ADMISSIONS FISSIONS
I never thought things at Goddard could go downhill compared to
the state of affairs when I first arrived here last fall.
Apparently I was sadly mistaken. The worst part of all of
this is that most of the destruction is going on behind the
scenes in places we rarely go once we are here. Think for
a moment back to last time you went to admissions or financial
aid. I honestly can say my first semester I must have stepped
into that office maybe twice, or at most three times. If there
hadn't been so much dirt dug up after the
resignation of Peter Burns we may
have never seen what was going on.
Our president has circumvented the governance documents on so
many occasions to serve his own goals without consent of the
community. Miller and Cook were brought here without consent
of the community and without CEC approval. Did President
Greene even have the consent of the Executive Committee?
Miller and Cook were presented to the Goddard community as
agents of change and fiscal stability for the college. We
were told that last fiscal year we had a shortage of enrollment
and this is to blame for our deficit. This is not true.
The reason we had a budget shortfall cannot lie in admissions
because the shortage in admissions projections was only $59,000.
Some of this $773,000 shortfall can be attributed to the
development office only hitting 40% of their projected income,
to name only one place.
Admissions, financial aid, and the Admissions committee by the
people who feel this change the most at the moment. Employees
of admissions are now required to work longer hours with no
compensation. The average day consists of one employee coming
in at 8:00 AM and working regular office hours while the rest
come in at 11:30 AM and work until 8:00 PM. On alternate days,
employees work from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM.
Now I ask you to take a good hard look at the admissions process
as it was when I applied to Goddard. The requirements were heavy;
I almost wish I had waited another year. For admission to Goddard
you now only need a personal statement, application, and transcripts.
No longer is it required to have an interview, an intergral part in
the admissions and selection process that gives the perspective
student and the interviewer a chance to take a good hard look at
what they are getting themselves into. Letters of recommendations
are no longer required.
All applications, once completed (which is not hard with so few
requirements) are processed that day! When I applied here it took
one week and that was pushing it. How can this be done? Simple,
Admissions committee no longer meets as a committee.
Members are required to come to admissions once a day between
the hours of 1:30 PM and 2:30 PM. This is the only time allowed
for community input. If a member cannot be there to read files
that day they never see the file, or have any say and those
excepted or rejected that day. This goes against the ideals
of collaboration and goes against the Governance documents
(see page 16, see also Jan Donley's letter to Greene and Dysart, p. 4).
Next, we go to the working conditions in admissions and financial
aid. The consultants really gave us a snow job when they talked
about growth in the student population and never mentioned it
would be implemented with such a strict authoritarian rule. I was
told by a student working in admissions that one day Dysart (the
first consultant working in admissions) witnessed some rather
unruly admissions employees looking out a window together and
stated to them that they could do that on their break.
When I wondered about the conditions in financial aid, I was told
that allegations were made to Manuel O'Neill that he had an attitude
problem and if and that if there isn't a noticeable change in his
attitude, his contract will not be renewed. Manuel's contract is
up in June.
When I wondered about the attitude problems I was told that on
some level there was tension to be expected from all parties
involved. After all the consultants have come in with a different
paradigm than that of Goddard's, and the two will inevitably clash
over and over again. The new paradigm is a traditional standpoint
of "do as you're told and everything will be fine" (something we
should beginning used to with Greene at the helm).
Manuel spoke candidly with me about his position in financial
aid stating, "I still hold the title of director of financial
aid but I make no decisions... that power belongs to Miller and
Cook." We discussed new policies in financial aid such as the
widely talked about $5,000 grant issued to all new students. A
little-known fact about this grant is that it will be offered on
a top of the usual Goddard grant and Goddard loan, and is renewable
each year. The $5,000 Grant is only offered to on-campus students;
RLO's receives $3750 and off-campus students receive $700. This
means that incoming students will be paying less than the rest of
the student population. Since Goddard has a tradition of not being
able to hold onto returning students, I have to question the logic
in all of this. I did, and was informed that the only tuition
break that will be offered to returning students is $1,500 to full
pay students (students who pay all tuition without any financial aid).
This leaves out the bulk of students, who are on some kind of assistance.
I want to know what good will come of all of this. When students
arrive here in the fall and are disappointed in the facilities and
the lack of faculty, what are they going to have left?
We already can not meet the demands of the students as far as courses
and programs that were promised. What do we really have to offer
except lifelong friendships and good cafeteria food.
I just can't seem to find a silver lining here.
