Board of Trustee Changes impact admissions decision

<p>What does the change to the Board of Trustees mean to students who are considering applying to Dartmouth? Can anyone provide a coherent answer to this question? And more importantly, are the allegations made by the members elected by the Alumni true?</p>

<p>The editorial published by the WSJ, written by a Dartmouth grad, about the experience of TJ Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semidconductors, raises some serious issues. The editorial recount the experience of the Fortune 500 executive as a member of the board. </p>

<p>The editorial describes Dartmouth administration response to the success of the Alumni getting their own candidates elected to the Board:</p>

<p>"Dartmouth's insular leadership has loathed all of this. A former trustee, and a current chair of Dartmouth's $1.3 billion capital campaign, publicly charged that the petition process had initiated a "downward death spiral" in which a "radical minority cabal" was attempting to hijack the Board of Trustees. That was among the more charitable commentaries."</p>

<p>It's stated that Rodgers assessed the state of undergraduate education at Dartmouth as follow:</p>

<p>"He noted trends: over-enrollment, wait lists and an increased percentage of classes taught by visiting or non-tenure-track faculty. He concluded that many departments--economics, government, psychology and brain sciences, in particular--were "suffering from a shortage of teaching."</p>

<p>"It's a simple problem," Mr. Rodgers says. "You hire more professors." His effort to get an objective grip on the problem would be comic were it not so unfathomable. "I've had to scrounge to get data," he says, the administration not being forthcoming. "My best sources of data come from faculty members and students."</p>

<p>While he can't discuss internal figures, he says there's been "a modest improvement since 2004. It's about 10 professors net gain." That's "going in the right direction, but not nearly as fast as I would like." While the college has added 1.1% faculty per year over the last decade, at the same time its overall expenses have increased by 8.8%, "so the inevitable mathematical conclusion of those numbers is that the percentage of money we spend on faculty is going down, and it has gone down consistently for a long time.""</p>

<p>Are these allegations correct? Does increasing the size of the board to reduce the influence of the Alumni elected members muffle their voice and sweep this issue "under the rug"? Is this a real issue or is this a resistance to change and a desire to return to the "Animal House" days as others have stated?</p>

<p>Should this influence the decision of my child to apply to Dartmouth?</p>

<p>The changes will keep Dartmouth moving forward. Its the opposite of a return to animal house.</p>

<p>If you have any concerns with respect to the governance of Dartmouth College, please read the factual information put forth in the full report issued by the Board of Trustees explaining the need for their changes. The College has had and will continue to have very lively debate over various issues... why? Because its alums are bright, dynamic people who have a very deep love of the institution. They would only be so engaged if they truly identified with the College - a result of the life forming experiences they had while there as well as the friends and connections our alums have throughout the world. If you have any questions about whether or not your child should apply to Dartmouth, come to the campus and talk with the students there. The vast majority absolutely love the place and student satisfaction is among the highest in the Ivy League.</p>

<p>As a student, while I may not agree with the politics behind the decision, I can say this: this will absolutely have no effect on my quality of life or education while at Dartmouth - I am certain of this. As susanluria said, just about everyone at the school loves it. Dartmouth pride is amazingly strong, unparalleled by many other schools.</p>

<p>I'm an alum who coordinates student recruiting activities for Dartmouth in a Midwest region, just to disclose my slant on this. I will very happily continue to encourage the best students to apply to Dartmouth and to enroll, despite all these public issues about governance. </p>

<p>There is a long history of conservative political activism at Dartmouth. At times that has caused some embarrassment, especially when that has led to clashing with the majority that is politically neutral or progressive. But for the most part it has given Dartmouth some energy and involvement that is lacking at its peer schools. These governance issues are an outgrowth of that conservative activism. </p>

<p>Whatever we alumni may think about the specific issues being raised, it is absolutely certain that Dartmouth remains (we think) the best undergraduate school in the country and that won't change. There is a genuine focus on the undergraduate that is absent at universities, while at the same time there are the resources for the teaching faculty to pursue excellent scholarship and to bring the students along with what they're doing. It's the ideal combination, in a wonderful overall college environment. </p>

<p>The political activism can be ignored, or it can be something extra in your son or daughter's education, if they choose to get involved. Please keep Dartmouth high on your list.</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies and your perspective on this topic.</p>

