Solidarity and Blindness

Jews screw up. Italians screw up. Irish screw up. WASPs screw up. And Blacks screw up.

I have no knowledge of the facts in this case, so I take no side in assessing whether the college president in this case has screwed up. But loudly declaiming that when a member of one’s own ethnic/religious/racial group is criticized the issue has to be prejudice against the group and not a possibly valid criticism of an individual is asinine

normalvision, Prof. of English (ret.), at 4:20 pm EDT on April 28, 2006

Students certainly should be listened to, compatible with their level of worldly experience, maturity or lack of it, and past leadership and managerial expertise. Since all these factors have yet to be fully developed by students, the extent to which they should be listened to, and heeded, is questionable. Students are at institutions of learning primarily to learn. I wish that Dr. Jackson were president at my university.

Marvin McConoughey, at 12:40 pm EDT on April 29, 2006

Students should be listened to because, without the students, you have no university. At the very least, you should inform students well in advance of what you plan to do that will directly affect them, instead of springing in on them right before finals, and right before they go home for the summer. At the very least, you should treat students as the adults that they are, and not children to be kept in the dark.

As for faculty, all I know on that topic is that most of my professors are worried and stressed out, which isn’t good for either party. Doesn’t it make sense to pay more to those who have been working there for years, rather than to those who just arrived? After all, what you’re saying is, “Sure, you get lots of money now, but the longer you work here, the less and less you’ll get, if only because we’ll be paying the people who arrive after you more.” Doesn’t that encourage professors to jump ship when a better offer comes along?

There are several leadership and management courses offered at RPI, perhaps Jackson would benefit from taking a few.

RPI student, RPI, at 3:55 pm EDT on April 29, 2006

Discipline

The problem with this administration at RPI is a real problem. The dividing issues on campus are showing in the classroom. RPI students are ranked among the most unhappy students nationwide. They pay hefty tuitions and have to follow strictly to what the administration has set down for “rules and regulations.” When they break these rules they are disciplined. The students pay Shirly Ann Jackson’s salary along with the rest of the administration and she along with the rest of the administration have violated the “Students Bill of Rights” and need to be disciplined.

The alcohol is not the real issue here, neither is race. When someone or a group of someones do something wrong they need to be disciplined. I hope that the vote of no confidence passes and Shirly Ann Jackson follows in the footsteps of others and Steps Down as the President of the University.

Widthdrawn Student From RPI, Widthdrawn student from RPI, at 3:20 pm EDT on April 30, 2006

in my opinion, she’s done great

In my humble opinion, the atmosphere at RPI has improved leaps and bounds since Dr. Jackson took over. It is simply more pleasant to be here now. Come to RPI today, and you will barely recognized it. Better places to eat, to live, to study, to socialize. More girls, better lawns, the biotech building is amazing. With her help, Troy is actually becoming a nice place to live.The improved atmosphere is starting to attract higher quality students and professors, which means more money for the school, and better education.In a few short years Dr. Jackson had built world-class Biotechnology and Cognitive Science programs that were long due at RPI. She is now focusing multimedia, as well. She is really addressing the issues of the new century, thinking mid-to-long term, and has impressed me in every way. It is obvious that grumpy old professors will complain about change. Considering how long RPI has been stagnant, it is a wonder that 51% of the professors are happy with Dr. Jackson’s changes. When you are making radical changes and 51% are on your side, that means you are doing a LOT right.

rpi graduate student, at 8:40 am EDT on May 2, 2006

my experience

From the Ph.D students point of view, As I know many Ph.D students have to quit their study since the ploicy that Ph.D students just can work as TA for two years. This policy really hurts the study and research work of international Ph.D sutdents. It makes student never feel safe except that your advisor has enough funding and also your advisor will not jump to another university in your Ph.D period. Therefore, it is very hard for Ph.D student to focus on their research.On the hand, the professor will let the student graduate in a hurry so that the quality of students’ work has been worse and worse. It seems the school does not care about students and does not care about the research quality.

RPI student, at 4:25 pm EDT on May 3, 2006

Both Sides

Ms. Jackson’s vision is a fantastic, holistic view of what a university should be. Completely above and beyond what she inherited.She’s done an excellent job fundraising and represents the school well. Perhaps she’s moved too quickly toward some of her goals and out paced even her fundraising efforts.

My fear is that even with RPI’s sticker price, RPI will price itself out of its traditional market and strategy. That being, attract quality students by charging a very high initial tuition and then offering substantial need-based aid in an effort to attract those talented and brave enough to look past it. I’m certain RPI’s Ave. Tuition is still much lower than Cornell’s.

Any change takes time to really reap the benefits of, but I’m sure that Ms. Jackson’s efforts to move from the culture that brought us the sloppy JCC to the elegant Bio Tech building can only be as detrimental as tucking in your shirt and sitting up straight.

I hope she is able to find a good comprimise to all of these issues for the good of the institute than is a part of us all.

Recent Graduate, Recent Alum, at 9:45 pm EDT on May 3, 2006

Not Race, Gender

It seems to me the biggest threat is that RPI might not continue to be the stagnant, stuffy, old-boys’ club that it has always been. This is the “Tradition” so many people are up in arms about saving.

