President Muhlenfeld's letter regarding recommendation of SOF committee, June 2, 2004
Sixth meeting, February 12, 2004
Fifth meeting, January 13, 2004
Fourth meeting, November 6, 2003
Third meeting, September 28, 2003
Second meeting, August 11, 2003
First meeting, July 2, 2003

 

THE SHAPE OF THE FUTURE COMMITTEE
MINUTES

NOVEMBER 6, 2003
11 a.m. – 2 p.m.
Patio D, Conference Center

The fourth meeting of the Shape of the Future Committee was called to order at 11 a.m. on Thursday, November 6, prior to the main series of Board committee meetings on Friday. With the exception of Madeleine Green, all members of the Committee were present. The meeting consisted of a closed meeting from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., followed by Roundtable Discussions with members of the Board, faculty, and staff from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Approval of the Minutes, Discussion of Chair’s Letter to Steve Wassell: Following the approval of the minutes of the September 28, 2004 meeting, Chairman Collier called the Committee’s attention to the letter sent by her to Steve Wassell, Chair of the Faculty Senate, in response to the Senate’s memoranda of June 30, 2003 and September 2, 2003. Her letter reflected the sense of the SOF Committee discussion in the September meeting.

Report from the Faculty; Resolution on Marketing: Pam Deweese presented a resolution from the on-campus academic members of the SOF Committee and endorsed by the full faculty at the Faculty Meeting on October 31, 2003. She explained that the resolution grew out of the faculty/staff focus groups and other meetings held to discuss the Shape of the Future initiative. Particularly in the faculty focus groups held by Pam, Bill Kershner, Scott Hyman, and Jonathan Green, there was nearly universal agreement that marketing of Sweet Briar’s programs and events, and the general visibility of the College, has historically been insufficient, and therefore new programs developed by the faculty in recent years have not yet had a chance to impact enrollment. Further, until the issue of marketing is addressed, faculty, staff, and students will continue to have difficulty focusing on alternative blueprints, because there are such serious doubts as to whether any alternative approaches would be adequately marketed to generate desired enrollments.

The faculty members on the SOF committee felt that dealing with the issue of marketing constitutes a real opportunity to capture the creativity and good will of the campus community.

Discussion followed clarifying the status of College Relations on campus. Betsy discussed the fact that Admissions has hired a firm to develop a new “family” of publications for our recruitment purposes. Focus groups have been held on campus as the firm begins to develop understanding of the essence of Sweet Briar and create new messages. These will include a redesigned admissions website. The group discussed the importance of an effective website (particularly its front page), one of the chief concerns of faculty members, as well as ways to increase name recognition and raise visibility for the College. Gregg Petersmeyer pointed out the necessity of determining a clear value proposition. Sweet Briar’s marketing needs to be segmented to various target groups, and we need to determine how our value proposition is valued by each segment. He pointed out that we need to listen to our markets--our rhetoric may be masking some of their concerns.

The Committee considered how to respond to the resolution. After extended discussion, the following conclusions were reached:

1. The SOF Committee accepts and affirms the resolution. We all agree that marketing is crucial to the success of any alternative blueprint.

2. Betsy is in the process of reorganizing the College Relations Office on campus, and will speed up that process. She will be seeking a director after the first of the year, and will shift College Relations’ reporting line to the President’s Office through Dr. Linda Shank, who has recently hired a new writer, created a small faculty group to advise on the website, and is analyzing actual marketing expenditures on campus (currently distributed among several offices: Admissions, Development, Alumnae, etc.). She will determine an appropriate budget to improve our image marketing of the College as a whole.

3. Funding issues will be forwarded to the Finance and Investments Committee of the Board of Directors, which oversees budgets. At this point, the Board is not likely to allocate additional dollars for the 03-04 year, and the SOF Committee will not recommend that it do so. Thus, in the near term, funding can only come through reallocation of existing resources.

4. Although the importance of marketing has always been clear, the resolution reminds us that marketing must be front and center in the whole process. As Gregg Petersmeyer put it, we will do everything a bit differently because of the resolution--ever mindful that marketing considerations must be embedded in every aspect of our deliberations. The External Relations Committee of the Board will oversee marketing.

