[Alumni-chat] What will the BOT do?

[lwollin]

That was my era. Freshmen could elect to spend the whole year on campus, 
which I chose to do. I think I agree with Barry Hollister.  Of course, I was 
a lit major, but the important thing about the first year was that I got to 
see both A and B divs and get acclimated. I was 16 when I entered in the 
fall of '56, so it was just as well. One summer term I got to take 10 
credits of Shakespeare. Heaven!
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "bdevine (bdevine at antioch-college.edu)" 
<alumni-chat_forum at antiochians.org>
To: <alumni-chat at w3.antioch.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Alumni-chat] What will the BOT do?


>
>>In a message dated 9/3/2007 12:54:41 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
>> Barry Hollister used to contend that the best schedule Antioch ever had 
>> was
>>the "Old (or sometimes Old Old) plan.  There were four sessions, the first
>>two just 8 weeks long, and the second two 16 weeks long, thus all students 
>>on
>>co-op returned to their job after a period on campus.  It also was the 
>>true
>>meaning of Co-op -- two students cooperating to hold down and service one 
>>job.
>>One disadvantage, some freshmen went on co-op before they begin their 
>>first
>>period of study.  In this plan, which ended in 55 or 56, most classes 
>>were
>>split, one took the first third of a course, went on co-op, and  then 
>>returned
>>to finish the class.  An advantage, students in some fields  could "read 
>>ahead"
>>in a course while on co-op.  In particular those in  History and 
>>Literature
>>favored the Old Old Plan.  Barry Hollister also  thought most co-op 
>>employers
>>did too, as they had their student employees for  almost six months.  This 
>>was
>>also the most economical plan for the college  -- it used the campus 
>>resources
>>fully for most of the year, with students paying  tuition and fees to 
>>sustain
>>personnel and buildings, etc., but about 2/5ths of  the student body was, 
>>at
>>any one time, not on campus, and not using campus  facilities.  In essence
>>that meant 2/5ths more income than the college had  facilities to service. 
>>It is
>>one of the key reasons the college grew  gradually and successfully in the
>>40's and 50's, but maintained a budget that  was in the black, and 
>>produced
>>small reserves.
>>
>>
>>
>>************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL 
>>at
>>http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> Are you referring to the 8-8-12-12 which was J.D. Dawson's favorite 
> incarnation of co-op alternation?  When we were revising the calendar in 
> the early 90s, he tried very hard to sell that model to faculty.
>
> The challenges of co-op have changed significantly since the 50s and 60s, 
> and therein is part of the problem:
>
> a) The cost of transportation has made travel to-and-from co-op a 
> challenge for the 90% of Antioch students who are on financial aid.
>
> b) The cost of living in urban centers has increased dramatically, and 
> co-op pay is no longer able to cover cost of living in most situations. 
> While in my era we were able to actually save some cash on co-op and 
> return to campus with startup money for the academic term, today, on 
> average the co-op experience is a double whammy for students.  They pay 
> tuition to be working, and then end up paying for the living costs of the 
> job as well.
>
> c) The cost of living in a safe place is proportionately higher than basic 
> costs.  These days I find students in New York living 7 to a 3 bedroom 
> apartment, paying $2500-3,000 rent, with attendant transportation costs, 
> but residing in a neighborhood that is relatively safe.
>
> d) Entry level jobs of the sort that used to fill half of the co-op list, 
> have been eliminated by computer and internet technology and other 
> automation.
>
> e) From the X-generation on, (and probably before), students have been 
> seeking more than simply entry into the adult world of work; they've been 
> seeking "meaningful" work, and many eschew filing and gopher positions in 
> favor of work in which they feel they can make a difference.
>
> I think  you're mistaken about the College's budget being in the black. 
> If we look at the Record in 1951, we find out that
> McGregor was struggling with the need to slash the budget by $250-300k (a 
> lot in those days) because of a predicted 25-30% drop in enrollment and 
> the pressures of inflation.  As a result, the Record predicted a tuition 
> jump of 10% in 2 years, and the College abolished its Deans of Men and 
> Women jobs, replacing them with CG responsibilities and committees.  The 
> saving grace for the College was the GI bill and a whole new market for 
> student recruitment.  The illusion of a "golden era" in which the College 
> enjoyed stability and financial security is nostalgia at its best.  The GI 
> bill and the baby boom provided the only years of relative solvency.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>