Clearness Committee 2010: Daniel Bedrossian ’13, Anna Brockway ’12, Mary Clare O’Donnell ’14, Emma Richards ’12 (Honor Council Librarian), Sam Rodrigues ’13, Dean of Freshmen Raisa Williams and Professor of Economics David Owens
Clearness Committee Final Report
Dear Haverford Community,
A resolution passed at Spring Plenary 2006 created Clearness Committee, which meets every four years to evaluate the functioning and implementation of the Honor Code and the quality of student life on Haverford’s campus. Composed of five students, a faculty member, and an administrator, Clearness uniquely incorporates a broad range of perspectives in addressing an issue of its choosing after conducting a survey of the student body.
This Clearness Committee – appointed Spring 2010 by Students’ Council, with the exception of one member, who was appointed Fall 2010 – began by conducting a survey of the Classes of ’10-’13 on a broad range of campus issues, including the Honor Code, student self- governance, relationships between students, faculty, staff, and the administration, general student life, Customs, academics, diversity, admissions, campus safety, and the relationship of Haverford to other schools. The survey was intentionally lengthy, as it was designed to provide a snapshot of Haverford at a specific point in time, to serve as both a foundation for Clearness to work from and as a point of comparison for the future. By the end of the allotted time, 380 students had taken the survey although not all completed the questions.
Of the respondents, 62% identified themselves as female and 37% as male, 16% were from the Class of ’10, 23% from ’11, 30% from ’12, and 29% from ’13. Two percent were transfer students, 22% were varsity athletes, and 21% had served in an elected or appointed student government position. Forty-two percent were majoring in a social science, 32% in a natural science, 20% in humanities, 15% were undecided and 1% were independent majors. Thirty-two percent had lived in HCA during the past academic year, 55% had lived in an up- campus dorm, and 5% had lived in a campus house. Eighty-seven percent identified as Caucasian, 9% as Hispanic, 8% as Asian or Pacific Islander, 4% as Black, and 1% as Native American. Fifty-one percent had attended a public high school; 39% a private high school, 3% a charter or magnet school, 2% a parochial school, and 1% a boarding school. In terms of religion, 19% identified as agnostic, 15% as atheist, 12% as Jewish, 12% as Catholic, 8% as Protestant, 5% as another denomination of Christian, 1% as Hindu, 1% as Buddhist, and 10% as other.
The survey collected numerical data and answers to free response questions, and all of the numerical data will be available to the Haverford community over break. While Clearness Committee has been in contact with departments, offices, and student groups about relevant results, we hope that releasing this data to the whole community will allow for greater discussion, insight, and potentially change where it may be needed. The results tell a story of Haverford today, and we’ve included some discussion of them below.
Survey Summary
Many had a lot to say about how the Honor Code impacts the Haverford experience and how it has lived up to expectations. Free responses varied widely: some students spoke to the trust and respect they felt in the community, others were disappointed with the Honor Code. Many wrote that while they couldn’t expect Haverford to be a utopia and the system had its flaws, the Code still functioned fairly well. When students were asked to rate statements on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) scale, responses to, “Not following the Honor Code to the letter constitutes breaking the Honor Code,” were all over the board, but concentrated towards the middle. However, 84 percent said they either agreed or strongly agreed that the Honor Code was best upheld by following the spirit of the Code rather than the exact text of the document. Seventy-seven percent felt the same about “The Honor Code provides a set of agreed-upon community standards,” yet only 53 percent believed that that the meaning of the Honor Code was open to personal interpretation. Eighty-three percent felt that the effectiveness of the Honor Code relied on whether its values are upheld on a day to day basis. Students largely agreed that everyday informal interactions could constitute confrontation. Overall, students felt that the three biggest threats to the Honor Code were apathy, disillusionment, and lack of confrontation, in that order.
Most students seem to feel that self- governance is functioning properly and effectively on campus, and that this is an integral part of the success of the Honor Code. Some students expressed the concern that not all portions of the student body participate equally in the discourse of self-governance, but on the whole appreciate the attention Student Government pays to the student body. However, the College ACBs were mentioned multiple times as a source of frustration and derision, in that they undermined the premise of productive self-criticism that self-governance requires. Nonetheless, the majority of respondents agreed that if they had a serious concern, they would have no problem getting it addressed.
