Monday, October 1, 2007

Wealthy Pomona Where "Skies Are Blue"!

Courtesy of the Chronicle of Higher Education, Money and Management Section, Pomona has announced a new strategic plan.

Pomona's strategic-planning committee opted to put together the plan on its own, without retaining an outside consulting firm, whose services have become the norm for most colleges. The process began with seven faculty-led committees, which were encouraged to do "blue-sky thinking" in strategic areas and not to even consider costs. Their work was picked up by a planning committee of 20 members, including trustees, faculty members, students, and the president.

After two years of studies, meetings, drafts, and revisions, Pomona unveiled a 23-page draft plan in September.

Some of the plans' highlights include
plans for increasing enrollment by as much as 150 students, and increasing research opportunities through a bulked-up sabbatical system for faculty members.
After Claremont McKenna President Pamela Gann was caught dancing to "I'm a Barby Girl," one wonders what Pomona Pres. David W. Oxtoby will dance to when his big break comes along. My recommendation is here.

2 comments:

ConfusedMinority said...

Wow, and i thought CMC was drifting away from its mission. Their class sizes are considerably large in comparision to the other 5C's. Another 150 students would enhance that ratio further. Sabbatical and research opportunities would make them competitive for the best faculty, but it may undermine the educational experience for students.
Oh well, who gives a shit.

Jonathan said...

PO may be much richer than CMC even with the Robert Day gift: however this very important - Pomona used to have 10 PACs (their version of CMC's GEs) and fairly recently reduced that to just 5 areas that PO students had to take classes in other than major requirements. What the heck kinda liberal arts college education is that? I've blogged extensively on education policy - cmcppeman.livejournal.com - about liberal arts colleges in particular and how important general education requirements are. I quote I love that proves my point - "74% of businessmen agreed if all you know is business then you know nothing about business." It is shameful what passes for an undergraduate education these days. I had roommates last year of law school that were psychology majors and never had an econ class in their life. Thats worse then taking a bio class and not knowing a thing about chemistry. Academic subjects and knowledge in general is extremely interrelated and to shortchange any area really does a disservice to any student. Thats not to say some arent more important than others and CMC does a good job of filtering out some of the fluff (art history even though I personally love it, sociology, anthropology, etc), but one cant know a damn thing about psych without knowing about choice and utility ideas in economics - much too much to do with each other. and my roommates didnt go to crappy schools - they wait to the ivy league. or wait - im starting to think about 99% of undergraduate american education is a lot of garbage. see Murray A Sperber's Beer and Circus book about how college athletics are ruining academia. However the best vindication was when reading the book I noticed he basically exempts the handfull of American colleges that he still thinks are quality - and theres only about 8-10 and they are basically all the good liberal arts colleges and he even specifically mentions the Claremont Colleges in that list. read: the claremont colleges are basically the last bastion of a decent undergraduate education left in this country. even math/science majors, while I have tons of respect for them, need to know a lot more about social sciences and humanities than currently required at most schools. At least Mudd gets it right, but Mudd is extremely hard school because of the myriad of required stuff - but their graduates are the best of the best (most phds per capita of any college ever is a statistic that doesnt lie - way to go Mudd!)