Recent Grad., at 11:30 am EDT on May 4, 2006

For someone to immediatley assume that this no confidence vote is about race, is the most racist comment of all. Why do you have to immediatley assume that this is about Dr. Jackson? Did you ever think that this decision is for the RPI students! A school divided is not going to bring in the caliber of student that is wanted at RPI. I was very excited as a women to have Dr. Jackson as the president of my University. As I started to learn her tactics and see her in action I began to become less and less impressed with her. I realized what she wanted was to aid herself and her career. This no confidence vote has nothing to do wth race and everything to do with how well someone is fulfilling a job.

RPI Grad, Noconfidence vote at RPI, at 8:40 pm EDT on May 8, 2006

I’ve been against Dr. Jackson’s Rensselaer Plan since input was first solicited by her years ago. It’s not the chasing of the current “hot topic” in biotechnology that I deplored, but doing so at the expense of the traditional and core engineering subjects around which the Institute was built and has flourished. Instead of using the Rensselaer Plan as a rising tide to lift all boats, it’s been used as a flood to wash away or strand the traditional engineering subjects that are not considered sexy or somehow cutting edge. The impetus behind the no confidence vote reflects that. Dr. Jackson’s narrow and hollow victory should be a wake-up call that her plan needs an overdue course correction. I’ve got two engineering degrees from the ‘Tute but I’ve withheld my financial support of the Rensselaer Plan since it’s inception to protest the failure to make traditional and still relevent engineering disciplines a part of it.

RPI Alumnus, at 4:35 am EDT on May 9, 2006

TA

I was distressed to learn from a previous comment that TAships for graduatestudents are now limited to 2 years. Accepting a student for a graduate degree at a school like Rensselaer is a commitment. It is virtually impossible for a graduate student to attend RPI without tuition and a stipend being covered, and a Ph.D surely takes many year. If a student is accepted and offered funding to attend, this ought to be considered a commitment to keep that student funded so long as s/he is performing adequately. The individual departments can make the call on whether a student is performing. If there is not certainty that the student can and will be kept funded, then they ought not to be offered funding in the first place. RPI ought to look at policies of comparable universities on this matter. The ‘Tute is going to be losing good applicants to other schools because other top schools just don’t have such blanket policies and in fact do have policies of continuing funding once a student is offered it. There are second-rate schools that play a numbers game, accepting students with funding in order to get them to attend, and then letting them sink or swim depending upon the vagaries of professors’ funding situations and other factors. Such an approach does not help a school’s reputation and it mitigates against good scholarship. Keep the students that are accepted with funding; it is a commitment, and if TAships are necessary to do that, then that is quite fine.

RPI Graduate, at 10:10 am EDT on May 9, 2006

Downward Spiral

While change is not *always* a bad thing, the technological base of RPI has been in decline since President Pipes started a gradual shift in philosophy toward the liberal arts, humanities, and management in the mid ’90’s. The change in name from RPI to “Rensselaer” is indicative of the initiatives that were set afoot before Surley’s tenure, but it has continued throughout her reign. “Good press” (like the anonymous several hundred million dollar donation) has covered her shortcomings as she continues to run the Institute into the ground. I fear my diploma will one day not be worth the paper it’s written on as the prestige of the Institute is demolished and industries perception of RPI declines. I feel like I have to qualify that I went to RPI before Surley to save a little face.

Disappointed Alum, ME Alum at RPI, at 1:15 pm EDT on May 9, 2006

Race has nothing to do with this

I’m an alumnus, and have been discussing this issue with many of my fraternity brothers, active and alumni. We have over the years talked about the decline of the school, rising costs, how the old ‘tute is all show and no substance nowadays.

Until I read this article, I’d forgotten that Ms. Jackson was black. I remember now reading about her in the alumni magazine, but over the years I had forgotten. It has never come up as an issue in any of my discussions with students or alumni.

TS, RPI Alum, at 11:40 am EDT on May 12, 2006

Division at RPI

I am a RPI alumnus, class of 1951 with more than a casual acquaintance with the university. I live close to Troy and have been over the past couple decades a frequent visitor. On earlier visits I kept seeing the same university I graduated from with really nothing new on the horizon. That is until Dr. Shirley Jackson in 1999. Since then there have been profound and positive changes at Rensselaer that have been nationally, if not internationally recognized. Not only has the physical landscape dramatically changed, but there seems to be renewed excitement and commitment to the future, at least with the people with whom I have come in contact with, including students, faculty and staff and other outsiders to the immediate RPI community.

