Members of the Student Rights and Interests Committee (SRIC) have analyzed the results of their recent survey and settled on several conclusions regarding the student body.
In light of this survey, they plan to develop suggestions for how the administration could improve the mental health of the undergraduate population.
Spearheaded by junior Marc Perkins and analyzed by junior Charlie Ouyang, the survey, administered last semester, was a follow-up to a Student Government Association (SGA) poll last spring that revealed that many Hopkins students felt disconnected from the campus and disregarded by the administration.
According to Perkins, the results of the most recent survey have highlighted major trends in undergraduate mental health and satisfaction, many of which where implicated by last spring's poll.
According to the Executive Summary chapter of the White Paper, the SRIC's soon-to-be published report of its findings, the study found that many students are not invested in the undergraduate experience.
"Students overemphasize their academic involvements, feel largely disconnected from campus life, do not consider themselves part of a school community and do not see the value of their experience at Hopkins," the Summary reads.
Perkins hypothesized in the fall that students who are involved in on-campus clubs, service groups and Greek organizations are more likely to report that they are happy at Hopkins. According to the analysis of the survey, this hypothesis has been proven mostly correct.
Students who are involved in extra-curricular activities saw 19 percent more value in their undergraduate education than uninvolved students, reported an 11 percent stronger connection to their peers and are more academically engaged, according to the study.
The SRIC took care to define the word "involvement," according to Perkins. 997 of the 1,219 students (82 percent) who responded to the survey met the SRIC's definition of "involvement": being a member of a student group, varsity team, Greek life or club sport. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that this number is inflated, as "involved" students were more likely to respond to the survey because of the very fact of their involvement in campus-administered activities.
According to Paula Burger, dean of Undergraduate Education, this phenomenon is shared by small colleges across the country.
"This finding is very well recognized by student affairs professionals who see, time and again, the truth of this observation. (It is also well documented in the literature, by the way.) ... I think this educational philosophy is one of the things that distinguishes a largely residential college/university: we expect what happens in the 'extracurricular' opportunities we provide to be part of the learning experience," Burger wrote in an e-mail to the News-Letter.
According to the study, "involved" students find benefits even beyond the campus. Involved students reported feeling a 16 percent stronger connection to the local community than uninvolved students, as well as enjoying the experience of living in Baltimore 12 percent more than their uninvolved peers.
Additionally, "student leaders" were shown to find more enjoyment in their undergraduate experience than students who are uninvolved or only moderately involved. The SRIC defines a student leader as someone who devotes 15 hours or more per week to his or her student group.
According to Burger, it is clear why these students find themselves better-adjusted at a college campus.
"It is as simple as this: If you sit on the sidelines, you are not going to feel as though you are in the game ... [student leaders] realize benefits from the full range of their involvements. The experience with student organizations teaches leadership skills, time management and lots of practical lessons in human behavior and the sociology of groups. Plus students learn a lot about themselves from being engaged with student activities," Burger wrote.
Following their initial survey, members of the SRIC wanted to test whether "involvement effects" were stronger for highly involved students, so they administered an additional survey to 224 student leaders, all of whom have sat on the executive boards of school-sanctioned extra-curricular activities.
In this survey, student leaders reported seeing 38 percent more value in the Hopkins experience than uninvolved or moderately involved students had reported seeing on the initial survey.
The "additional comments" section of this second survey gave student leaders the opportunity to elaborate.
"If it wasn't for the student groups I feel like Hopkins wouldn't have anything to offer outside of education," reported one student leader, a senior chemical and biomedical engineering major.
"I have met my favorite people and had my most rewarding experiences through my involvement in groups," reported another leader, a junior Writing Seminars major.
Although campus involvement often demands a time commitment that means compromising study habits, involved students reported being four percent more satisfied with their academics. The SRIC concluded that involvement in extra-curricular programs may strengthen the commitment students feel to their academics, as involved students are more likely to reinforce each other's goals and motivate each other to succeed.
However, according to Burger, the SRIC's narrow definition of what it means to be a "student leader" may have excluded several highly involved students.
"I would also note that it is important to see engagement broadly: It doesn't mean just being head of a student organization ... In the Committee report, I think the notion of 'student leader' may be a bit limited. We just interviewed students for a summer grant program, and I consider many of those students 'student leaders,' even though they may not have headed up an SAC-recognized organization. They were exercising leadership to tackle a social issue and making a difference in the world," Burger wrote.
While many undergraduates reported a lack of support from their peers, this sense of feeling "lost in a crowd" became more pronounced when students were asked to assess their relationships with Hopkins faculty and administration.
One student wrote, "Friends help, because the administration sure doesn't. Neither the professors who teach huge lecture classes nor the administrators who only appear on the first day [of school] ... take interest in the undergraduate population."
Given the cost of tuition, the average student rated the value of their overall Hopkins experience at 59.6 percent, with 1 signifying a miserable experience and 100 signifying an entirely satisfactory experience. When asked if students would reapply to Hopkins - given the chance to go back in time - more than 26 percent of students reported that they would rather attend a different school.
Several students reported that they expect to see the value of their experience once they graduate.
"Maybe saying I graduated from Hopkins will make it all worth it some day," one junior commented.
According to the SRIC, the administration must encourage more involvement and increased connections for undergraduates so that the school does not suffer from a lack of alumni support.
Based on Ouyang's statistical analysis, Perkins, along with SRIC members Affan Sheikh, Max Dworin, Stephanie Suser, Rahul D'Mello, Abigail Duggan and Tuyen Nguyen, drafted a list of 10 policy recommendations to improve the undergraduate experience, which they presented to the administration last week.
These recommendations include investing in a student union (77 percent of undergraduates said they would benefit from one), offering academic credit to student leaders as incentive for involvement, attracting and recruiting more involved prospective students, increasing or maintaining funding for student activities, updating student technologies such as the Student Portal and performing a scientific, longitudinal study of undergraduates over a five-year period.
According to the report, faculty members such as Dr. Rachel Piferi of the Psychological and Brain Sciences Department have expressed interest in working with the SGA and President Ron Daniels if the administration chose to undertake such a study.
According to Burger, in regards to attracting more student leaders to campus as well as encouraging leadership on campus, the administration has already been striving toward these goals.
"We already do recognize leadership qualities in our admissions evaluations of prospective candidates ... We do read applications with attention to students' demonstrated leadership and potential for leadership. In fact, there is a rating just for such qualities. I think that looking at what a student has done and what teachers and school administrators say about the leadership that they have exercised in high school is at least equally as informative as what students might say in response to an essay on this subject," Burger wrote.
Although Burger said she theoretically supported many of the recommendations, her hesitations include the instability of the current budget for student groups as well as the SRIC's narrow definition of "leadership."
"With respect to the budget for Student Activities, we were able to preserve it at a time when all the operating budgets for academic departments and student life offices were cut by 10 percent to respond to the financial pressures on the schools and to protect the financial aid budget as the top priority. In the current constrained environment as we made cuts this year and put faculty searches on hold, froze hiring and eliminated any pay increases for our faculty and staff, I do think sparing the student activities budget is a reflection of the priority we attach to it," Burger wrote.
"There are large numbers of students who make incredibly valuable contributions not necessarily by being president of a large group on campus, but by organizing major activities and service projects, so I would hope that leadership would not be defined solely by dint of formal role."
