Appendices Boston University Living-Learning Programs Review Committee Report November 4, 2013 Appendix I. Charge to the BU Living-Learning Communities Review Committee 2 Appendix II. BU Living-Learning Communities Review Committee Members 3 Appendix III. Comments received by Specialty Community Advisors 4 Appendix IV. List of Current BU Specialty Houses 30 Appendix V. Selected Specialty House Student Comments 33 Appendix VI. Comparison of Selected Data from 2007 NSLLP Survey to Fall 2012 BU Residents 36 Appendix VII. Comparison of Fall 2012 Undergraduates by On-Campus Housing Type and Choice 37 Appendix VIII. Comparison of Retention by Housing Type, Entering Cohorts of Fall 2009 – 2011 38 Appendix IX. Telepresence Examples 41 Appendix X. Boston University Living-Learning Community Residences: Fact Sheets 44 1 Appendix I. Charge to the BU Living-Learning Communities Review Committee To undertake a comprehensive review of BU’s Specialty Houses, and make recommendations for the future development of BU’s living-learning programs over the next 5-10 years. The recommendations could include suggestions for particular themes for living-learning programs, but should focus centrally on the kind of program and a process for developing them. The Committee should report its recommendations to the Associate Provost for Undergraduate Affairs by May 17, 2013. The Committee should pay particular attention to evaluating whether BU is taking full advantage of living-learning communities to: 1. Provide an enriched educational experience that is engaging and interesting, that promotes student interaction with faculty on substantive matters, that actively advances the understanding of diverse experiences and points of view, that integrates what happens inside the classroom and out, and that matters significantly to students’ intellectual development; 2. Increase BU’s ability to recruit top students; 3. Increase BU’s ability to retain and graduate those students; 4. Promote curricular innovations (such as interdisciplinary programming across departments and colleges) or social/community goals (such as civic engagement or community service). The proposed plan should pay special attention to how living-learning programs help define a distinctive BU residential experience. This will include thinking carefully about how to use our extraordinary housing assets, particularly the houses on Bay State Road, to best advantage. Size of program will be an important factor here. In conducting its study, the committee should think of BU’s living-learning communities as a whole. It is assumed that all programs should advance goal 1 above, but not all programs need to promote all of goals 2-4. Our suite of offerings as a whole should, however, should strongly advance all four. The committee will want to consider such questions as: how effective are the existing programs and in what ways? What are the characteristics of an effective program? Are BU’s programs the right size? Should BU have different kinds of living-learning programs, e.g. more curriculum-based, more limited or extended in time, focused just on first and second year students, on third and forth year students? If so, what kinds of programs ought we develop and how should they be developed? These questions are not meant as limits to what the committee considers, but as examples of some issues. The committee will want to educate itself about programs at our peer institutions and other universities to spur new ideas and discover effective practices for use at BU. Appendix II. BU Living-Learning Communities Review Committee Members Chair: Nathan Phillips, Professor, CAS, Earth & Environment Staff: Kelly Connors, Office of the Provost Heather Barrett, Graduate (PhD) Student, English, CAS Linette Decarie, Director, Institutional Research Roscoe Giles, Professor, ENG, Electrical Engineering Karen Jacobs, Clinical Professor, SAR, Occupational Therapy; Faculty-in-Residence, 33 Harry Agganis Steven Jarvi, Associate Dean, Student Academic Life, CAS Sam Kauffmann, Professor, COM, Film Hugh O’Donnell, Professor, CFA, Visual Arts Davida Pines, Associate Professor, CGS, Rhetoric Tyrone Porter, Associate Professor, ENG, Mechanical Engineering Sean Reilly, Undergraduate Student, CAS; RA Italian House Bruce Schulman, Professor, CAS, History Kelly Walter, Associate Vice President and Executive Director, Admissions David Zamojski, Assistant Dean of Students and Director, Residence Life 3 Appendix III. Comments received by Specialty Community Advisors The BU Living-Learning Community Review Committee solicited feedback via email from 32 of the 34 Specialty Community Units* in May 2013 and then again in October of 2013. We received feedback from 21 advisors, one of whom wished to remain anonymous. Feedback in Appendix III appears in alphabetical order by Specialty Community Unit. *Please note: We did not solicit feedback from the Limited Parietal House. We solicited feedback from the Women in Science and Engineering Specialty Communities (WISE Floor and the Upperclass WISE-UP) as a single unit. Specialty Houses: Classics House Core Curriculum House Advisor: Stephanie Nelson Assistant Dean and Director, Core Curriculum Associate Professor of Classical Studies Having served as faculty advisor for both the Classics House and the Core House and Floor in Warren Towers for something like five years now, I have developed some fairly strongly held feelings about specialty housing at BU. First, I feel very strongly that the physical conditions of many of the specialty communities seriously jeopardize the communities' mission. In the Classics House, for example, an inviting and commodious common room in an ideal location, just off the entrance and facing Bay State Road, was turned into a