Letters to the Editor

2/11/10 6:00pm

Online Comment of the Week

In response to "Proposed Beer Bike parade changes fail," Feb. 5:Brown College was significantly opposed to the proposed Beer Bike parade modifications, and I am personally happy with the results of last week's votes. I understand that aspects of the process surrounding these proposals have left some students with a sour taste, but I think we need to be a little more objective with how the proposal proceeded and avoid being reactionary to an idea that was raised, discussed and turned down.

Specifically, I think students' opinions of the campus-wide coordinators have not been fair. Students felt that their freedoms were being attacked from above, and they sought out the most visible target to vent their annoyances on. Honestly, I believe that (despite personal opinions) an overall air of neutrality and openness was maintained by the campus-wide coordinators. Furthermore, if those coordinators had been any less aggressive with their proposals, their ideas simply would have been shrugged off or swept under the carpet. In essence, they managed to force people to think critically about how to improve Beer Bike. We decided that their changes would not improve our traditions, so they didn't pass. That's how the process should work.

---

---

Furthermore, I have significant concerns about bringing more Beer Bike-related decisions under the wing of the Student Association. The proposal to move large decisions concerning Beer Bike to the SA is reactive and regressive; it should not be passed under the false pretense that student opinion was not heard in this year's truck debate. The college coordinators discussed the issue with their respective colleges and they represented their colleges to the campus-wide coordinators. In turn, those campus-wide coordinators listened, and an acceptable decision was reached. Slowing the decision-making process regarding an event as expansive and, at times, volatile as Beer Bike is probably an error in judgment.

Kevin Schell

Brown junior

Course budget cuts wrongly reported

To the Editor:

The subject of college courses and the related budget cuts is of great interest to our campus and is worthy of careful examination and reporting. That is why I was distressed to read the article on the cover of the Thresher entitled "College course budgets face cuts," Feb. 5. This article was, in places, confused and misleading. At several points, the reporter used interchangeable terms which meant different things. The main confusion was between "college courses" and "student-taught courses." Contrary to the statement in the article, college courses were not introduced by Wiess College two years ago. Rather, they have been around for several decades. A typical such course is led by a professional instructor who is paid a modest salary for his or her effort. The Introduction to Law course hosted by Lovett College, referred to in the article, is an example of such a course. A new type of college course, with a student as the instructor, was introduced two years ago. The college course budget described in the article was the source of funding for the standard college course, with professional instructors.

Of particular concern is the sentence "After determining that most colleges did not use up their college course budget, the Dean's Office reduced funding for college courses to $3,000 for the current academic year." Although I must admit that this makes the decision sound quite reasonable, it is, unfortunately, complete nonsense. In fact, each college was spending its entire college course budget - on courses taught by professional instructors.

When the university administration decided to cut 5 percent from budgets campus wide, I asked the college masters for their advice on how we could cut our budgets with minimal impact on the student experience, and they unanimously suggested that we reduce the funding for the standard college courses, while increasing the support for the student-taught courses. I then discussed this with the college presidents, who were very supportive, if we could continue to provide funding for some select "standard" college courses of particular merit - with Lovett's Introduction to Law being mentioned explicitly.

I met twice with the reporter of this story, answered every question openly and completely, and offered to make myself available should other questions arise. During those interviews, I described the step-by-step process that led to the final budget decision. It is disconcerting that the reporter chose to ignore that and print unsubstantiated conjecture instead.

Simply put, the Thresher got parts of this story completely backwards. Together with the college leadership, we decided that the college course budget could be cut precisely because the success of the student-taught course program made the standard courses less vital. As I explained to the reporter, the cut in the college course budget was, in fact, an expression of support for, and confidence in, the continued growth and impact of the student-taught course program.

The introduction of student-taught courses has been one of the most rewarding programs with which I have been involved during my time as dean. It has done more to enhance the intellectual, cultural and social vibrancy of the colleges than any other single initiative and has truly changed the lives, especially, of those who have had the opportunity to design and teach such a class.

Robin Forman

Dean of Undergraduates

Distinct courses lumped together

To the Editor:

Budget cuts suck. This terse vulgarity is especially true insofar as cuts retract unique opportunities for students to step up and define their university. So it's little short of heartbreaking to hear of the precipitous drop in funding for college courses, which provide students with precisely such opportunities ("College course budgets face cuts," Feb. 5). I understand the serious financial difficulties confronting our university, and I consequently have little desire to protest the steps that must be taken. However, given that such changes are hardly inconsequential, I firmly believe that our considerations must rest in accurate historical context.

Therefore, I wish to draw attention to an issue of taxonomy left unaddressed by the Thresher's coverage last week: Specifically, the critical distinction between student-taught college courses (which are valued at one credit apiece and have been offered since 2007) and professionally-taught college courses (which are worth three credits and have been filling considerable gaps in official university curriculum, such as law and graphic design, since at least the 1980s). Despite the serious differences in histories (three years versus three decades), formats (student teaching versus professional instruction) and contributions to the Rice community (in terms of subjects, etc.), both varieties were conveniently lumped under the umbrella of "college courses" in the front-page article. I will abstain from debating the relative merits of each, but I hope you will recognize the immense potential for unjust considerations when we conflate such different sorts of things.

Alex Gorischek

Wiess Senior

---