<p>My son loves debate and politics so he'd fit in really well to a dynamic and intense political environment. My son is considering apply ED to Dartmouth. We hope to spend several days at Dartmouth in October trying to firm up this decision.</p>

<p>Can you shed more light on the "long history of conservative political activism" at Dartmouth. Define "conservative" - what issues has this effort focused on?</p>

<p>Let me begin by saying that what you are referring to centers more around alumni affairs. The campus, the administration, and the student body are generally overwhelmingly liberal. Conservatives on campus are, if anything, an outspoken minority. All this aside, Dartmouth does tend to produce forums for engaging debates and there's plenty of controversy to boot. From the little bit of your son that you have mentioned, it sounds like he would fit in very well, and I suggest that you consider giving Dartmouth a good look. There are plenty of reasons that one can have for loving or hating a school; to me, it seems like it would be a real shame for this to be the reason someone passes up on Dartmouth.</p>

<p>For more on Dartmouth's conservative activism, see: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_Review%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_Review&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Among the Review's actions not listed there: having 9 people hold up Confederate battle flags at a Howard Dean rally (after his statement that he wanted to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags on the backs of their pickup trucks) and a completely mocking interview of Dennis Kucinich.</p>

<p>It is probably the only Ivy League school with two conservative/libertarian papers (Review/Beacon) and only one avowedly progressive one (Free Press).</p>

<p>As bulldogbull and slipper (in other threads) have pointed out, most of Dartmouth's student body is politically liberal--at least according to the barometer that around 80-85% of them voted for John Kerry in the last presidential election. However, where I think Dartmouth is different is that
conservatives have a power at Dartmouth they don't have elsewhere. Not power in dominance of numbers, but rather power in the ability to make their positions known and effect change. </p>

<p>However, when it comes to Dartmouth affairs, I'd argue that most students (and definitely alumni) are actually quite conservative (in the sense of rebelling against change to their beloved alma mater). That's why so many students and alums have come out against this usurpation--me among them. Furthermore, I don't think that this is truly a conservative/liberal issue. As TJ Rodgers said recently in the WSJ, this is a libertarian/totalitarian issue.</p>

<p>What I'm hearing is that Dartmouth is a place where more than one political point of view exists and that all sides feel free to state their opinions.</p>

<p>How is that a bad thing?</p>

<p>I really think his ultraliberal views went against my son in admission to Dartmouth. Although he applied ED for reasons too complicated to go into here, he was deferred and ultimately rejected. His grades were stellar; his ACT outside the 75%, his SAT about the median, perhaps a bit higher. He was accepted to UChicago, Williams, Amherst and Brown. It may be that there was something else in his application that Dartmouth did not like, but his alumni interviewer said that he went strongly to bat for him. </p>

<p>I don't say this with any bitterness or regret; S is very happy where he is, and I think there is much to admire in Dartmouth as an institution. However, I think it's possible that politics do have a voice at Dartmouth.</p>

<p>Mythmom, your S could have had the same result at any number of highly selective colleges or universities, regardless of his political opinions. Students with much higher SAT scores than his are turned away in droves every year from top-tier schools. </p>

<p>Of course, it could be a vast right-wing conspiracy...</p>

<p>mythmom, I just hope that your son did not end up choosing UChicago,,,did he??!!</p>

<p>Lol Movie, I agree! Myth, Dartmouth in no way would filter out an ultra-liberal student. If anything they'd prefer one. College admissions is a crapshoot at the top level.</p>

<p>Midwest Dad</p>

<p>While not a serious issue in the time frame for your son, the ongoing alumni battle has long term and far reaching implications for Dartmouth's future.</p>

<p>It has become a war over “Who’s Dartmouth IS it?” Does Dartmouth belong to the alumni and the future alumni (its students) or does it belong to the administration? </p>

<p>“Official Dartmouth” is committing hara kiri in its handling of the entire matter. Even if they win - they lose.</p>

<p>In many ways, Dartmouth IS its alumni. ...yet, somehow, the administration doesn’t get it – in fact, as hard as it is to believe, they don’t really seem to get Dartmouth – or if they do get it, they don’t like it. ...for it seems that over the past 20-25 years they have raised ****ing off alumni to an art form</p>