On-campus Meetings, Focus Groups, Ideas Submitted via E-mail: The faculty members of the SOF committee reported that the faculty/staff focus groups, though productive and full of interesting ideas, did not generate any viable ideas that rise to the level of alternative blueprints. Therefore, we will explore three approaches going forward: remaining a women’s college but with a shift in mission such that, in addition to a grounding in the liberal arts, we are more overtly preparing women for professional lives (currently called Liberal Arts in Action), a shift to coeducation, and a shift to a Liberal Arts in Action approach as a coed institution.

The Committee spent time looking at the summaries of focus group discussions as well as a comprehensive summary developed by Ginger Collier of every idea that has been submitted since the beginning of the process. Many of the ideas are excellent, and Ginger noted that we must, as a committee, be committed to the principle that no idea should be lost. Some ideas could be woven into the current blueprints. Others might be worth developing as stand alones. Still others should be considered by the Planning Committee and/or the Instruction Committee in some organized fashion once the work of the SOF Committee is completed. Several members of the Committee commented with interest on a “modules” approach suggested by Alix Ingber.

One theme that emerged from several comments concerned student life on campus. The Committee discussed the effect of the Student Commons on student life, and questioned whether it has provided promised “hangout” space for students. The role of the Bistro was discussed. Betsy indicated that Dean Valdrie Walker is focusing on this issue with her staff. The ground floor of Reid is being outfitted as a student hangout, and Valdrie is working on benchmarking and student focus groups to determine how to meet student expectations. We will have a report at the February Board meeting.

Campus Climate: Betsy reported that the mood on campus has improved as we have communicated more and more with various constituencies. The student Campus Discussion on October 20th went well; students asked good questions, and the on-campus members of the SOF Committee answered as frankly as they could. Student concerns have abated for the time being, following the open meetings and campus discussion. Among faculty and staff, there is considerable anxiety about the impact of budget cuts, but at the same time there seems to be a sense that the SOF Committee and the Board of Directors are dealing with these issues openly and forthrightly.

A letter from Steve Wassell in his role as Chair of the Faculty Senate to the Executive Committee of the Board was discussed. The letter asks the Board for moderation in its announced budget cuts, arguing that new programs have not yet had a chance to impact enrollment, and that to cut too severely could well harm the health and morale of the College, which in turn would adversely impact student recruitment and the retention of strong faculty. Michela indicated that both the Executive Committee and the Finance and Investments Committee were very sensitive to the potential of doing harm to the College. But we are under real time pressure, and thus equally insistent on the imperative to control the spending rate. In any case, understanding the impact of proposed cuts will be a primary responsibility of the Board of Directors.

Cataloguing: Jonathan Green gave a brief update regarding the academic cataloguing exercise. We have received material from everyone, and are analyzing it. Betsy and Jonathan will be working closely with it over the break between Fall and Spring Terms. Larry Broomall presented his timetable for looking at the administrative side of the College. After discussion, it was decided that the timetable may be too ambitious given the Christmas holidays, and may need to be lengthened.

Communications Plan: Diane Dalton presented the Communications Plan developed by her and Madeleine Green. Inasmuch as communication with faculty, staff, and students is well under way, the discussion focused on communication with alumnae. Just as the level of anxiety was initially high on campus, and then, as more was known and understood, abated, so we can expect an initial surge of high anxiety from alumnae as they realize the seriousness of our discussions. The Alumnae Board will be meeting on Saturday afternoon and Sunday to develop a detailed communications plan with alumnae. Betsy will speak with the group at dinner Saturday night about SOF.

Timing: The Committee discussed a timeline that will enable us to make recommendations to the Board in April. If the Committee feels that coeducation is likely to be a desirable outcome, it will recommend that the Board consider such a move, but would not expect the Board to do so in April. In that case, the Board would inaugurate an exploratory process involving both communication with its wider constituency and more extensive market research with an eye toward a decision point in Fall 2004.

