On our campus, academic center programs like CISLA, CAT, PICA and the Goodwin-Niering Center all give off the impression of closed-door societies that exclude those who don’t meet their “standards” of admission. But how far is this true? To use the term exclusive would be unfair because these centers are “selective” only because they have to be. What it all boils down to, like almost everything in the world, is money. All programs run on generous endowments or grants that enable them to have internships, conferences and hire staff and faculty.
As a program, PICA is rigorous and has many requirements, including courses outside of one’s major. To take part, a GPA of 3.0 must be maintained, you must take a senior seminar, participate in 300 hours of a community internship and present a senior project. Rebecca McCue, Associate Director of PICA, has said, “PICA supports many students (PICA scholars and non-PICA scholars) with programs, funding for social entrepreneurship projects and initiatives that fall within our mission. We organize and implement events, lectures, symposia, etc. each year that educate the entire campus about issues related to social justice, community action and public policy.” Not all students are capable of devoting the time to the requirements, or have the desire to, to begin with. This is where judgments about PICA regarding exclusivity are made. PICA is self-selective based on those who choose to take part in this program and have put in the effort and time.
That being said, could PICA admit more students if it truly wanted to? McCue mentioned that, “We have discussed ways in which we could offer this type of experience to more students, however we have limited resources and capacity. Currently our resources only allow for one full-time permanent staff position in the Center. The other positions are part time.” The Holleran Center as a whole provides community engagement opportunities and social justice opportunities for over 400 students each year. But the center provides a variety of initiatives that are made accessible to the active and proactive student. Each year, the center uses its full budget with the goal of helping students and the campus community.
CISLA is similar in this way, as the students the center takes in are quality over quantity. The overall number is based on, again, the endowment that the center has and is able to spend. Marc Forster, Director of CISLA, said that, “If we were to admit more students we would have to go from a class of 30 to 50. We would have to have two classes, which would be more students to pay for and a lot more support. We don’t have the resources to be larger than that. We usually have between 36 and 50 applicants and 30-34 are accepted. So yes, it is selective, but a large majority do get in.” As a program, CISLA is not major-specific and is made for students who want to engage in international internships and have made the effort to show their interest through their proposal and academic standing.
With more students, the intimacy and relationships that students foster with advisers would suffer. The single class would have to be split, more staff would have to be hired and the less individual attention and care would be given to those who need it.
The endowment that CISLA receives is the largest limiting factor. It’s the largest endowment for a variety of reasons including history and purpose. But because these internships are abroad, they are obviously costly and depend largely on the economy and the business cycle. In addition, different countries have varying expenses and CISLA has to be wary of this. The endowment is not just for internships expenses but also for paying for staff salaries, support, lectures and conferences.
The Goodwin-Niering Center, on the other hand, does not admit more students because the students who are involved (sophomores, juniors and seniors) meet all together for a Thursday night seminar. The center, according to Jennifer Pagach, “fosters peer to peer mentoring, and students get to see ahead what they will be doing- internship and SIP presentations, practicing and honing their presentation and research skills with feedback from each other, it fosters a sense of community. If we let more students in, the class size would be too large to do that, and to us, the students come first.” Again, the conflict of quality over quantity comes into play.
According to Glenn Dreyer, the budget of the Goodwin-Niering Center is funded by endowments also, “that support our mostly part time faculty and staff and our annual budget.” The Goodwin-Niering Center is “an academic center and not primarily a social or service entity, like so many other college organizations. Thus we select students to join the center based on their academic achievements and our evaluation of their potential to succeed in a program that asks students to do additional individual work beyond that required in their majors and minors,” added Dreyer. But, the biennial conferences, and frequent guest lectures, are free to Conn students. The recent “Feeding the Future” conference for example, is free to the entire campus community.
CAT is unlike many of these programs, is doing the most from what I can tell to bring attention to new students and grow their program. After recently receiving a generous $100,000 grant from the Mellon Foundation, the program is hoping to take off in upcoming years. The last thing they would like to be called is exclusive. With upcoming speakers, guests, artists and the introduction of a course in the fall involving the program, CAT is actively expanding to incorporate more “digital humanities.” The vision is for a center that is open to many disciplines, and to “envision beyond what’s right in front of them”, says director Andrea Wollensak. The goals are “to develop a new certificate program, to create a new interdisciplinary cluster for the reVision curriculum, and to seek out inter-institutional collaborations that will strengthen the reach and relevance of the center’s programs.” With only two graduating seniors at the forefront of the program, CAT is encouraging anyone interested to apply.
But requirements do include a GPA of 3.0, the presentation of a project proposal and the completion of the course COM 110 at some point in the student’s time at Conn. In essence, CAT is the most “inclusive” as they are not worried about funding and are only interested in the improvement and expansion of their program. If one meets the requirements, they can be a part of the program.
In conclusion, these centers are not “exclusive” and they’re not purposely trying to shut anyone out. Rather, they don’t have all of the proper resources to host more students without the quality of their programs suffering. If one puts in the work, takes the initiative, time and care, there will be nothing preventing them from taking part as well. The misconception of exclusivity should be replaced in the minds of students, for these programs are honestly just trying to find the best candidates for what they’re trying to achieve. If you want to take part in these centers but don’t have the time, look for public events that you can attend, since a good portion of them are free and available to the general community. In conclusion, these programs strive to be as rewarding as they can be with the resources they have. •
