Growing Pains

Communication breakdown

By Jimmy Thomas
Courier Staff

Monmouth College thrives because of what it is—a small, friendly, liberal arts institution. Granted, we are currently not classified as a liberal arts college, but certainly we can still maintain our identity as a small and friendly institution. However, due to our recent growth, part of our identity is being lost, and a great deal of that has to do with an internal resistance to understanding and working with the various departments of this institution.

“Jocks are stupid and get special acceptance into Monmouth, because they play sports.”

“We are lowering our academic standards to get more students in.”

“Monmouth lets a lot of students in who do not belong in college.”

Sound familiar?

Something is missing from these comments, and that is a sense of perspective and more importantly, the truth.

I recently sat down with John Klockentager, vice president for enrollment, and associate dean of admission, Christine Johnston, to discuss some of these accusations and ascertain their validity.

Contrary to what I initially believed, all of the above statements were false and repeating them only added to the growing divisions between faculty and admissions, academics and athletics, and students and the administration.

Both Klockentager and Johnston took time to go over the actual process involved in admitting students and clarified the standards of admitting and dismissing students.

In order to rest fears about the subject, they informed me that any gray area students—those not automatically accepted (20 or higher on the ACT and top half of the class) or automatically rejected—were evaluated not only by the Office of Admissions but also by the Academic Standards Committee which sends two faculty members to review every gray area case file.

The Office of Admissions cannot “sneak” a student into the school since all questionable cases are reviewed by members of the faculty.

Another important subject we discussed was our reported lowering of academic standards. Klockentager made it very clear he would never accept a student whom he did not believe could make it though Monmouth College. The proof for this fact is that the students we dismiss are by no means all low end academic students. If the data showed 90% of dismissed students received a 16 on their ACT then raising MC’s academic standards would make sense, but this is not the case. Klockentager and Johnston believe the largest reason students are unsuccessful at Monmouth is because of lack of involvement and connection to the campus.

Although this information is all very important, it is representative of an even larger problem this campus is facing as a direct result of our rapid growth—lack of communication. As we grow ever faster and new problems arise, it is the responsibility of our faculty and staff to make a commitment to communicate with one another. Students need to agree to speak about issues which bother them in a public, yet polite manner, rather than chastising some given aspect of the college without the proper information or appropriate reasons.

I do not believe I am going out on a limb if I say that one of the major attractions of Monmouth College is its intimate feel, friendly atmosphere and sense of closeness between students, faculty, administration and staff. This intimacy should mean that when anyone on this campus is alarmed by a recent development (and certainly there are many during this time of growth) or upset by a particular policy or decision, they should feel comfortable enough to speak to the people responsible for the decisions. I do believe this is true of Monmouth College, but we all need to make a commitment to actually ask those questions and find the answers for ourselves rather than relying on hearsay and rumor.

Are there problems this campus needs to address?

Absolutely.

Will they all be resolved to the satisfaction of every person?

Absolutely not.

Will they ever be resolved in a way you would like if you do not speak out about your concerns?

No.