GUEST POST: so i hear there was a story in the baltimore sun about smcm?

so a lot of folks are upset about this terrible shitty article in the Baltimore Sun the other day which is understandable since the piece reads like it was researched by skimming halfway thru the list of SMCM’s first year seminars but ending up on youtube watching a montage of eric cartman whining about hippies instead. Some have focused their criticisms on Anne Neal herself, using the sort of language people always seem to feel more comfortable directing at women. realistically though, when a nonprofit president like Neal places an op-ed, the writing is the product of a team effort more often than not -- so it's worth taking a look at the team.

the American Council of Trustees and Alumni was founded by Lynne Cheney -- after 9-11 she used it to attack academics who opposed her husband's war(s). now, they’ve rebranded themselves as advocates for “academic freedom” crusading against "political correctness" -- most notably with their vocal support for ousted harvard president Larry Summers when he caught flak for arguing that women are underrepresented in science and engineering because they aren't as smart as men.

like most think tanks babbling about “market-oriented solutions,” ACTA doesn’t publicly disclose their donors, but they do have ties to charles koch, the kevin bacon of right-wing pigfuckers. oh and did i mention that edwin meese, best known for vocally opposing miranda warnings, having the national guard beat down beat down student protesters, and militarizing the war on drugs as Reagan's attorney general sits on their board too? shit!

ACTA put out a report whining that too few students are required to take a course on shakespeare, lamenting that students are instead encouraged to study "popular culture" -- apparently, critically analyzing work produced for mass appeal only has academic value if it was written before people figured out they should shit and eat in different rooms. really, the entire op-ed drips with that same parochial mentality that education's value can only be measured in terms of quantifiable knowledge about particular dead white men -- she literally invokes our WGSX program for laughs.

and this clayton christensen guy she quotes, his studies in "disruptive innovation" look at technological advancements that displace older markets (iTunes replacing CDs, etc.) one of his favorite examples is how for-profit online degree mills like the University of Phoenix (with help from "reformers" like ACTA) will eventually supplant traditional higher education. To these folks, education is just another industry to make money off of, and educators are only here to tell us factoids about the war of 1812 before we join the workforce. fuck changing lives.

bottom line, St. Mary's has an amazing faculty and staff, and blaming rising tuition on their -genuinely- innovative approach, rather than the financial crisis and the pressure it's put on state budgets, is bullshit. i have a lot of love for SMCM as an institution and it's facing hard times right now, so I guess my point here is don't let this hack distract you, or at least don't let the feelings this editorial evoked in you go to waste.

this isn't just about Anne Neal or even SMCM, shit like this is happening nationwide. chicago just shut down 50 public schools under this same market fundamentalist "narrowly defined results at all costs" mentality. there's a social mission inherent in public education -- we rely on it to make up for our sins, to provide for equality of opportunity and the american dream and all that shit, but it can’t do that if we let the Anne Neals and Arne Duncans of the world turn it into another way to make a quick buck.

Urgo Responds to Criticism EDITED/UPDATED

Urgo, a week later, sent out the following email about the Admissions changes:

Dear St. Mary’s College Community,

News of changes in Admissions and Financial Aid took many by surprise. I want to outline the reorganization of our admissions and financial aid functions and articulate why these changes will move the College forward in significant ways. The new strategy has necessitated a reorganization of positions, which included the departure of colleagues who have contributed a great deal to the College over the years. We will miss Rich Edgar and Lisa Crowe. I want to thank them for their hard work over many years in the service of St. Mary's, and wish them the best in their future endeavors.

For years, St. Mary’s College separated its admissions from its financial aid processes. In Admissions, we admitted students regardless of their financial profile and awarded merit aid to the highest achievers. Then, in Financial Aid, we distributed our limited budget for need-based aid equitably among accepted students who qualified, and capped the amount any single student would be awarded. These policies resulted in many students being left with a large gap between what they were awarded and what they could afford, and we lost many students whom we believed would benefit from  a St. Mary’s College education. 

We need to do better—and we will. 

In order to offer prospective students the opportunity to benefit from the St. Mary’s experience, we will integrate admissions and financial aid and, for this reason, the reorganization of these two divisions at the College is critical.

Under the guidance of our legislative charge to be “affordable to all and thriving on diversity,” we will admit students and strive to make their attendance at St. Mary’s College financially possible. Wherever we are able, it is our plan to offer larger grants and smaller loans to students with financial need. We are in the planning stages of a campaign to raise private funds to help us move toward the goal of placing St. Mary’s College within financial reach of any student whom we admit.

