Focus groups discuss long range goals for the College

Kuttner leads groups of staff, faculty, students in talks

The College's long-range planning process was opened to the campus community this week with a series of focus groups. Students, faculty and staff met, and continue to meet, to debate the goals and direction of Oberlin.

"We feel particularly good about it," said process facilitator Elaine Kuttner. "The groups were talking to each other, and it felt awfully nice. It was a wonderful start."

According to President Nancy Dye, the goal of long-range planning is to develop coherent guidelines to steer College policies. "This process is not about issues," Kuttner said.

Another long-range planning process, the Strategic Issues Steering Committee, was attempted during the last two years of former College President S. Frederick Starr's term. The committee produced a document of specific issue-related recommendations which was criticized by students on the grounds of students not being involved in the process.

The Office of the President released an all-campus mailing inviting students to join focus groups. Faculty and staff were also invited to participate.

"The response among faculty and staff was excellent," Dye said. "There was not as much student involvement as we'd like to see." The President's office will continue to encourage student involvement through such methods as tabling.

Students have participated in many of the discussion groups, although there were no students at an early morning session on Wednesday.

A group of 16 faculty and staff members met in Wilder Hall for two-and-a-half hours to grapple with five broad questions posed by Kuttner. Kuttner opened the session by distributing two pages which detailed the questions for discussion.

A Review reporter was allowed to attend the session if the names of participants were not used in the article.

The first question offered by Kuttner asked participants to envision the future in general. Talk quickly turned to technology, a concept which was explored throughout the session.

Technological skills and the role of a liberal arts education featured prominently in participants' response to Kuttner's second query. When asked what skills Oberlin graduates will need to cope with in the future, one focus group member said, "The lines between vocational and liberal arts skills will be blurred."

Participants were particularly concerned with the rapidity of change in the coming millennium.

A member of the mathematics department said, "A liberal arts education is a good way to prepare yourself for changes. A liberal arts education is learning how to learn. I teach a lot of things no one is ever going to use."

A worker from the Physical Plant was unsure that students are currently acquiring enough skills to function in the future. "Many students appear to work well in the college community they've created," the worker said. "But apparently they don't know what it's like in the real world."

A commitment to diversity, the ability to work together and a sense of self-confidence were skills advocated by participants.

The long-range planning process began last week with a panel discussion of the College's oft-repeated slogan - "Think one person can change the world? So do we." Focus group members seemed eager to continue the discussion.

"The brochure has that slogan," a member of the mathematics department said. "I hate that slogan. When first years come to campus, they're ready to change the world. They say `I'm going to change the world, why do I need quantitative proficiency?' It's inconsistent with our goals."

A member of the psychology department concurred. "The slogan is so individualistic," he said. "I think working with people is important."

Kuttner turned the group's focus to discussion of things Oberlin is already doing which ought to be continued. Participants were eager to discuss individual majors, community service, intellectual curiosity and access to the faculty as examples of positive things Oberlin has done.

The discussion then turned to things Oberlin ought to do differently. Concerns of technology again moved to the forefront of debate.

"In the beginning I thought our technology was pretty good," a member of the psychology department said. "Now we need to think seriously about tools and teaching students to use them instead of waiting for them to fall apart."

Focus group members also devoted discussion to the integration of different students, different disciplines and the town and college communities. "We're not very good at talking to one another," one participant said.

"Program houses are successful but students tend to stay in their own little houses," one group member said.

"There needs to be integration between departments," said one participant. "I find what happens to students in other classes is not different from what happens in my classes."

The session closed with a discussion of students' health, both mental and physical.

"I don't want students not to study, but I want them to go to a concert," said a member of the physics department. "I think that will make them better physicists."

The session ended before members were able to address some of the specific questions proposed by Kuttner, including questions relating to the collaboration between Conservatory and college and the relationship between research and teaching.

Focus groups will continue throughout the week. Kuttner stressed that every group is different, according to the make-up of the participants. Kuttner said that every group finds completely different answers to the same questions.

"People have come to the table with a remarkable willingness to give of themselves," Kuttner said. "There was no one for whom this was an easy thing to carve out of their day. It says something about Oberlin."