An interim report on the College’s ongoing strategic planning process was released this week, containing several ambitious proposals for new projects and some sobering data about Oberlin’s current finances.

The release of the document coincides with a continuing series of forums designed to elicit student input on the process. College President Nancy Dye predicted that the plan would be sent to the faculty for a vote some time in February.

The Strategic Planning Task Force released the report to the College and Conservatory faculty on Tuesday in anticipation of a general faculty meeting on Nov. 23.

The recommendations section of the report is separated into six sections. The first, “Focusing the Education Experience,” seeks to deal with Oberlin’s low retention rate. According to the report, only 70 percent of Oberlin students graduate in four years and about 20 percent leave before graduation, numbers which put Oberlin well below its peer institutions in this area.

“Our low graduation rate relative to other leading liberal arts colleges is a cause for serious concern,” reads the report. “It affects our reputation and our tuition revenue...Most importantly, our retention rate suggests that we are not meeting the needs of a very significant number of students.”

The report blames this state of affairs partially on the recently eliminated credit/no-entry grading system, which it says is “correlated with slow academic progress and student attrition.”

Also discussed are ideas for changing Oberlin’s class credit system to make it easier for students to design a 14-credit course load, as well as improving student advising and expanding research opportunities for upperclassmen.

The second section deals with the changes of buildings and retaining faculty. It notes that Oberlin faculty teach more courses to a greater number of students than faculty at any or some peer institutions.

“Reducing the teaching load from five courses to four or four-and-a-half courses a year would enable our faculty to devote more time to scholarly endeavors and free more time for mentoring students engaged in research projects and other kinds of sustained independent work,” the report says.

Also discussed in this section are improvements to the Oberlin public school system to make Oberlin a more attractive place for faculty to live and work.

Section three, titled “Broadening Oberlin’s Appeal,” discusses making Oberlin a more attractive school to a wider range of students, particularly those with a wider range of political beliefs.

“While no one would want to lose Oberlin’s distinctiveness,” it reads, “it is also worth examining the limitations this ethos imposes, particularly during a time of such severe social and political polarization in the United States.”

The report goes on to state that “The relatively truncated range of public political discourse at Oberlin shortchanges intellectual debate and deprives students and faculty of exposure to the full range of intellectual and political exchange.”

The report recommends building on athletics and the Business Scholars Program, as well as building on programs that would increase racial and economic diversity.

Section four of the report identifies several possible academic areas that could be established as “pillars of excellence.” These included an enhanced relationship between the College and the Conservatory, focused attention on international studies, American studies and the neuroscience program.

There is also a section devoted to internationalizing Oberlin’s programs and student body.

“Our students today are far more likely than their predecessors to live and work outside the United States for some portion of their adult lives,” it says. “The United States has a critical need for citizens and leaders who can think internationally. Oberlin could play a leading role in American higher education by making itself a world college.”

The final section involved the possibility of changing Oberlin’s size in terms of staff and student body.

The planning committee worries that Oberlin, which today comprises about 2800 students “has arrived at this size less through careful planning than through ad hoc growth.”

The report brings up the possibilities of reducing Oberlin’s enrollment and reducing staff though targeted attrition.

This reduction in size is made necessary by the College’s current budget deficit.

A section of the report titled “Oberlin’s Financial Situation and Prospects” states that “Oberlin College is not now in a sustainable financial position. The status quo cannot endure.”

The College currently faces a budget deficit of more than $2 million, a figure that will grow to $20 million by 2010 if no changes are made.

Several explanations for this situation are given. The shortfall is attributed partly to the national economic downturn and partly to the fact that only 30 to 35 percent of students pay full tuition as opposed to 60 to 65 percent at some other institutions.

Oberlin’s endowment currently pays out a rate of six percent per year, well above most comparable colleges.

In addition to changing the size of the College, the administration is also considering increasing the number of full-tuition students and reducing personnel costs in all areas.

In addition to Dye, the strategic planning committee includes Provost Clayton Koppes, politics professor Ben Schiff, economics professor David Cleeton and religion professor David Kamitsuka