For the first time in ten years, Barnard is gearing up for some soul-searching.
Reaccreditation—also known as the Self-Study—is a process Barnard must undergo each decade, as required by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Barnard has been working on its Self-Study since early spring 2009, and intends to finish by 2011.
The process is overseen by the Steering Committee, which is co-chaired by Assistant Provost and Dean for International Programs Hilary Link and biology professor Paul Hertz.
“The Self-Study is meant to be a reflection on where Barnard stands at this point in history,” Link said, adding that it will “form the basis of a strategic plan of where Barnard will be in the next ten years.”
The Steering Committee will be coordinating five Working Groups, each working on some of the 14 Standards of Excellence ascertained by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.
According to Hertz, the committee will merge each group’s individual analysis into one document. These groups have been sharpening their questions and have just begun the research process that will lead to their reports.
“Working groups are doing the heavy-lifting,” Hertz said. They will “come up with big themes that are emerging that are Barnard-specific” and “suggestions and priorities for where Barnard will be going in the future.”
Anna Ehrlich, BC ’11 and a member of the Working Group for Mission and Goals, Administration, Leadership and Governance, and Integrity, and Sarah Belfer, BC ’12 and a member of the Working Group for Faculty, Curriculum, and Educational Offerings, cited the process as beneficial for understanding Barnard’s needs and reassessing its priorities.
“When they asked me to do it, I was unsure of what the point of this was. Why did they need this to be perfected? What was this going to do to help Barnard?” Ehrlich said.
But in the end, she explained, “What was particularly appealing to me was that they are using the information to improve the school.”
Barnard affiliates will have an opportunity to see the document before the final version is sent out, but Link stressed that the committee is looking for ways to better reach out to students.
“We have a student voice in each of the working groups but one person cannot speak for everyone,” Link said. “It might be in different smaller forms—we might take it to SGA, we might take it to different clubs. We will undoubtedly do at least one big town hall thing where all students can be there.”
Hertz agreed, adding that student groups would help publicize these activities to all students on campus. “We’re not telling them how to do it. We will rely on them to expand it even farther.”
Belfer affirmed that the mere presence of a student in the Working Group helps provide input on things that may not catch others’ attention. “To be there and bringing in that voice and saying ‘this really works’ or ‘this really doesn’t work’…Hopefully we will have more students involved in order to better represent students.”
The committee will present the document comprised of all the working groups’ reports to the community and put together a complete document by December 2010. That final version will be shown in March 2011 to the Middle States Commission and to a visiting external team of administrators from peer institutions.
Ultimately, Ehrlich stressed that there is value in having a diverse set of perspectives on the process, since it’s necessary to foster dialogue and make changes wherever necessary.
“The student experience at this school is different than the faculty perspective. It is really helpful to have a dialogue from different departments and perspectives,” she said. “It’s pretty amazing how different the perspectives are and how much everyone is able to contribute.”
Comments
We're looking for comments that are interesting and substantial. If your comments are excessively self-promotional or obnoxious you will be banned from commenting. Consult the comment FAQ and legal terms.