In order to correct a problem, one must do two things. First, one must assess and evaluate the problem, gathering information in order to understand the conflict. Once one gathers enough information, one must then act upon such information in order to reform the system. With reform comes the eventual correction of the problem.
If JHU has failed to correct its problems with undergraduate life, it is because it does not fully understand the second part of problem solving. It seems the administration is caught up in the first part - the evaluation and gathering of information - and wholly ignores the second part.
Assessment and evaluation begins with freshman and sophomore students, who are asked to sit in on "town-hall"-like meetings with members of the administration in order to give feedback. It continues for graduating seniors, who sit for one-on-one interviews with the administration in order to get feedback on their experiences at Hopkins.
The administration receives a whole lot of such feedback. On the issue of dining services, students requested more food options, nicer facilities and better service. The administration responded with new meal-plan options and Levering.
Despite the hype, both of these responses have fallen far short of student and administrative expectations.
This pattern is typical of the reform agendas executed by the administration.
For if the administration engages in ongoing assessment and evaluation of student opinion as they say they do, then why do their reforms fall so spectacularly short of expectations? Simply put, they remain incapable of executing the two basic parts of problem solving.
The administration is stuck in the first part of problem solving - what can be called its "culture of assessment."
When the administration is not out launching new reforms, it is assessing and evaluating student responses to surveys and interviews. Students fill out surveys online about dining and dorm life; when getting coffee at Jazzman's Cafe; and when dining at Levering and the residential dining halls. The Commission on Undergraduate Education (CUE) report, for example, is a collective product of numerous student surveys.
But assessment and evaluation is not the only purpose of these surveys. Though they serve to give students a voice, they also provide the administration material cover for the lack of reform. Because reform comes in two parts - assessment and action - the administration gives the illusion of reform by engaging only in the first part.
When you continue acting as though problems are being solved by assessing and evaluating student input, then student grievances will be sidelined due to the popular perception that reform is underway.
In problem solving, action usually follows assessment. This is not the case, however, with JHU. They merely give the impression of problem solving through the process of evaluation and assessment. The second part of problem solving remains unexecuted.
In other words, many students lose faith in the administration's problem solving skills. It proves to us that despite our input, our wishes will either go entirely un-reformed or half-heartedly reformed: consider the Levering "student union." One can only conclude that the administration's interests lie only in the first part of problem solving, and remain oblivious of the second. And because the second part is not executed fully, students naturally lose faith in the entire act of problem solving and reform.
It also seems that the administration loses faith in itself. Students will continue to see still more surveys than changes. This will persist because the administration finds it a more convenient position when stuck between institutional constraints and student demands.
Take, for example, the meal-plan. The new meal-plan, though an improvement over past years, nevertheless remains below student expectations. This is an example of the administration going "half-way." JHU's contract with Sodexho limits administrative action, thereby only giving the administration few options with which to address student input.
This forces them to compromise halfway between the constraints imposed by the contract and the demands requested by students. But in order to address remaining student grievances, the administration is forced to once again pass out surveys. The cycle of assessment and evaluation begins all over again.
If JHU wishes to address student grievances and re-establish faith in the administration, it must break out of this "culture of assessment" and enter a "culture of action."
Previous columns by Michael Huerta can be found online at http://www.jhunewsletter.com.