We will also continue to award merit scholarships in strategic ways. In 2012-13, students will be required to apply for merit aid, and scholarship applicants will also be asked to submit the FAFSA to determine if they might qualify for federal and state funds.

In order to achieve the best possible mix of students in our community, it is imperative that we select our classes from a broad and deep applicant pool. To date, our entering classes have been consistently strong. We must secure that strength going forward in an increasingly competitive environment.

We are casting a wider net for qualified applicants, revising recruitment materials, and stepping up fall recruitment travel schedules. We have streamlined the admissions process by becoming exclusive users of The Common Application. We’ve altered application deadlines, aligning them with other colleges in and out of state. Our applicant pool will be evaluated by committee to assure we continue to build the kinds of talented, quirky, independent-minded classes for which St. Mary’s has always been known, but which we risked losing without significant realignment of the Admissions and Financial Aid offices.

We’re not changing our end-goal, but our strategy is evolving. My commitment to you is to work to preserve what we hold most dear, and what we know as the essential spirit of St. Mary’s College. As always, I am available to discuss the reorganization or any other issues of concern.

This was a long email!  Let us ~analyze~ it.

Urgo states that "the news of changes in Admissions took many by surprise," which if we are to believe various rumors and comments on this 'student' blog would include Rich and Lisa themselves.  According to comments Rich had "and hour to clear out his desk" and "Lisa had no time to say goodbye to coworkers."  IDK how truthful these comments are, but that would be kinda 'shitty' if they are true.

So, according to Urgo this is all the result of decreasing number of applicants.  According to some INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM the 2016 class is comprised of LESS THAN 250 STUDENTS (usually it's like 400~).  Which is an absurdly low number.  Obviously something had to be done.  Urgo's first plan was to make St. Mary's less unique via jettisoning the old application and using the increasingly popular 'Common App'.  The Washington Post writeup covers this and explains it a bit (along with the whole situation, and links to SOMDnews.com but failed to reference this ever important 'student' blog) that basically you fill out on application and you can send that to lots of expensive fancy schools.  So, the idea was that by making St. Mary's, a college that is often described by many as being 'unique', less unique via a simpler application process more students would apply.  But clearly that didn't work since the incoming freshman class is UNDER 250 STUDENTS (btw this figure comes from a really reliable source). 

I would like to pause here because it seems like no one has even commented on the fact that perhaps applications are down BECAUSE TUITION HAS BEEN RAISED FOR FIVE OF THE PAST SIX YEARS.  And that tuition had doubled over the past decade.  Tuition has literally doubled over the past decade.

Okay.

Moving on, the 'mainstream' Common App clearly failed, so Urgo's next plan is to restructure how Financial Aid is distributed.  In the past St. Mary's used 'blind-based-need admissions,' meaning that you get admitted regardless of how much financial aid you need.  Which makes sense.  Actually I think I used the wrong term just now, but you should read the WaPo article for a fuller explanation.  Urgo wanted to change this system to 'need-sensitive' meaning that admission of a student will depend on the family's ability to pay for college.  I don't really understand this.  Are people's families actually able to pay for college, like...100k over the course of four years?  I thought everyone just took out loans that will stick with them for the rest of their life.  IDK.  Anyway, the idea is to admit people whose families can pay for college (is this a real thing?) and then to only admit some people whose families cannot pay for college.  By admitting fewer people 'whose families can't pay for college' they will be able to support those people better financially.

Okay, so the above got a little difficult to understand by the end because I forgot how to write coherently.  But the basic idea is, increase the amount of financial aid PER STUDENT that really needs it, and decrease the amount of financial aid going to other students.  So I THINK this means increasing for financial aid for really poor kids, and reducing financial aid for middle class kids who can't fully pay for college, via college is fucking expensive.  Which sounds okay, via getting more poor kids into college.  Also the total amount of financial aid money that is going towards 'need based' vs. merit is increasing from 25% to 50%, according to comments.

Sorry if none of the above made sense.  Some of my explanations may be way incorrect.  Anyway, it would seem that Rich and Lisa did not agree with this plan, and so they were sacked.  There are also allegations that the new VP Pat Goldsmith just wanted her own people in charge of Admissions and Financial Aid, and that she selected a friend for the job.  Who knows if those ~rumors~ are true though.