<p>Every year has brought a larger and larger and more and more expensive and extravagant full court press from the administration and the non elected trustees.</p>

<p>Mailings and emails are unending in support of the administration candidates. Class Officers call every single alumni reminding them to support the nominated slate and “approved” ballot measures. (Funny, I’ve never had the opportunity to vote on my class officers or reps – only on the trustees)</p>

<p>And every year, this onslaught is defeated by write in candidates by larger and larger margins. </p>

<p>… after 4 trustee election losses in a row, did “Official Dartmouth” see any light? Did they reach out to their alumni? Did they seek to address the issues driving the winning candidates? Not exactly. …</p>

<p>…they did respond to the results – with a massive effort to change the rules – which was also defeated handily when put to a vote (and after all the dollars and man hours spent in support of their proposals, they can in no way claim that the alumni were not well aware of or informed about the issues).</p>

<p>… so finally, unable to win any other way, “Official Dartmouth” has simply declared the rules changed – claiming that they never needed an election to do so any way. </p>

<p>The whole matter is now headed to court – where Dartmouth has a woeful record in litigation against its alumni and students.</p>

<p>There is no charitable way to spin this. Either they are lying now or they have been lying all along.</p>

<p>Common sense would seem to indicate that they are lying now and lack the authority they claim. No sane body would have gone through all the time and expense of last year’s alumni election if it were not necessary. </p>

<p>The alternative is that they have been lying all along, that last year’s election was a farce and an enormous waste of time, money, energy and good will. … and that Dartmouth’s history of alumni governance is a fiction, an illusion tolerated for so long as it conforms with and confirms the administration's positions. A fund raising ploy.</p>

<p>Part of the problem I believe is that Dartmouth has deviated from its history and gone to the outside to fill administration positions with people having no prior Dartmouth affiliation. As a result, in their quest to consolidate power, they are seeking to destroy a large part of what has made Dartmouth, Dartmouth. </p>

<p>The alumni, the absolute majority of the alumni have been fighting back – and so far, winning. </p>

<p>...but if “the powers that be” are able to give the finger to the alumni (that THEY have engaged against them over the past decade) by somehow permanently enacting by fiat that which they has been resoundingly and repeatedly defeated by vote (– and in so doing, tell their alumni emphatically that this is not YOUR Dartmouth, this is OUR Dartmouth - they seem either to not realize or not care what will happen to their income stream. </p>

<p>…and Dartmouth will be the poorer for it</p>

<p>Selected quotes from the original article
“Founded in Hanover, N.H., in 1769, Dartmouth has long been famous for the intensity of its alumni's loyalty. It is not unfair, or an exaggeration, to call it half college and half cult.
In part this devotion is because of what the school does well. "Dartmouth is the best undergraduate school in the world," says Mr. Rodgers, who graduated in 1970 as salutatorian, with degrees in chemistry and physics. There were "small classes taught by real professors, not graduate students," he says, "and I never realized how that was heaven on earth until I went on to my next school." (Mr. Rodgers earned a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Stanford in 1975.) </p>

<p>Partly, too, Dartmouth's alumni fidelity is a result of engaging graduates in the life of the college. It is one of a few schools in the U.S. that allow alumni to elect leaders directly. Eight of the 18 members of Dartmouth's governing Board of Trustees are chosen by the popular vote of some 66,500 graduates. (The other seats are reserved mostly for major donors, along with ex officio positions for the governor of New Hampshire and the college president.) This arrangement has been in place since 1891.

Although there were a lot of political issues churning about the campus, Mr. Rodgers decided "that I would pursue just one issue, and my one issue, the one substantive issue, is the quality of education at Dartmouth. . . I decided that if I started debating the political argument du jour it would reduce my effectiveness." </p>

<p>Selections from the Dartmouth Review</p>

<p>By Emily Ghods-Esfahani | Sunday, August 5, 2007</p>

<p>“It may fairly be said that 1891 was a year that set Dartmouth apart from many of its peers. In that year, a contract—if not a formal written agreement—was made which resolved a long and contentious struggle over the Board of Trustee’s composition, a struggle which parallels today’s controversies. One hundred and sixteen years later, Dartmouth is still unique among colleges for democratically electing one half of its Board members (not including the two ex officio members: the President of the College and the Governor of New Hampshire). For those of you who have not been tuned in to the machinations of the Olde Guard, the 1891 Agreement—and its 116 year precedent—establishes in perpetuity that one half of Dartmouth’s Board will be democratically elected by alumni.</p>