Students felt positively about how the Haverford staff treated them, but numerical data and a number of free responses expressed dissatisfaction with the way students treated staff, especially grounds and maintenance staff. Aside from rating communication very highly, surveyed students or students responding to the questions felt very tepid about the deans, and half had never met their personal dean. The President received similar results, but respondents felt he was approachable. Students thought very highly of the faculty, and almost half reported that they interact with faculty outside the classroom every day. Respondents generally felt that the administration, faculty, and staff should be bound by the Honor Code. However, this sentiment was strongest with regards to the administration, slightly less so with regards to the faculty, and even less so with regards to the rest of the staff. Though many were unsure they would use it, there was overwhelming support for the idea of a formal method of confronting faculty, administration, and staff, and that exempting non-students from the Code was damaging to the environment of the college.
Ratings and the level of awareness for most individual staff, administrators, and groups were fine, although the dining center director and director of student activities were especially beloved. However, the registrar was rated very poorly, and while CAPS received relatively high votes, there were negative and worrisome comments. Students felt very uninformed about the disabilities office, the RCC, the OMA, the Women’s Center and, most strongly, independent majors.
Respondents expressed satisfaction with the overall quality of life at Haverford. Feelings were mixed about the quality of night life on campus, though respondents were happy with the lack of Greek life. Most students said they went to Philadelphia once per month or less. Those who completed the survey spend an average of 20-30 hours per week outside of class on schoolwork and 5-15 hours on extracurricular activities.
Questions on academics showed some weak trends, but no major theme. The two most recurring ideas were that Haverford needs more study spaces and that the psychology department is drastically understaffed. The former complaint is evidenced by the fact that, of respondents who said that Haverford does not accommodate their study habits, 80% (20, 15% of all students who answered the questions about study habits) stated either that the libraries should have longer hours, or that there should be more 24-hour study spaces. The latter complaint should be considered along with the following facts: 1) of respondents, 11% majored in psychology; 2) The ratio of respondents majoring in psychology to tenured psychology faculty was 9, compared with 3.5 for physics/astro, 3 for math, and 2.25 for chemistry; 3) of respondents majoring in psychology who responded to a question asking what the biggest problem is with Haverford academics, 33% (5) said that the psychology department is understaffed.
Respondents felt general satisfaction towards the current distribution requirements and superb satisfaction with Haverford faculty on the whole. However, several respondents felt that visiting faculty consistently fail to live up to the Haverford’s standards for teaching quality. Haverford students tend to agree that although they feel their classes are more difficult than equivalent classes at peer institutions, their work loads are manageable. By far, most of the academic pressure a student experiences comes from the student him/herself. Ninety-one percent of students agreed that the honor code was present in the classroom.
A majority of respondents felt that minority and legacy students were given preferential treatment in the admissions process, but students felt this was reasonable. However, while students felt that athletes were given preferential treatment, students largely believed this was unreasonable. Though the results of the Safety on Campus section also were not surprising, it was a little shocking that 37 percent of the respondents left their doors unlocked routinely.
Finally, the Haverford and Other Schools section addressed several concerns: most significantly, a majority of individuals found the tri-college consortium extremely difficult to navigate, but wished it were more accessible, particularly with regards to difficult registration, inconvenient bus schedules, and a tricky situation for meals. Other concerns about Haverford that were brought up but were already being addressed by other committees include: a seriously lacking arts program, a transparent religious scene, and an unsatisfactory meal program. Since the Committee ultimately decided to evaluate the tri-college consortium, we sent out a shorter survey to further address these issues.
Further direction taken by the Clearness Committee
Though the numerical data was not particularly problematic, Clearness Committee was concerned by a number of the free responses concerning Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) and Health Services. Because these two groups address the most fundamental aspects of a student’s well- being, the Committee felt it was extremely important that respondents’ concerns be address. To that end, the Committee has brought these findings to the Dean of the College, with whom they will work to help CAPS and Health Services more fully and effectively serve the student body.
As its main task, Clearness Committee decided to focus on increasing the ease with which students could take classes and travel within the Quaker Consortium (the Tri-Co and Penn). To do so, we are in the process of creating a website dedicated to transportation information, as well as reorganizing and adding to the registrar site. Lastly, we are recommending that a faculty member serve as a consortium advisor, to assist students and other faculty in navigating the tri-college system.
~~~~~~
The Clearness Committee would like to thank everyone who has helped us complete this report, including all of those who participated in the surveys. Specifically, we would like to acknowledge Phil Bean, Linda Bell, Franklyn Cantor, Martha Denney, Emily Dix, Chris Mills, and David Moore.