bedroom quite a number of years ago. The result has been that the residents have no inviting space to gather, and consequently, I am told, tend to spend their time in the house in their individual rooms with the doors closed. The only common spaces in the house are in the basement, with no windows, and cramped conditions and in the entrance way, where the residents have placed a table and chairs, but where any conversation has to contend with a continual stream of traffic. On the Core floor in Warren Towers the common room is the one standard to the building, which is again quite cramped. Also, since there is no possibility of designating one space for study, and another for socializing, students don't have the kind of space conducive to working together, which should be one of the main opportunities provided by a Living-Learning community. In contrast the Core House was able to keep the same kind of inviting, convenient common room that the Classics House once had, as well as a rather less inviting, but sufficiently large "television room" in the basement, and the result is that the students do regularly both study and socialize together, initiating, on their own, events like a regular weekly movie night and various study sessions. Secondly, largely, I think, because the responsibilities for the specialty houses are divided between Res Life, Housing, and CAS I have personally found it almost impossible to equip the houses with even the simplest requirements for allowing them to carry out their mission. In the Classics House, for example, I spent a full three years requesting a whiteboard for the students' use (indispensable for students trying to study beginning Latin or Greek together) and only acquired one when the department agreed to purchase it for the house out of department funds. Similarly, although both the department and Classics alumni wished to donate basic texts to the house to aid the students' study, it took another three year to get permission for a bookcase on which to put them. In the Core House the built-in bookcase which 4 Core had stocked with the books all the students study in common was missing half of its shelves, and again the problem was only remedied, after a number of years of futile requests, when I personally went to the hardware store and purchased the necessary shelves. Aside from the inconvenience of lacking such simple aids to an academic community, the lack of concern expressed in not providing convenient tables and chairs for study (for example) sends a strong message to the students that at basis the Specialty Community is really just another dorm, with a couple of events added on, and not taken seriously as a Living-Learning Community. Finally, and perhaps most crucially, the complexity of Housing selection, and the alacrity with which Housing has filled spots in the Specialty Community with students completely uninterested in the specialty in question, has seriously undermined the communities' mission. Over and over again I have heard of students who were very interested in the particular community who failed, for one reason or another, to obtain a space, while (for example) international and transfer students who required housing at the last moment were simply stuck in, without having expressed any interest in the community, or even knowing that the residence was a specialty community. As a result I have found that unless an enormous effort is made by the academic department concerned, a majority of residents have no involvement in the specialty, meaning that even for those students interested in the field, it becomes "uncool" to focus on it, which, of course, ends by lessoning their own interest in the community. The strength of the Specialty Houses is that there certainly is a quite sizable number of undergraduates at BU who find a Living-Learning Community rewarding and who profit greatly from it. To my mind we can best use this advantage by attempting to make the physical space of the communities serve their end (and, by the way, I might add that the single most desirable improvement almost every undergraduate has mentioned to me would be the addition of a common kitchen and dining space) and by streamlining and facilitating both faculty involvement in the specialty houses and student selection. I would suggest that each house be equipped with a comfortable common room, equipped to serve students’ needs, that a separate space for socializing also be provided, that the supervisors for the Specialty Houses arrange for regular meetings with the RA and faculty advisor, and take responsibility for implementing suggestions made, that Specialty Housing be made far more visible than it currently is, and that a simplified method of filling residences with qualified students be instituted, even at the cost of leaving some rooms open when a qualified resident has not yet been found for them. Current attempts to strengthen the sense of community in the Specialty Houses by establishing a charter and a committee of residents have, in my experience, only added another level of bureaucracy to the communities, without addressing any of the underlying problems. To put it very bluntly, despite our focus on establishing BU as a top flight academic institution, residences such as the Student Village complexes invite students to value luxury housing (which also commands a top dollar in terms of pricing) rather than the possibilities of an academic community. To make Living-Learning Communities a success we will have to make them attractive and desirable locations, and then strictly enforce the requirement that students in these communities be actively involved in the specialty of the particular house. If we can do that we will not only provide an environment which will nurture those students who are already actively engaged academically, we will also encourage more marginal students to become so engaged, and set academic involvement as a desirable goal for the BU undergraduate community as a whole. Thank you so much for the opportunity to express my views on this subject, which I consider extremely important, and where I feel we can do much to help BU students, and BU as an academic institution, live up to its enormous potential. 