Market Research: The Committee discussed a timetable for presentation of conclusions to the Board at their April meeting, and decided that we need to engage a firm to do initial market research on our current options as soon as possible. The College must put out a Request for Proposals no later than early December to have a work product that the SOF Committee can use in time to make a recommendation to the Board in April.

Community Roundtable Agenda/Format: Betsy briefly described the format for the Roundtable Discussions to follow the SOF meeting. Each table will be assigned one SOF member, and one person from the administration to serve as facilitator and to take notes and report out.

Schedule of next meetings: The following meetings are currently scheduled for the Spring semester:

January 13, Washington, D.C. 10:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
February 12, on campus in conjunction with Board meeting
March 3, Washington D.C. 11:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
April 15, on campus in conjunction with the Spring Board meeting

The meeting was adjourned at 1:50, to move to the Roundtable Discussions in the Boxwood Room. (The notes from the Roundtable Discussions were compiled, and mailed to SOF Committee members on December 15th.)

JANUARY 13, 2004
10:30-2:30
Home of Michela English, Washington, D. C.

The fifth meeting of the Shape of the Future Committee was called to order at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, January 13. Present were Marshall Acuff, Ginger Collier, Diane Dalton, Pam DeWeese, Michela English, Jonathan Green, Madeleine Green, Scott Hyman, Bill Kershner, Betsy Muhlenfeld, and Francie Root. Larry Broomall and Gregg Petersmeyer were unable to attend. Minutes of the meeting of November 6, 2003 were approved as circulated. Ginger reviewed the timetable we had developed for the November meeting, and indicated that we are generally on course.

Campus concerns: The first item of business was a general report from the faculty representatives to the SOF Committee assessing the mood of the campus and faculty response to SOF issues since the November meeting. The summary of discussions at the November Roundtables were circulated to the College community immediately, and the President’s report at the December faculty meeting included an overview of the November SOF meeting, issues emerging from the Board meeting, and an update on the marketing resolution. Generally, although there is some interest in what will happen to all the ideas that have been generated, faculty have been focused not on SOF, but on completing the Fall Term, and first and foremost developing the budget cuts we are working to effect.
Betsy Muhlenfeld indicated a high level of anxiety among staff members who are concerned about their jobs. Students return to campus from a long holiday this week. Prior to their departure in December, they had ceased to focus on SOF because of end of term activities. We anticipate that their interest will pick up again as the Spring Term progresses.

Market Research: Betsy reported on a meeting in December in Washington with Ginger Collier, Michela English and Gregg Petersmeyer in which we refined the wording for an RFP for market research. The RFP was issued in mid-December; three proposals have been received. A conference call will be set up within 10 days to select one. Everyone who can do so is urged to join the conference call. Michela English noted that although we hope to be able to meet our April deadline, we must listen to the experts, should they indicate that the timetable is impossible.

Administrative Cataloguing and Budget Development: In Larry Broomall’s absence, Betsy indicated that we have developed detailed benchmarking data against several peer colleges, and Larry has been going through that material rigorously with every member of the senior staff. We have all identified various areas where appropriate levels of staffing need to be evaluated. At this point, he feels that he will be able to meet budget goals for next year, but we are in fact looking at a three-year process. On campus we are in the middle of the budget process and will be having budget strategy sessions in the next three weeks to develop a draft budget. Marshall indicated that preliminary budget information will be presented at the February Finance Committee.

Academic Cataloguing:
Betsy gave a brief overview of the academic cataloguing initiative, indicating that there were no surprises. We didn’t learn much that we didn’t already know (not surprising in so small a college where it is relatively easy to know all faculty and their programs).
Jonathan Green presented a potential concept for reorganizing academic departments into several “schools.” The idea of shifting from small departments to some sort of larger units such as divisions has long been considered and discussed with the faculty; Dean Lenz presented a proposal for divisions at least twice, and Dean Stahl’s area advisory committees were a move in that direction. Academic reorganization was proposed by Betsy in her initial Liberal Arts in Action blueprint.