Okay so I think most importantly, what does this mean for the future of ~St. Mary's~ ???

I think that some people would agree that over the past few years as tuition rates have increased the number of really affluent students has increased.  I can honestly say that if St. Mary's cost what it does today, when I first applied, I would not have applied.  So, with the new system that gives financial aid for fewer people (but those that do get it will get a lot, which is great via supporting people who cannot afford college) I would imagine the number of 'affluent students' will continue to increase, similar to how nearby private liberal arts colleges (George Washington, Georgetown, American, St. John's, etc.) have lots of 'affluent students'.  Which in a sense is good for the school, via they will probably donate more.  And if the students are affluent/prestigious, then the institution will begin to be seen as 'prestigious.  The new policy seems like a deliberate effort to make permanent the changes that have occurred over the past few years, the increase in 'affluent students,' via pricing the college out of range of many students, those who can't afford the 15k+ tuition without any financial aid.

So IDK, that is my ~tin foil hat~ theory.  What do yall think ???  Any important points/issues I forgot to address?

Rich Edgar Follow Up, feat. PANIC

The recent post about Changes at Admissions (from a few days ago) resulted in a huge outpour of support for Rich Edgar, to the extent that a Change.org petition was created, asking that Rich be reinstated, which already has over 500 signatures.

Additionally, it seems that the removal of Rich and Lisa has sparked a PANIC among staff members, that they could be next.  This is evident from many staff members supporting the aforementioned petition, but not signing it to avoid being publicly associated.  And the following is a leaked (via Investigative Journalism ™) email which shows that the fear has even inhibited some staff members from initiating a going away party.

Faculty are generally safe from being fired, but staff are not.

That being the case, it would be helpful if one or two tenured faculty would sponsor a party for Rich and Lisa, determine a location, and then ask all of us  (staff included) to   bring little bits of this and that. I think so many of us would like to “be there” for Richard Lisa.

Are staff members overreacting, via this PANIC?  PANIC regarding whether or not hosting a party for Rich and Lisa could get them sacked as well?  Hard to say, but I don't blame them.  It seems pretty clear that this was done during the summer, weeks after Alumni Weekend so that students and alumni alike would have a diminished reaction towards the news.  The email above resulted in the following response

It's very sad that we have to fear being fired for attempting to honor respected and beloved colleagues, who have worked here for decades and deserve our support.  I suggest that one of the first things we take up in the fall is to rededicate ourselves to the "spirit of community" that is proclaimed in our mission statement.  A humane workplace is essential for all of us -- staff and faculty alike.

A response that is hard to argue with.  And granted, we don't know the whole situation inre: why Rich and Lisa were sacked, but any workplace where people are removed so easily is only going to create tension and PANIC among the employees.

Wonder what is gonna happen.  Lots of alumni in the comments on this blog and on the Change.org petition saying that they are gonna 'vote with their wallets'.

Also the bay net http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/28501 picked up the story...I think primarily using what I had already written.  And they referred to this as 'a student blog' LOLZ.

Changes over at Admissions

Some big changes going on at Admissions!  Here is an email that was sent out recently (actually IDK if it got sent out yet, found it on LinkedIn):

Dear Campus Community: 

Admissions at St. Mary’s College is in the process of launching an ambitious, national recruitment campaign designed to improve the quantity, quality, and diversity of our applicant pool, which has been shrinking in recent years. 

A bold campaign requires positions that are both thoroughly grounded in traditional best practices in admissions and financial aid and that are creative, innovative, and forward-looking. We’ve combined two traditional assistant director positions to create an Associate Director of Admissions and Financial Aid position. We anticipate the creation of one or two additional new positions that will create vital linkages among admissions, financial aid, and other key constituents. 

In the reorganization, two positions - the Director of Admissions and the office administrator - have been eliminated. Rich Edgar served St. Mary’s College of Maryland for 25 years, and Lisa Crowe gave St. Mary’s an astonishing 37 years. We thank them for their many contributions, and wish them well in future endeavors. 