5 Specialty Community: College of Fine Arts Floor Advisor: Alyssa Baker Director of Student Services, CFA *Please note: Alyssa Baker choose to incorporate her feedback with that of her colleague, Sarah Bellow, Student Services Coordinator in the School of Music, who worked closely with the Music House. What has been your overall experience as faculty advisor for a specialty house? Alyssa Baker: Some RAs have been more responsive than others. Sarah Bellow: I’ve had a great experience working with Mariya. I’d like to learn more for next year about the expectations from the BU Specialty Housing Program about events. It’s been a good year. What are the current strengths and weaknesses of your specialty house? What are the current strengths and weaknesses of the BU specialty housing programs in general? Alyssa Baker: I feel that the current strengths are the students’ drive and intentions at the start of the year. The follow through on many of the ideas has not been as successful. This is where I feel there is room for improvement and possibly more facilitation on my end. I also think that students that tend to be leaders and get involved in many things also are interested to be in our specialty housing communities. These students are fantastic, but often they are so busy that it is difficult to initiate new events. Sarah Bellow: The house community is very inclusive and diverse, and seems to be making a decent connection with music majors and non-music majors. The weakness of the house is definitely its plumbing, specifically, and facilities in general. I heard about a long stream of maintenance requests – most of which were promptly filled. What are your recommendations are for improving and enhancing the residential experience in specialty housing as Living-Learning communities? Alyssa Baker: Students should be given more responsibility in carrying out their missions. Sarah Bellow: I’d like to be able to choose community members in a more strategic way than simply disqualifying people. If we could rank them, that would be helpful. We’re trying to choose members who are interested in participatory music, and participation in general. 6 Specialty House: College of General Studies House Advisor: Stacy Godnick Associate Dean, CGS What has been your overall experience as faculty advisor for a specialty house? As staff advisor for the College of General Studies House, my experience has been positive. Residence Life is very supportive and trains the RA’s very well. That said, at times I have felt that the information ORL sends me regarding the RA candidates as well as a list of the applicants (who I ultimately approve), is a bit last minute. That is, I don’t have a ton of time to turn it around to them. What are the current strengths and weaknesses of your specialty house? What are the current strengths and weaknesses of the BU specialty housing programs in general? One of the biggest strengths is RA selection process. ORL includes me in on the process in terms of letting me know who has applied. Most times I know the students already, but if I don’t, ORL is very willing to let me interview the candidates and to incorporate my impressions and preferences in their selection process. Another strength is the strong sense of community based on the residents having a common academic experience. The success of the House is predicated on the RA’s ability to create community among the current and former CGS student residents, who serve as mentors to their younger peers. Programming with the faculty and staff once or twice a semester in the house is a core strength in that it gives students an opportunity to talk with professors and deans in an intimate, informal setting. One thing that I thought was a weakness but has ended up being a positive is the fact that if the House does not have enough CGS applicants, Housing places non-CGS students there. True, a non-CGS student does not have the common academic experience with CGS students; however, they seem to engage in the fellowship of the House just as well, if not better because they are curious/envious about the CGS curriculum/experience. Not too sure of any weaknesses, per say. Optimally, it’s best to have the House full with CGS/former CGS students; but as I mention above, it seems to be working out when this arrangement is not possible. What are your recommendations are for improving and enhancing the residential experience in specialty housing as Living-Learning communities? More regular programming with faculty in the CGS House would enhance the Living-Learning opportunities of its residents. Perhaps a more intentional curriculum for the house with learning goals and outcomes would be nice. Maybe the CGS House residents could engage in directed study for credit with a professor. Any other comments you have, however brief, will be welcomed. Glad the University is looking at this very important aspect of undergraduate education. 