Last Thursday SG held its last Presidential Discussion. Over the last two quarters, we had around 100 people RSVP and roughly 80 were invited to attend the discussion (we don’t count who shows up, so of that I’m not sure who actually attended). That’s a pretty good record.
A quick review:
- Last Winter’s Discussion was this year’s first, with nearly 80 students RSVPing for 25 spots. We selected people based on division, year, and interests to make it as diverse of group as possible. Maroon coverage here and a blog post with comments here.
- A couple of weeks earlier we had around 40 or so people RSVP. Everyone who had tried to attend an earlier meeting, or was a Graduate Student, was able to attend. Maroon article here.
- Last Thursday we had 27 people RSVP to attend and only 18 or so show up, making it the lowest attendance of the year. Nevertheless it was a really good discussion, see the Maroon article here.
It took a while but I think we’ve finally found President Zimmer’s venue. Last Thursday’s meeting was especially nice because fewer people meant more questions per person. The only thing I would change in the future is to have people come with more prepared comments versus questions. President Zimmer enjoys hearing from students and while some questions have obvious embedded comments (”What are you going to do about do about the large college class sizes in the Physical and Biological Sciences?” was one last week), direct comments are also really nice.
Ideally we will do one of these each quarter next year, but we’ll have to see what the President’s schedule allows. There’s been some concern about the RSVPing system, but I think that this works better than the old brown bag model for a couple of reasons.
First, when people RSVP they feel bad about skipping. In the previous system, where the President sat in the McCormick Tribune Lounge with some lunch, attendance was hard to predict. By having people RSVP, it helps guarantee that they’ll show.
Second, the RSVP system means that people show up prepared with questions. This makes the discussion much more productive and usually gets us through that awkward period where attendees are warming up to the President (it lasts roughly 40 minutes, in my experience).
Finally, it keeps the discussion productive. This is my own personal opinion, and many people on SG don’t agree with me. But above ~25 people, the discussion turns into a lecture, defeating the real goal of these meetings, for the President to hear from students. By limiting the number of people, we’re able to keep the discussion productive. I’m proud to say anyone who couldn’t attend an earlier discussion and tried to attend a later discussion were able to, so its not a function of suppressing anyone’s voice. And if last Thursday’s discussion was any indication, anyone who signs up in the future will be able to come.
This format doesn’t mean Senior Administrators will never face a large, angry crowd: the Provost took questions on Grad Aid in Max Palevsky Cinema last Winter. But that’s a different type of discussion with a different purpose, and I think its important not to confuse the two. I’m sure whenever there’s again cause to protest President Zimmer, there will be ample opportunities beyond outside of these Discussions.
Thoughts on the format or my rundown? Is there something we need to change for next time? Use your fingers and let us know.
-Scott
EC Survey Presentation
Graduate Council May-19 Minutes
