Wednesday night's address by Miami University President David Hodge focused heavily on the development of student-oriented academics. Discussing the concept of "student as scholar" and an evolutionary approach to student-led learning and discovery, Hodge's speech was more focused than last year's September address to the campus that set goals for a broad array of departments and schools. The Miami Student editorial board believes that while a top-down approach to changing the concept of an undergraduate education cannot hurt, the seeming lack of student involvement and of measurable benchmarks for success are concerning.
In his speech, Hodge remarked that it would take a fundamental rethinking of introductory classes to better engage students at Miami. The Top 25 initiative has, of course, already been announced as a way to achieve this objective. On this point, it should be applauded that shifts in classes from a lecture format to one that provides for more engagement is happening at an increasing rate. Miami is already ahead of other universities in terms of smaller average class size and can capitalize on this advantage for students. The recent emphasis on classroom engagement early on in student's academic career could also help him or her become interested in a career path sooner, helping define short-term academic and professional goals.
Beyond an in-depth discussion of developmental theory, however, the provision of measurable goals was lacking. This board believes that Hodge should have been more specific in separating the current evolution of classrooms from what his new vision for the university will entail. Concrete plans or goals for the university community would give us something to hold the administration accountable to and be able to gauge the success or failure of the program over time.
Apart from the vagueness of the speech, this editorial board is also concerned with the re-conceptualization of the principle of privilege. We understand that students work extremely hard in order to get into research groups or other types of projects and use these accomplishments to open doors for future opportunities-the importance of these groups for later resume purposes could either be diluted by having every student be required to participate, or there could be no change and there would simply be a re-entrenchment of the status quo, where only motivated students are those that would grasp at the opportunities provided by the goal.
Finally, it is important to point out that the speech did not mention how students would have a direct impact on this process beyond simply taking advantage of the re-conceptualization. The speech also seemed geared toward other administrators and professors and not the students in attendance, which we fear means that student input will be limited in the overall evaluation of a transformative university.