7 Specialty House: College of Communication Floor Advisor: Cheryl Ann Lambert Assistant Professor of Public Relations, COM Thank for the opportunity to provide feedback on Specialty Communities at BU. I have been a Specialty Advisor for a COM floor in Warren Towers for the past three years, and I have enjoyed the experience. Because I teach upper-level undergraduates and graduate-level students, I rarely get the chance to interact with freshmen students. The Specialty Advisor position gives me that chance. Below are my responses to your specific questions: What has been your overall experience as faculty advisor for a specialty house? My overall experience as Specialty Advisor for a COM floor has been positive. I have had the opportunity to offer advice about events that I believe have been beneficial to students. Those events have included a pop culture panel; a Communication Research Center presentation, and a Writing Center tutorial. What are the current strengths and weaknesses of your specialty house? One of the strengths of the COM Specialty Floors is the number of COM faculty who are involved in the residential life activities. This enables some joint programs, or at least some opportunities for faculty to support one another in hosting or speaking or presenting for colleagues. The only weakness of the COM Specialty Floors is something I also view as a strength. The flexibility and freedom to select or create an event lends itself to creativity from the RAs and the advisors. However, the flexibility became a challenge this year due to the restricted availability of my floor’s RA due to her work, class, and homework obligations. Freedom also became a liability because of the floor’s RA. She was non-responsiveness to emails and demonstrated unwillingness to implement several easy specific program ideas I recommended, nor did she utilize material I provided for the purpose of benefiting the residents. This was disappointing given my primary concern of helping the residents. What are the current strengths and weaknesses of the BU specialty housing programs in general? I believe the current strengths of the BU specialty housing programs in general are the variety of opportunities for students. I have long believed in holistic learning. The specialty housing programs puts holistic learning into action. I do not see any weaknesses in the BU specialty housing programs in general. What are your recommendations are for improving and enhancing the residential experience in specialty housing as Living-Learning communities? My only recommendation for enhancing the residential experience in specialty housing as Living- Learning communities would be expanding the advisory opportunities to align with faculty research areas. For example, my research includes health message presentations. I would have loved to serve either as an advisor or presenter for the Sargent College house or Wellness house. I imagine other professors would like to do the same. 8 Any other comments you have, however brief, will be welcomed. As much as I have enjoyed serving as a Specialty Floor Advisor for COM, I will be unable to participate in fall, 2013 due to a Junior Scholar Leave that semester. I will be available in Spring 2014, however. I hope to continue serving as a COM Specialty Floor Advisor at that time. Thank you. 9 Specialty House: Common Ground House Advisor: Katherine Kennedy Director of the Howard Thurman Center for Common Ground What has been your overall experience as faculty advisor for a specialty house? As the faculty advisor for the Common Ground House, my experience has included years of great success and some of great disappointment in terms of the final placement of residents and the deteriorating condition of the facility itself. A few years ago the requirements for application and acceptance was changed to try to ensure that only students who were committed to the mission and purpose of the House would be accepted and the integrity and programming could be maintained from year to year. What are the current strengths and weaknesses of your specialty house? What are the current strengths and weaknesses of the BU specialty housing programs in general? STRENGTHS:  The purpose of the Common Ground House is connected to the Howard Thurman Center's mission/philosophy;  The application requirements ensure that the students who are accepted and live there are having the Living-Learning and social experience they were promised.  The House has the opportunity to automatically participate in any Thurman Center programs thereby enhancing the variety and frequency of events for students WEAKNESSES:  Specialty Housing not effective if requirements for acceptance are not adhered to.  The Common Ground House needs renovation that includes painting, carpet, plumbing, etc. It has deteriorated to the point where I do not want to recruit students to live there. Students who live there are complaining and will not return.  If students permitted to live there are not from the pool that applied, then it is near to impossible to fulfill the purpose of the house because students say that they signed up to live in a Brownstone on Bay State Road.  While the application and review process has been adhered to by Residence Life and the Thurman Center. Housing has not complied with placing the selected students in the Common Ground House. What are your recommendations are for improving and enhancing the residential experience in specialty housing as Living-Learning communities? I want the guidelines for Specialty Housing to be strictly applied to. I understand that when there are openings that there may be a need to place someone there that needs housing. In the case of the Common Ground House, students who applied and thought they would be moving into the residence were not placed and this year, almost the entire house is filled with students who did not apply but were simply placed. This makes it very challenging for the resident assistant as well as the faculty advisor. I think priority should be given to seeing that the residence is attractive and desirable to live in. 10