Sincerely, 

Pat Goldsmith 
Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid

Didn't really know who Rich Edgar was so I used some Investigative Journalism™ to find out some stuff about him.  His name is 'Rich', which I imagine means that he is an affluent dude.  And his last name is Edgar...is he related to the Baltimore poet?  Maybe he was let go because of this morbid connection?  I found this small photo of the dude:

He is pretty attractive, so I don't think he was let go due to being ugly or anything.  I think I met him once, maybe.  Also he is an ass. coach for soccer.  Other bro that got 'let go' (read: fired?) was Lisa Crowe.  IDK who she is, but she worked here awhile.

So what caused this?  According to the email Admissions is tryna go in a 'new direction'.  Personally I think they should go in One Direction:

Unfunny jokes aside, it seems like they are tryna have a position that combines multiple roles and creates greater 'synergy' between offices.  Which makes sense I guess.

But also this could be another example of 'letting people go due to clashing personalities/visions' via the sacking of Bayless, repositioning of Officer Mary,  and others, which has been going on since Urgo took over.  My guess is a greater emphasis on positioning the school as a 'nice school' and moving away from the image of SMCM being a 'chill hippie school'.  As the institution becomes more expensive it will be vital to make it seem to be 'worth the money', and the easiest way to do that is to make St. Mary's seem like a serious institution.

It's the same thing that has been going on since the 90s.  President Lewis (or at least he was around when it happened) got the school to be an Honor's College, in part to help move away from the notion that St. Mary's was a hippie liberal arts school.  And Maggie did the same thing when she took over, working to rebrand St. Mary's as a fine institution of learning.  And it just continues to the most recent graduation, which banned the distribution of beer to graduates.

So, my guess is that St. Mary's will continue to brand itself more and more as a 'good school'.  And this is just another part of it.

It's no secret that the number of applicants to SMCM has steadily been on the decline.  It's almost as if raising tuition consistently for several years in a row has had a negative effect on how many students apply to and can afford SMCM.

Ron Paul Posters UPDATE

I did some 'investigative journalism' into my blog post from a month ago about Ron Paul posters on campus.  There were a ton of responses, which was weird, but not surprising considering how much Ron Paul supporters love Ron Paul.  So I checked out my traffic sources via Google Analytics and found that a lot of it came from this post from www.dailypaul.com.  The actual post can be found by clicking HURR.  Screencap BELOW:

On the comments for the post I was called a 'woman' and 'dumb/ignorant' which was accurate.  I was pretty pleased with this because I found it entertaining, and it also led to more comments/views on the blog. 

Not sure of the identity of 'thepholiser' but I'm guessing it's a student.  It's really interesting how Paul supporters try really hard to get people to support their cause.  I guess it's cool, IDK.

But then I decided to google 'thepholiser' and came upon a youtube video that was quite interesting...

I think it's safe to say that one of the poster publishers, and the guy who directed traffic/comments to the SMCMLOLBLOG was none other than Gino Hannah.  You can check out more of his music here http://www.youtube.com/user/thepholiser

This information was later further confirmed several days ago.  Someone drunkenly provided me the names of

• Gino Hannah
• Adam Ross
• Greg Dodson

As the Ron Paul poster placers.   INTERESTING...

In conclusion, lately people have complained about the lack of 'investigative journalism' conducted by this blog.  I hope you are happy with this level of 'investigative journalism' and stop complaining.

Gum Tree

I was browsing the twitterverse the other day (@SMCMLOL) and noticed some rumblings about a 'gum tree'  I wasn't really sure what a gum tree was so I did some INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM on the subject and some GONZO JOURNALISM via taking photos of this elusive tree.

I scoured my sources as to where I could find this tree.  After tweeting a few of my followers they left me with one clue:  the path to the Campus Center.  I slowly made my way towards the pond, it was a cold day.  Suddenly I looked to my left, and there it was.

A colorful tree, with fucking gum on it.  Why the hell is there a tree with gum on it?  This is the weirdest thing I have ever heard of.  But apparently it's thing in Philadelphia, and now it's a thing here via cultural appropriation.  The Philly Gum Tree was a tree on South Street in Philly that had gum on it.  Then in 2008 it got cut down for some reason.  I think that pretty much sums it up.

Oh man look at all that gum!  So, I am judging this attempt at a tradition, but I bet that when people started throwing shoes up in the Shoe Tree in the year (whenever that happened) people probably thought it was dumb.  And to be honest I still think this is dumb because it is littering and I don't like littering, but whatever.  But it's kinda cool and different, and I guess I can't fault someone for trying something new.

Also I don't like gum and literally don't understand the appeal of gum.  Why not just eat food.