<p>…</p>

<p>For 116 years, such restructuring of the Board was not even considered. On the contrary, its current structure was solidified: each expansion made to the Board honored the parity of alumni and charter trustees; this includes the most recent 2003 expansion of the Board. Yet, in 2003 then-Chairman Neukom was not claiming that the 1891 accord was “nonsense,” as he did during the Alumni Council’s spring meeting (May 19-20, 2007). Now, only four years later, after the victory of four non-slated petition trustees, does he want to erase what was written into not only the meeting minutes of the 1891 gathering, but the history of Dartmouth College in general. To some, it is all about winning and control, not the betterment of Dartmouth College.
If this parity, this wishy-washy democratic element is all “nonsense,” then perhaps all that is left is to let the money talk. As some readers have already seen, the newly formed “1891 Society” plans to withhold financial contributions from the College should the 1891 accord be violated or altered in any way. Operating under the theme, “No Donation without Representation,” it is clear that a growing group of alumni are fed up with the shenanigans of the majority of Dartmouth’s administrators and trustees. The expanding chasm between alumni and the College—which seems to be ever-widening with the failure of the Alumni Constitution and the accession of four petition trustees to the last four vacant seats on the Board—is exactly the type of problem the 1891 accord hoped to remedy 116 years ago. As the meeting minutes of the 1891 gathering of the Association of Alumni state, parity on the Board will establish “a more sympathetic and close relation between the Corporation [Dartmouth College] and the Alumni.”
In the years leading up to 1891, the College was financially in shambles, which bled into its operational and academic capacity; the instant that alumni became directly involved with the College, with specific responsibilities and duties as Board members on one end, or as voting alumni on the other, Dartmouth was rejuvenated to become the elite and fiscally sound institution that it is today.”</p>

<p>rgippin</p>

<p>please explain how TJ Rodgers is a "conservative activist" </p>

<p>again from the original article</p>

<p>" A curious label for a man who is in favor of gay marriage, against the Iraq war, and thinks Bill Clinton was a better president than George W. Bush. Mr. Rodgers's sensibility, rather, is libertarian, and ruggedly Western. He is also a famously aggressive, demanding CEO, with technical expertise, a strong entrepreneurial bent and an emphasis on empirics and analytics. His lodestars, he says, are "data and reason and logic." </p>

<p>At Dartmouth, he remarks, he has produced dozens of long, systematic papers on the issues. His first priority was to improve its "very poor record of freedom of speech." Soon enough, the college president, James Wright, overturned a speech code. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a watchdog group, elevated Dartmouth's rating from "red" to its highest, "green," one of only seven schools in the country with that status. "We made progress, and I was feeling pretty good," Mr. Rodgers says. </p>

<p>He intended to move on to quality of education next, but the political situation at Dartmouth degenerated. Mr. Rodgers's candidacy was followed by two further elections, in which petition candidates--Peter Robinson, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Todd Zywicki, a professor of law at George Mason University--were also elected. Mr. Rodgers says that, like him, they're "independent people willing to challenge the status quo." "</p>

<p>He is a "Dartmouth activist" and we need more of him to maintain "the best undergraduate education in the world" as something more than mere lip service.</p>

<p>OdysseyTigger,</p>

<p>I understand the power struggle between the administration and the alumni over the control of the board. I see this as a symptom of a dispute over some underlying issues. I don't understand those underlying issues.</p>

<p>What is "official Dartmouth" trying to do that the Alumni oppose? </p>

<p>Can you list some specific examples of actions that the administration has taken that reduce the quality of education or change the experience for its students?</p>

<p>Thanks for shedding light on this for me.</p>

<p>"I understand the power struggle between the administration and the alumni over the control of the board. I see this as a symptom of a dispute over some underlying issues. I don't understand those underlying issues.</p>