I strongly support Dr. Shirley Jackson’s leadership and future vision for Rensselaer and I believe we are indeed fortunate to have her as our President. Having said that, I was very surprised by the number of yeas in the recent failed no-confidence vote by the RPI faculty. Of course there always has been talk of some dissension that normally flows in academia, well populated with folks who feel they know better than in any one else how to run the enterprise, but few who have actually done so. And yes, some of my classmates have expressed their feeling Dr. Jackson has been leading Rensselaer in the wrong direction, away from the strong undergraduate engineering programs that existed when we went to school and toward a research institution. But that is exactly the direction I believe we need to be going in. The engineers and scientists we produced in the United States 40 and 50 years ago succeeded in meeting the challenge of getting a man on the moon and creating vibrant new industries, e.g., digital computers, but that level of leaning is simply not good enough for the technological challenges we face today and for this country to maintain its leadership position in the global economy of the 21st century. Newtonian physics got us to the moon, but today we need to learn how to peel nanotubes and control our environment!

In his recent book, “The World Is Flat” author Thomas L. Friedman thoughtfully sounds the alarm that we are in serious danger of losing our leadership position in the world today, largely because our younger generation has lost interest in the science and engineering responsible for providing us the technological superiority to become the world’s only superpower today. In the last couple of decades this void of interest in the sciences and engineering has been filled by foreign students coming here, getting trained and staying here to furnish our innovative technology needs. But now that’s changing. Their governments (in China & India, for example) are building massive university systems and laboratories to grow their own science and engineering talent. Some students may still be coming to get trained here but will be going back to their home countries where they can live in their own culture with prestige, have good jobs and first-rate laboratories to work in. Friedman suggests that they will be the engineers and scientists doing the technological chores, like building skyscraper, roads and bridges, rockets, etc. that we used to do. Since we have long since lost our manufacturing prowess, to survive in the 21st century global economy and maintain our current standard of living we are going to have to be superior in all the leading edge technologies. The problems we face today cannot be solved by just physicists or chemists but by interdisciplinary teams of scientists, engineers and other professionals all working without the friction of separate agendas toward a common goal. For this we need new methods of teaching and radically new facilities in our universities. And according to Friedman, there’s not a moment to lose.

The title of the chapter in Friedman’s book that addresses the issue of our lack of interest in science and engineering studies is called, “The Quiet Crisis”, a phrase that was first coined by Dr. Shirley Jackson. He particularly applauds Dr. Jackson’s unending efforts over the past few years to identify and acknowledge this problem and marshal forces of change to correct it. It is my understanding that Dr. Jackson’s vision is simply that Rensselaer is to be one of the great research universities in this country that will help us maintain a technologically superior leadership position in the 21st century. Getting there is going to require new thinking and rapid changes at every level of our society. We all know people in bureaucracies, and especially in academia, do not particularly like changes and ruffled feathers. But there must be changes. Everyone in the Rensselaer community should be thinking about how they can be part of the solution and not the problem. There are bound to be mistakes but the goal is worthwhile and extremely important. I sincerely believe Shirley Jackson is leading Rensselaer in the right direction and deserves the support of everyone who prides themselves a part of the Rensselaer Community.

To her current detractors, I would ask, would she have been able to accomplish all she has in the past few short years, including the recently announced $100 million CCNI supercomputer facility, without the determined support of many very influential, important and intelligent people who thought she was headed in the right direction?

Robert P. Fopeano

Robbert P Fopeano, Renssealer, at 5:40 am EDT on May 18, 2006

I am a current engineering student at RPI, who, like most current students, is not happy with the state of the campus. While Shirley Ann Jackson is very good at spending money, increasing tuition, and building useless structures, she is very bad at addressing academic and student issues of the campus.

There are many facilities on campus that are outdated and are not optimal learning environments. There are classrooms where heat won’t turn on (or off), old labs with machines that no longer work or are very inaccurate, and many classrooms where internet access is necessary for lecture but there is limited connectivity.

These are only a few of the many issues on campus not being addressed, but are serious issues nonetheless. Shirley Ann’s vision is not a vision of greater academic accomplishment, it is a vision to increase publicity at RPI, increase enrollment, turn the school into a university and make more money.

How is she doing this? Take the EMPAC for instance. Most faculty and students aren’t even aware what the purpose of the building is. When inquiring to an arts professor about the EMPAC building all he could respond was, “I’m not really sure, but I know we don’t get to use it.” The building will “attract artists from around the world” and will be “renowned both nationally and internationally". In short, it’s being built so that communities outside of RPI are impressed.

While Shirley Ann continues to spend money, she also continues to raise tuition and housing costs, without good reason. Since first coming to RPI I have seen no improvements that make the extra cost worth it, and I know this is the case for many students (even ones that continued grad school at RPI). RPI increases tuition in hopes of making the school seem more desirable and competitive. At the same time, once a student’s financial aid has been set, it can only go down. So if you enter the school as a freshmen with a tuition of $34,900.00, by the time you graduate as a senior your tuition can be as high as 42,754.007 with no increase in financial aid. This is excluding room and board fees (which are also steadily increasing).

Shirley Ann is NOT a good President for RPI. She may be good at spending money and making money, but she isn’t good at addressing important issues on campus. As the campus strives to become more “diverse” it fails to focus on it’s strongest base, engineering. Maybe someday in the future RPI will have the best Arts program in the nation, but while that is happening the rest of the school can’t just be ignored. While prospective students are important for long term survival of RPI, the current students should not be cast away and overlooked.

Steve, at 10:00 pm EDT on April 29, 2007