Another reason for coming back early was that I wanted to explore courses outside my major. Everyone says that the purpose of a liberal arts education is to explore a number of departments, and I wholeheartedly agree. By coming back early, I was able to comfortably finish my major requirements while taking courses in ES, Geology, Geography, History, Architecture, Film, etc.

Lastly, being a Feb, I had already spent a semester abroad before coming here, so I realized I had already done a year abroad. Perhaps Middlebury could take advantage of its Feb program by developing a program or two abroad for incoming Febs (and other gap semester/year students). This would probably be outside of the budget of many, but hey, lots of Febs to NOLS.

I realized I know students who are perfectly happy they studied abroad for a year and got things out of it they thought were missing from their education at Middlebury, but for me, this would have detracted from my liberal arts experience.

Our time at Middlebury isn’t the only opportunity we have to go abroad, and I think requiring all students to study abroad for a year to increase revenue could be detrimental to the liberal arts experience for many. Couldn’t the same end of increasing revenue be achieved more efficiently by increasing enrollment of outsiders in our abroad program, something which has been discussed?

Regarding the concern that boosting enrollment would alter the faculty/student ratio, that’s not really the case since the on-campus student population would remain the same–2400–as would the size of the faculty. Theoretically, students would have the same access to science facilities (and all facilities) as they do now. Yes, we would have to rethink how our curriculum is organized, there would be increased pressure on advising for first years and seniors, and there would be costs to supporting an additional 350 students abroad. But the scale of the Middlebury campus would remain the same, which is critical (and if the entire sophomore class were abroad, then almost fifty percent of the College’s underage drinkers would be elsewhere, but that is for another discussion . . . .).

Whether this proposal, if implemented, would radically alter the mission of Middlebury College is hard to say. I tend to think not, but I agree that this is a critical question in any discussion we have about how we can build on the College’s strengths–how we can innovate–in order to meet the demands of the future.

In fact–and here I am switching gears–we might also want to discuss whether or how we can more flexible about our science curriculum, and think about ways in which students can stay here during the summer and conduct research for credit or take classes focused on the Lake Champlain ecosystem. Assuming we can free up beds in the summer as the Language Schools expand to campuses like Mills College, these sorts of ideas become real possibilities.

If the recommended changes are driven mainly by economic interests, as Dean Spears has suggested, then I have three more reflections. At my recent Stanford reunion, school President Hennessy was only positive in his comments about the economy and its recovery (in spite of the paper loss of billions in endowment). In reflecting on the economic crisis during an “Economics Roundtable”, he stated that “The best private schools and colleges will survive. The real danger is to state schools with dismal funding prospects”. The roundtable emphasized that America’s future growth would be through manufacturing technologies that depended on America’s most basic strengths—our innovation (fostered by the world’s best college and university system) and our entrepreneurial spirit. {see ‘Economic Roundtable’ moderated by Charlie Rose, http://www.stanford.edu/roundtable/ } I know that Stanford is reassessing and analyzing how its endowment has been invested. Although there have been many postings on the Middlebury website about how the college is cutting back, I haven’t really seen much about how the school will revise it’s endowment investment strategy. I, like most parents, took a devastating hit to my retirement plans and investments. I’m much happier now than six months ago. It seems to me, as a non financial guy, that many of our best schools were hit even harder, because with their large endowments they gained the ability to use lots of financial tools that we as individuals, or schools with more limited or conservatively invested endowments couldn’t use or chose not to use. As our economy recovers, I believe we will have time to assess funding sources without the administration’s anxiety that seems apparent to me as a parent, at Middlebury. This anxiety is leading to discussions about changing the very course of the school to be able to survive.

My second reflection is that by really becoming sustainable and limiting physical growth, Middlebury can have great future savings. At Stanford, every department has loyalty to itself, not necessarily Stanford. When I asked Paul Erhlich why even the Biology Department continues to grow and expand, and why every inch of campus becomes filled with new buildings and new divisions, he stated that although individual faculty understood and supported environmental restraint and sustainability, the faculty always voted for their own departments, not the university, in the power scheme—that was where their true loyalty lay in academics. Fortunately, this isn’t true at Middlebury (or other liberal arts schools). There is only one faculty, and they are united for the success of the school, not their own graduate programs. That is the strength of the lac to students—it is for them, not their professors! Now that Middlebury has built perhaps the best lac facility infrastructure in the America, there is no need to build more in the foreseeable future. Middlebury needs to continue to emphasize its environmental mission across all its divisions, since Midd is becoming more and more known for its excellence in this field. Money from appropriate companies in the renewable energy fields, etc, should follow.

And thirdly, an intense, and I believe successful effort, has been made to maximize student faculty interaction and student to student interaction at Middlebury. Low student to faculty ratios is the best parameter of actual class size. Schools whose endowments have faired better in this economy have taken advantage of this. Denison, for example, has hired 16 new permanent faculty members this year in order to reduce already small class size. Middlebury developed the Commons System to make the students feel even more connected to their college and academic experience. The total build out of the Commons system, as envisioned by the beautiful Campus Master Plan, would cost hundreds of millions more eventually, and because of the present economic reality, isn’t even being talked about. Enlarging the school by any number of students as proposed by Dean Spears, would increase the student to faculty ratio, and have a further detrimental effect on both class and lab sizes, and the residential housing system , and perhaps just as important, school cohesion—-the reason alumni contribute and feel connected for a lifetime.

By living within the excellent facilities already present, by emphasizing the broad academic strengths of the college, by emphasizing our already achieved global language program and international student recruitment, by stressing our preeminent interdisciplinary environmental programs, by keeping class sizes small for great faculty interactions, by reassessing how the endowment is invested and managed, by stressing the freedom in a liberal arts program to explore many different and interconnected fields of learning, Middlebury emphasizes America’s educational strength —-our innovative approach to problem solving. I believe that if Middlebury continues to do this, it will only become stronger, and strong funding will follow. I believe, if the mission and school structure are drastically changed, other very fine liberal arts schools will step in to capture many of our most innovative and promising students (and faculty).

On the other hand, I think it’s worth flipping the question around and asking how science majors might benefit from studying abroad. After all, science is perhaps the most international field of inquiry in the academy–truly part of a global community–and students could benefit from being exposed to scientific research in other cultures and nations. Our study abroad programs are not currently designed to support scientific study, but they could be. Why not establish partnerships with institutions abroad so students can study theoretical physics in Europe or do biological research at a field station in Africa? Wouldn’t expanding opportunities for scientific study in this way be a good thing for our students, and even our faculty (especially if we enabled faculty to go abroad to establish such programs)? And, yes, such programs might be based in English.

My point in raising these question is not to advocate for a particular program, but rather to expand the definition of what we currently mean by international education and to consider other possibilities.