, they seriously underestimated yield, and had the largest class in Smith's history. Admitting 60 fewer women results in a net yield of approximately 25 fewer students, more in the line with their traditional number of entering students. </p>
<p>Having said that, a little history is in order. Former Pres. Simmons created very much a new vision for Smith, and started implementing it BEFORE the money for it was raised. A massive increase in commitment to the sciences, and to the new engineering program - many new faculty, new facilities, a whole new science campus - the idea being to create the best environment for sustaining future women scientists in the United States. Re-energized commitments to admission of low-income students (and the funds necessary to support them.) New campus center. Rebuilding of all of the art facilities. She wasn't a great fundraiser, however, and that, coupled with a downturn in the economy, put quite a strain on the endowment. </p>
<p>What Christ did when she came aboard was a round of belt -tightening, without, however, canceling any of the new initiatives, and completing the largest fundraising drive ($400 million) in liberal arts college history (including $40 million in the last reporting year after the drive ended - about triple what was brought in by Swarthmore, Amherst, or Williams.) The success of the new initiative was reflected in the huge and unexpected yield in admissions three years ago, exacerbating the bow-wave rippling through the campus. This too shall pass.</p>
<p>On a side note: I still think the change in dining arrangements - independent of cost savings - is a plus to a significant majority of Smith students. Having said that, however, I note that my d. opted for Hopkins House, where she and her housemates cook for themselves.</p>
<p>The only "larger" classes my D has experienced...with around 50 or so students...are some of the one's you might expect, intro classes or "gateway" classes.</p>
<p>my class sizes have been pretty good--even those larger intro classes like geology for nonmajors, world religion, and "intro to political thinking" have sectioned into groups of 20 or less, each taught by a prof. I think the largest class I've had that didn't section was about 50 people, and that was international politics. This semester (my last one, but I'm taking an intro language and another lower-level course) none of my classes have more than 15 people.</p>
<p>my numbers might be slightly off, but i believe that smith's faculty-student ratio had been about 1:9 for a very long time, and for a variety of reasons went down about 5 years ago to 1:7 or 8. Now they're trying to get it back to the old levels--which i think are still pretty decent, since at least at Smith all of the faculty actually teaches, not like at some schools where there is a great faculty-student ratio on paper but you'll never see most of the profs.</p>
<p>While there are some departments that are lacking a bit at the moment, I've also heard about a lot of great profs getting tenure, and some good applicants for open positions. I think Smith just has to do a bit better job of keeping or placing faculty in the positions where students have large and growing interest (anything middle east- religion, politics, language, history,etc.; sign language; etc.) and things will be all right.</p>
<p>The faculty-student ratio went down 5 years ago due to all the new engineering/science hires. As the student body tilts slightly more toward the sciences, and the yield surprise of three years ago works its way through the system, things will return to where they were, only with some areas much stronger than they used to be.</p>
<p>My d's classes are tiny, except for a Jewish studies intro class which is billed as a lecture.</p>
<p>Stacy, I agree, the 1:9 ratio is decent and the warning sign would be if that started drifting upwards. I am concerned that some departments, like History from what I've heard, have some perplexing "holes" in the offerings. I don't have the course catalog at hand, but I also remember thinking that some departments in the social sciences seemed a little light in the "bread and butter" courses and having more "peripheral" courses...but I don't have a catalog at hand to cite examples. </p>
<p>Hmm...maybe I should ask D to pick a current one up and bring it home.</p>
<p>Stacey...I agree that things will be o.k. as well. I trust that Smith and President Christ will do what is right for Smithies, current and future. What are the average class sizes in bio, for example?</p>
<p>TD- I can back you up on the History department.</p>
<p>There ARE gaps and holes in their curriculum for the major. A student must take 5 courses in her field (Africa, Europe, Latin America, whatever, even "Colonial Revolutions" or women's, dream!). It also must include a 400-level seminar. The other 5 can be anything. Just as long at least there is a course in US or Latin American History, European History, and Asian or African history. </p>
<p>Problem: If the student wants to "major" in Latin American history as her field, then she will have her two survey courses and a seminar- all by the same professor. Then she would have to look elsewhere for her other two classes within 5 college or from abroad. Of course, from time to time, that professor will teach a coloquium. And 5 courses of the major MUST be taught at Smith. Also, depends on the students' interests and the kind of courses that being offered in the next two-three years can make a difference on whether she will be able to finish her history major at all. </p>
<p>The requirements for the major are pretty tough for such limited course offerings, especially if the department is heavily driven towards US History (okay in European). There is only one professor each for Latin America, Africa, Middle East (very, very broad), ancient, and China/Japan. My advisor told me that the department really wanted to hire a professor for Southeast Asia (like India) because so many of their students had to take a religion course on Buddhism in order to learn more about Indian history. The department has had to be pretty flexible about cross-listing courses in order to help the students meet the minimum requirements for the major. Those are the "holes" that we're talking about- the requirements for the major is too much for the department's current offerings.</p>
<p>Thanks for the info, TMP. I tend to check the "History" departments because in at least one alternate universe, that's what I would have gotten my degree in.</p>
<p>====</p>
<p>By my calendar, this year's RD admittees should be hearing in less than two weeks.</p>
<p>I tried to find out, purely by numbers, where the history department stood relative to its peers. Smith has 22 history faculty (13 full-time tenure-track, 7 lecturers - some of whom will become tenure track, and 2 in the History of Science - I am not counting those in Women's studies, or area studies, and not counting emeriti. And not accounting for 5-college professors/offerings.) With a larger number of history majors, Colgate has 19, Williams 21, Amherst 17 (though quite a few are area studies or women's studies, so that number is actually lower); Swarthmore has 10. </p>
<p>So I suspect there are indeed holes, but it isn't due to the number of professors, or the number of majors, but specific course distribution. There are 5-College Certificate programs in Middle Eastern, African, (I think) Latin American studies, and International Relations that triple the offerings in each of these areas. I imagine there still might be holes, but lack of faculty size or cutbacks would not be suitable explanation.</p>
<p>Did more checking on history departments: Wellesley has 17; Bowdoin 20 (but 6 are on leave!), Dartmouth 26 (but that includes the college prez and emeriti), Hamilton 12, Middlebury 18.</p>
<p>Vassar has 14. Grinnell 13 (plus the college pres.) Macalester 13. Mt. Holyoke 17 (though I can't figure out their makeup.) Pomona 14 (3 on leave); Carleton 19 (includes Women's studies chair, with four on leave.) St. Olaf - 17.</p>
<p>There may be, but it doesn't relate to the number of faculty, and, given the 5-College Programs, perhaps not the breadth of the offerings (but perhaps the depth and distribution of them - that's something current students would know much, much better, though they couldn't compare with other schools.)</p>