Continuous Improvement

We are good at initiating student life programs; we need to become better at evaluating them. Staff and student surveys and departmental self studies reveal that many departments are just beginning to consider student life outside academic work as educationally important, and student knowledge of services and opportunities for the improvement of student life is incomplete.

Our ability to evaluate the quality of student life at Michigan Tech from an assessment and planning perspective is limited by two factors. First, outcomes assessment is relatively new, particularly to student services and student life before 1991. A few external and internal surveys on student satisfaction have been conducted and some initial assessment planning done, but the overall effectiveness and quality of student services has not been measured. This effectiveness may be as important to measure as the number of students who use the service. With respect to student organizations, little is known about the quality of these experiences or even student-participation rates. While many student organizations and professional associations exist on campus, participation is often low. Anecdotal evidence suggests a few students do most of the work in many organizations, and turnover hinders organizational memory. Applying outcomes assessment to student services and student organizations will help Michigan Tech enhance the quality of student life and develop student leaders.

Second, future planning for student services and student life programming is not clearly linked to survey results. The link between academic success and learning from experiences outside the classroom, well documented in the higher education literature, [1] is not clearly articulated at Michigan Tech. Some units view themselves as primarily customer service agents, whereas a more holistic view of the student's academic and extracurricular development would enhance educational effectiveness. The strategic planning process has encouraged student services departments to begin thinking about their relationship to University goals and to build stronger links to the strategic plan. The next step is to link planning to University assessment activities. We can take advantage of the Council for the Advancement of Standards (CAS) program to help units assess the quality of their service and assist in evaluating the relationship between programmatic initiatives and University goals. This quality-focused organization serves as an effective benchmark for student services programs around the country.

Funding of student services and student life has improved, yet remains lean. Students spend a considerable amount of time fundraising to support their organizational activities [6.2B3], which is commendable, but detracts from their academic efforts, and time for organizational activities. Student leaders also report that financial and facilities’ constraints minimize what these organizations can accomplish. The maturing partnership between student services and University Advancement should help with funding of student life initiatives. This will be particularly important for initiatives like LeaderShape to continue.

Although students are more involved in decision making today (see "Integrity" below), students continue to call for more student involvement in University planning and decision making. Including students on TQE teams to improve the quality of student services is recommended. Also, student government could open a student debate on the kind of student life they would like to have. If the main goal of the students is to acquire a degree with as little cost to themselves as possible—even at the expense of a better quality of life—then current funding may be acceptable. But a debate, coupled by a vote on new fees linked to more student decision making, could help the University achieve its stated goals for students.

An opportunity exists to encourage student teams—a University goal—to coordinate programs and generate ideas about resources for more student-led activities. Students want more weekend programs, but the student services staff is insufficient to provide it. An excellent example of student-led student life on campus is Winter Carnival, in which almost no staff or faculty participate in planning. A coordinator to manage the wide array of student activities sponsored by various campus units would increase the quality of programming and allocation of limited resources.

Integrity

Michigan Tech is committed to an educational environment that supports the free exchange of ideas and advances the quality of student life. Since 1988 we have developed new policies, procedures, and informational literature which define and safeguard student rights and responsibilities. A revised Student Code of Conduct and a new Academic Integrity Policy guarantee students due process in integrity issues.

Academic Freedom

As an institution of higher education, the University guarantees the right of academic freedom to both faculty and students. This is clearly stated in the Student Handbook [1.2C] and in the Board of Control Manual [1.1, Policy 16.2.2]. Students have every opportunity to engage faculty in discussions over course content without repudiation. Students describe a collegiate environment where faculty invite student commentary.

Student Code of Conduct

In 1994/95, student leaders, Student Affairs staff, and University counsel substantially revised the Student Code of Conduct, entitled "Student Rights and Responsibilities in the University Community" [1.5C3], to clarify University regulations, particularly the judicial processes, for students. This document emphasizes the educational potential of the judicial process and is distributed at orientation to all incoming students.

Academic Integrity

Prompted by concerns about the existing cheating policy as well as a desire to minimize litigation, in 1995 students, faculty, and staff developed and implemented a new Academic Integrity Policy with clearly stated definitions of cheating, plagiarism, inappropriate citation, and unauthorized study aids. Students charged with academic dishonesty are afforded the same due process rights as other students charged with non-academic integrity violations. Students and faculty have expressed satisfaction with how academic dishonesty is now being addressed on campus under the new policy. Students who see others cheat now have a way to lodge a complaint. Students charged with academic dishonesty, and faculty involved in adjudication, both find the hearing process, particularly the "third-party" review, to be fair.

NCAA Compliance

Athletics has designated a staff person as a compliance officer to manage responsibilities relevant to NCAA regulations. In addition, each coach is required to take a Coaches Certification Test each year to determine whether the coach remains in compliance and is eligible to recruit student athletes the following year. All coaches have passed this test. Plans to install compliance-assistance software to monitor issues such as eligibility and financial aid will increase coaches’ efficiency at NCAA compliance. The President of the University is also actively involved: he attends NCAA national conventions and supports a position in the Athletic Department to provide oversight on compliance regulations.

Diversity

All student organizations' constitutions include a membership clause that affirms membership shall not be impeded on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, height, weight, and/or marital status. Membership cannot be denied on a basis of disability or veteran status. Currently, student organizations are not monitored for multiethnic/gender inclusion to ascertain how diverse they are.

Student Involvement in Decision Making

Student involvement in University decision making today reflects the belief of the University administration that better decisions about matters that directly affect the lives of students are made when students have input into the decision making process. It also provides accountability to those most likely to challenge policies and decisions. Michigan Tech’s commitment to involve students in decision making is reflected in the broad array of committees and boards on which students serve, such as Goal Committees for the University Self-Study, the University Senate (USG representative) and its committees, Student Affairs committees, Career Center and Athletics advisory boards, the Judicial Advisory Board (Student Code of Conduct), Health Services Committee, Computer Advisory Committee, and Campus Safety Committee. Nonetheless, student leaders believe their input needs to be solicited more often.

Students have also served on search committees and performance review committees in academic units. Survey results [6.2B3] suggest that student organization leaders believe they have adequate influence within their own academic department. Even so, a review of departmental self-studies indicates that few have systems for student evaluation of policies and programs; this could lead to policies and procedures which are perceived as unfair or inequitable. We recommend that all departments consider increasing student input into review of departmental decision making and clarify the methods available to faculty and staff for soliciting student input.

Retail Operations and Residential Services have had some difficulty assimilating student involvement in their decision making processes, most recently about MUB operations and housing options. In the latter case, the Executive Vice President and Provost assisted in the resolution of the dispute by chairing a committee composed of student representatives; this demonstrated our commitment to increase student input in University decision making. Because the services of these units directly impacts the daily lives of students, we recommend that these units adopt procedures to include student leaders in policy development and program review matters, well in advance of proposed implementation. Because the 1988 NCA report specifically cited the need for improved student representation in MUB decision making, we need to make progress here.

Departmental Grievances and Ombudsman

An institution-wide grievance procedure is outlined in the Student Handbook [1.2C]; however, students do not always seem to be aware of the procedure nor the role the Ombudsman can play in helping them resolve a complaint. As a result, students may experience frustration when the problem goes unresolved. We recommend that all departments post the institution-wide procedures outlined in the Student Handbook and that Student Affairs inform students at new-student orientation of the grievance procedures.

NEXT