<p>What is "official Dartmouth" trying to do that the Alumni oppose? "</p>

<p>At the moment, "the underlying issues" have taken a back seat to the overriding issue. They are trying to take control of the college away from the alumni.</p>

<p>"Can you list some specific examples of actions that the administration has taken that reduce the quality of education or change the experience for its students?"</p>

<p>As I stated, it is not likely to have much of an impact on your son's time frame. Still, who enacted the speech code which had to be repealed?</p>

<p>Beyond that, at least for me, it is a matter of direction and attitude. Things started to founder with Freedman - an utter disaster. Talk about fit problems.... I had high hopes with Wright. He seemed to say the right things - and he was "of Dartmouth". Alas. </p>

<p>Sure, Dartmouth has graduate schools and by technical definition is a university. But Dartmouth is all about undergraduate focus and providing the best undergraduate education in the world - period. </p>

<p>It is called Dartmouth College for a reason. (I understand there was a lawsuit of some sort about that....some fellow named Webster...."it is, sir, as I have said, a small college. And yet there are those who love it!"...or maybe its all just a myth.)</p>

<p>One does not provide the "best undergraduate education in the world" by having metrics "in line with its peer group average". </p>

<p>"Official Dartmouth" cites this stat and declares that all is right with the world. The alumni see this stat and alarm bells go off. They don't want to be "in line" with their peer group, they want to be ahead of their peer group. Especially on metrics such as faculty/student ratios, percentage of faculty that are full time hires, and the like. This is without getting into the fact that "official Dartmouth" is defining the peer group as Williams/Amherst/Swathmore not H/Y/P where the metrics would not come up "in line" but fall short.</p>

<p>Alumni For a Strong Dartmouth (a group basically of the people who make the formal trustee nominations) posed (and then answered) the following questions in support of their candidates seeking to maintain what was the status quo.</p>

<p>Has Dartmouth strayed in its mission?
Does Dartmouth have too few faculty?
Does Dartmouth have the right faculty?
Does Dartmouth repress free speech?
Does Dartmouth have the right trustees?</p>

<p>Unfortunately for them, the alumni did not agree with their answers.</p>

<p>One final note regarding lack of direction:</p>

<p>Dartmouth is no longer even mentioned when discussions turn to computer science.</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=136925%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=136925&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>This is simply unfathomable to me. Dartmouth was so far out in front during Kemeny's tenure...and now...not even in the conversation.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Especially on metrics such as faculty/student ratios, percentage of faculty that are full time hires, and the like. This is without getting into the fact that "official Dartmouth" is defining the peer group as Williams/Amherst/Swathmore not H/Y/P where the metrics would not come up "in line" but fall short.

[/quote]
For metrics focusing on undergraduate education, then AWS may be a tougher "peer group" than HYP. Based on the data in the current US News rankings, for example, AWS have a smaller % of large (50+) classes and a higher % of full-time faculty than HYP (or D). There is no metric for classes/sections taught by grad students, but it's safe to assume that AWS (and probably D) would also win out in this regard.</p>

<p>The student/faculty ratios favor HYP over AWS (and D), but this may be misleading, because AWS (and probably D) faculty have significantly higher teaching loads (and lower research expectations). For example, H and W have identical 7/1 student/faculty ratios, yet it's unlikely that this translates into the same degree of undergraduate contact.</p>

<p>HYP are also competitive in the % of small classes (under 20), but this stat may also be misleading, because AWS (and probably D) likely have smaller classes overall. W, for example, has a large tutorial program with enrollments capped at 2. I expect that the "small classes" at AWS (and probably D) are likely quite a bit smaller than the "small classes" at HYP.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sure, Dartmouth has graduate schools and by technical definition is a university. But Dartmouth is all about undergraduate focus and providing the best undergraduate education in the world - period.

[/quote]
No, Dartmouth is not "all about undergraduate focus". Amherst is all about undergraduate focus. Swarthmore is all about undergraduate focus. But Dartmouth has to focus, at least to some extent, on the business students and the medical students and all of the other graduate students. </p>

<p>Like it or not, postgraduates make up 29% of the Dartmouth student body. Like it or not, Dartmouth has to commit a significant fraction of its resources to postgraduate programs. To some extent, the issues facing Dartmouth may revolve around the question of what this fraction should be.</p>