Betsy pointed out that there are good reasons for moving in this direction now. The proposed structure honors the interconnectedness of a real liberal arts approach rather than mirroring in miniature the research university model. What is special about liberal arts colleges is exactly the opposite, the ability to teach students to understand the relationships and connections among and between disciplines. This proposal reflects our current direction, accentuates our interdisciplinary strengths, and promotes our cross-disciplinary interactions, from which we have gotten most of our curricular energy in recent years. Other reasons to restructure include the fact that larger units will provide young faculty members with a broader base of colleagues and mentors. It allows great flexibility into the future. Over the course of three to five years, it permits shaping in response to student demand and in service to mission that may not be possible under the current departmental system.
A number of intellectual and professional issues would have to be worked out, including the implications for our faculty governance system, promotion and tenure, and especially curricular changes. A small reorganization of academic support will provide better coverage for academic departments, and will involve some reallocation.
Asked when such a structure could be put into effect, Betsy responded that theoretically, an administrative restructuring could simply be enacted. However, an important reason to do it is to promote collegiality, interdisciplinary exploration, curricular innovation, and the like. She stressed that we don’t want to create something that looks efficient administratively, but that everyone opposes. Jonathan Green will be talking with chairs in groups over the next couple of weeks about the proposed change.
One other matter that Jonathan suggested was that the College may wish to consider a shift to four-credit hour courses. Students would take four four-hour courses per semester rather than the current norm of five three-hour courses. Many schools use the four-hour course system. Such a shift would require a restructuring of the entire curriculum, so that majors can be completed with fewer courses, covering 33% more in each course. There are a number of advantages to this system. Students would be able to concentrate on four rather than five courses each semester, allowing greater depth. Faculty loads would be shifted from 3/3 (three courses each term) to 2/3--meaning fewer preparations; ideally classes would be a bit larger.
The shift to a four-hour credit system is a change that should be discussed by the faculty. We will be discussing academic reorganization this spring, and will probably ask the faculty to consider the shift to a four-hour system next year.

Report from the Alumnae: Diane Dalton reported on the Alumnae Board meeting following the November Board meeting, in which she was able to walk the Alumnae Board through the power point presentation Ginger used for the Board of Directors. Betsy talked with the Alumnae Board as well. The December Alumnae Magazine carried a condensed version of all minutes, and prior to its mailing, Diane sent an electronic version of the article to about 500 alumnae leaders. To date, the reaction of alumnae has been less negative than expected, and thoughtful. At least two petitions are circulating, however.
There will be a large gathering of Washington area alumnae this evening at Michela English’s home. Approximately 90 attendees are expected. Inasmuch as the most reactive alumnae are the graduates of the ’90s and early ’00s, the evening event will be important. Diane reported that the Washington Club has formed a subcommittee on the SOF. Washington alumnae are tightly tied into the campus.

Further Communication Issues: Students have just returned to campus following the holidays. Jonathan plans a meeting of the Student Advisory Counsel, and the SOF Committee will be meeting with students in Roundtable Discussions in February. We anticipate that student engagement in this issue will pick up dramatically in the next few weeks.
It was recommended that we give some thought to how we will communicate with our various constituencies at the April Board meeting, when our recommendations will be made to the Board. We will continue to have SOF updates in all alumnae mailings.

Progress on current blueprints: Betsy indicated that she is developing a brief “white paper” on coeducation, and in the process of so doing has talked with the presidents of several colleges that made the shift to coeducation. Few data are available indicating how the decision was made or what kinds of market research were done prior to the decision. In all instances she researched, the decision-making process was driven by the president or the board, with relatively little input from the college community. In some cases, the campus did not really understand that the issue was being discussed, which produced some extreme reactions. Betsy could find no colleges that had engaged the debate as fully and openly as Sweet Briar. She provided a brief overview of discussions with the presidents and board members of Goucher, Wheaton, and Hood at the time of the coed decision. Information gleaned from these discussions will be summarized in her white paper.
She proposed that the Liberal Arts in Action blueprint should include a guarantee that every student could do at least one internship, and a further guarantee that every student who wishes to do so (providing certain language and grade criteria are met) will have an international experience, either study abroad or an international internship. Michela indicated that the clarity of such guarantees is appealing, and that they would provide a good bridge between the traditional liberal arts and professional preparation--the “real world connectivity” circle of our NEXUS concept. Betsy reminded the group that the proposal has funding implications (to tie internships clearly to academic programs will require clerical and other kinds of support, and involves faculty collaboration). Certainly any graduation requirements should be decided by the faculty.
Marshall noted that incorporating practicing professionals as guest speakers in
courses is a very powerful way to connect the academic and the professional world, and enormously appealing to students.
The Committee discussed Liberal Arts in Action, and felt that it is past time for the campus--both faculty and staff--to get deeply into what that blueprint would look like. It was decided that the College will develop a short document, perhaps a matrix, showing how current offerings and operations would change with each blueprint. Such a document would make it possible for us to cost out each blueprint, and to judge the blueprints against the criteria developed last fall.

Following some final wrap-up and a review of action items, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2004
12:30 -3:30
PATIO D, CONFERENCE CENTER

The sixth meeting of the Shape of the Future Committee was called to order at 12:30 p.m. on Thursday, February 12, 2004, prior to the main series of Board committee meetings on Friday. The meeting consisted of a closed meeting from 12:30 to 3:30 p.m., followed by Roundtable Discussions with students from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m.
Mr. C. Gregg Petersmeyer, Ms. Frances Root ’80, Dr. Madeleine Green were unable to attend; all other members were present.
Also attending: Mr. George Dehne of GDA Integrated Services to report on the start of his market research, and Ms. Karen Summers to take minutes.
Minutes of the January 13, 2004 meeting were circulated by Dr. Muhlenfeld. She asked that all Committee members review the minutes and send emendations to her quickly.

Market Research: Mr. George Dehne of GDA Integrated Services, the firm selected to conduct market research for the SOF Committee, attended the first part of the meeting to discuss his visits of the last two and a half days with faculty, staff, and students. He found his meetings informative and helpful as he proceeds with designing his survey instruments. As a result of his on-campus discussions, he has decided to stagger his research, surveying women first, and then, informed by what women’s responses suggest, developing a parallel survey for men. Telephone interviews will be conducted to achieve the most accurate information. Following the compilation of the survey data, he will be able to present to the SOF Committee an analysis of what pieces of the Liberal Arts in Action proposal are most attractive and what language the College may want to use in marketing if Liberal Arts in Action is the chosen alternative. The surveys will test the issue of coeducation as a possibility for the College.

Mr. Dehne told the Committee that several programs routinely came up during conversations with the Sweet Briar community that in his judgment exhibit potential for increased strength and visibility. The BFA and its interaction with the Virginia Center for the Creative Arts suggests a powerful model for developing further such linkages with nearby institutions of various kinds. The Center for Civic Renewal has the potential to increase its activities, outreach, and visibility. Sweet Briar’s movement toward a co-curricular portfolio program reflecting our “total learning community” would be of great interest to students and employers. Our Career Services program is, in his view, among the best he has seen and deserves emphasis. The Learning on the Land program has high potential for increased interdisciplinary development. The College may wish to focus more clearly on the opportunity here for double majors and self-designed majors. Students’ involvement in campus work and providing students with progressive work experience and student leadership programs could be very attractive to students. His market research will look closely at these programs. The theme that he heard during his discussions with students was “opportunities.” Students commented that Sweet Briar provides its students with opportunities in clubs and organizations which become a large part of their social life.

Following his overview, Mr. Dehne welcomed questions from members of the Committee. Details regarding timeline were discussed and it was decided that it would not be possible to expect the market research to be fully compiled by the April meeting of the Shape of the Future Committee and the Board of Directors. In response to a question about whether he could provide clear-cut answers on which the Committee might rely as it makes its recommendations, Mr. Dehne responded that he does not anticipate crisp clear-cut answers. Rather, he expects that the research will give us an abundance of information about many aspects of Sweet Briar--current and proposed--but that the Committee will need to draw upon that information to make its final decision. Market research is just one part of that overall process. GDA research will be able to show the likelihood of increasing enrollment among women, elements of our program likely to appeal to women students, as well as the interest of men in a small, private, liberal arts institution such as Sweet Briar.

Dr. Hyman asked about the overall accuracy of the survey; Mr. Dehne said that it will be accurate within plus/minus 3-4%, with a 95% confidence level. The study will be blind until the end of the survey, when respondents will be informed as to what college is conducting the survey. This process is used to alleviate up-front bias. Dr. Kershner asked whether the results of the survey would be applicable long-term. Mr. Dehne noted that extensive environmental scanning will occur during the market research process and he will include predictable trends in his analysis, although predicting the future is always risky business.

Dr. Collier asked whether the term Liberal Arts in Action is understandable or marketable. Mr. Dehne said that he will test that name as well as other language. Dr Collier suggested that it would be beneficial for Mr. Dehne and GDA to have the information from the admissions research firm hired by the College, Richard Harrison Bailey/The Agency. President Muhlenfeld also recommended that Mr. Dehne review the Art & Science market report conducted in 1999 which researched Sweet Briar inquirers and applicants.

The Committee talked about the necessity to upgrade the College’s athletic facilities regardless of our decision as to alternative blueprints, but especially if we were to recommend admitting men. He discussed the emerging interest of women in sports. Mr. Dehne indicated that a coeducational institution would require a considerably larger athletic facility even than we had planned as part of our capital campaign, in addition to some $3 million or more spent to accommodate males in other aspects of the physical plant.

It was agreed that the March 3rd meeting of the Committee will be postponed to the first week in April, by which time we might have some preliminary information from Mr. Dehne. Because the market research will not be completed in time for the April Board meeting, it was agreed that the Board may need to hold a special fly-in meeting in May, once we have had time to digest Mr. Dehne’s research and recommendations.

Additional Agenda Items:
Dr. DeWeese reported that the current faculty perspectives in re the Shape of the Future are generally supportive; faculty continue their committee and group discussions regarding both the Coeducation and Liberal Arts in Action blueprints and campus-wide operating efficiencies. There is general unrest/unease about the current budgetary process, as might be expected any time budgets are being trimmed.

Dr. Muhlenfeld presented a white paper she has prepared for the Board entitled “Co-education As an Option for Women’s Colleges.” She emphasized that it is not an argument for or against coeducation, but rather, in summary form, a compendium of information gathered from a wide variety of sources, including not only statistical data, media reports, scholarly studies and other analytical materials but also a number of personal interviews with current and former presidents and board members of former women’s colleges. She will distribute this document to the campus community to provide some context for the broad considerations that must be examined as the College explores alternatives for the future. As the College collectively comes closer to “fleshing out” the Liberal Arts in Action concept, she will be putting together a similar summary on that option.

Dr. Muhlenfeld commented that the state of the administration and the overall campus climate is positive. As we expected, there is heightened concern among students relative to the coeducation option. We anticipate that more than 20 percent of the student body will join the Roundtable Discussions with the Committee following the SOF Committee meeting. She commented that the students have been very articulate in expressing their love for Sweet Briar and why this is such a special place.

Ms. Dalton informed the Committee that alumnae have been generally positive and eager to be involved. There has been a relatively measured response from the Winter Alumnae Magazine article that contained the minutes of the first three SOF meetings. However, one e-mail in particular has circulated widely in the alumnae network declaring that its author had “inside information” that the College has already made a decision to become coeducational. The Committee discussed ways to get correct information disseminated as widely as incorrect information, and concluded that once incorrect information is in the e-mail network, there is really no way to control it. Diane and Louise Zingaro, Director of the Alumnae Association, will continue their efforts to present factual information about the Shape of the Future Committee’s work, as will the President’s Office.

Dr. Broomall summarized the cataloguing exercise for the Committee, but noted it is still a work in progress. Analysis of our benchmarking studies is ongoing, and current thinking will inform the report to the Board’s Finance and Investments Committee on Friday.

With no further business, the Shape of the Future Committee adjourned, then met with approximately 120 students from 3:30-5:30 pm in Roundtable Discussions. The notes from these discussions are attached to and part of these minutes.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN THE SHAPE OF THE FUTURE PROCESS

The Shape of the Future Committee has been committed from the beginning to conducting their work in an open and inclusive manner. Minutes of their meetings are on the Alumnae Association Website www.sbc.edu/alumnae/sof and have been printed in the Alumnae Magazine. Suggestions and comments have been sought through snail mail and email at SOF@sbc.edu and alumnae@sbc.edu. In addition, over the past several months, gatherings have been held both on- and off-campus for members of the Sweet Briar College family to ask questions and share their ideas and concerns regarding the process and the College’s future plans.

On November 6, 2003 the Shape of the Future Committee met in roundtable discussions with 56 members of the faculty and staff. Many suggestions and ideas were generated, but there was no consensus on whether we should remain a women’s college or go coed. Instead the discussions focused more on visibility, image, marketing, and ways to enhance existing programs. Suggestions included developing a unified message and hiring a professional marketing director to increase visibility, promote name recognition, update and enhance the website, and promote our outcomes. In regard to life on campus, suggestions included creating new housing options, enhancing the campus as a social center and building better community relations. Suggestions involving the academic program included making internships a priority in the academic schedule, improving work-study opportunities, and further development of academic summer seminars. Other suggestions were more general, urging the College to retain our strong liberal arts focus, to keep sight of our strengths, to develop additional coed graduate programs, and to be more overt about our essential character as a women’s college.

Although the president has discussed the ongoing work of the Shape of the Future Committee at every alumnae gathering she has attended this year, one meeting was exclusively focused on strategic planning. On January 13, 2004, a gathering was held for Washington, D.C. alumnae at the home of Michela English, chairman of the College Board of Directors. Other members of the Shape of the Future Committee were present as well, including Elisabeth S. Muhlenfeld, president of Sweet Briar College, Diane Dalton, president of the Alumnae Association, Gregg Petersmeyer, Board of Directors, Bill Kershner, professor of theatre arts, Pam DeWeese, professor of modern languages and literatures, Scott Hyman, associate professor of physics, and Jonathan Green, associate professor of music and acting dean of the College. Close to 100 alumnae attended the event. After presentations regarding the work of the committee and a College update by President Muhlenfeld, Board Chairman English and Alumnae Association President Dalton, a question and answer session followed. The discussion included questions about the Liberal Arts in Action approach, marketing and visibility, admissions and enrollment strategy, the SOF process and time frame. The group discussed many of Sweet Briar’s strengths including our international programs. There was general consensus among the alumnae present that the coed option should only be pursued after all other possibilities are fully explored.

The members of the Shape of the Future Committee present expressed their appreciation for the interest, and suggestions offered. They also acknowledged the excellent work and support of the Washington, D.C. Club.

On February 12, 2004 the Shape of the Future Committee held roundtable discussions for students to share thoughts, concerns, and recommendations regarding the College’s future. Approximately 120 students took part in the lively two-hour gathering.

Both the Liberal Arts in Action and coed options were discussed. Those students gathered were overwhelmingly in favor of the Liberal Arts in Action and opposed to coeducation. Many students felt that regardless of the option selected, Sweet Briar should encourage improvements to campus social life and activities. They also suggested improving internship opportunities, international experiences, and enhancing a career-based academic focus rooted in the liberal arts.

While going coed might increase the number of students on campus and improve social life, many students felt that the College they love would cease to exist. They don’t want to lose their identity, opportunities for leadership, and beloved traditions.

Students expressed interest in participating in marketing efforts and being more involved in highlighting Sweet Briar’s unique assets.

The SOF Committee was impressed with the students’ creative ideas and passion for the College’s future. They were encouraged to continue to share their thoughts and ideas.

Additional opportunities for members of the Sweet Briar family to voice their opinions or ask questions are available through brown bag lunches on campus, alumnae club gatherings and by sending them to SOF@sbc.edu or alumnae@sbc.edu.

 

---

 

The Shape of the Future Update
Elisabeth S. Muhlenfeld, President