Rochester Institute of Technology - Techmila / Ramikin Yearbook (Rochester, NY)

Page 14 text:

THE SELLING OF RIT . - At RIT . . . our graduates go directly from here to where they want to be — in the professional world doing professional work ' ”... every person on our faculty is chosen because he's tops in his field — before he comes to RIT.” page 8, The RIT Official Bulletin of Undergraduate Programs 1976-1977 Pick up a copy of RIT's official bulletin from the admissions office. Examine the photographs of students enjoying themselves on sunlit after- noons and peruse the purple prose describing RIT's programs. Does this bulletin offer an honest assessment of RIT? Do any of you feel cheated after comparing your experiences at RIT with the bulletin's promises? Yes, many feel cheated. It is true that all institutions carry some dead weight; are complacent, self- perpetuating and occasionally reac- tionary. Certainly RIT has its share of such problems, as any other institution has. But without accurate information about a school's shortcomings, how can a student make a competent deci- sion to invest thousands of dollars and four years of his life? Without ac- curate information, the decisions to at- tend a certain school must be made on the impressions of a short interview, the obvious exaggerations of a slick promotional bulletin and rumors. Read the first statement quoted above. Do you honestly believe that all RIT graduates get the job they want after graduation? Read the second quote. Do you believe that every per- son on the RIT faculty is tops in his field”? Shouldn't your institutions be sub- ject to the same truth in advertising laws that business is? The federal government thinks so. President Ford signed into law a bill (The Education Amendments Act of 1976) which re- quires institutions of higher learning to give clear, detailed information on refund policy if students find their educations unsatisfactory in com- parison with the school's promises. In addition, the law requires institutions of higher learning to give more infor- mation on course content, academic programs, and the numbers of stu- dents who drop out and for what reasons. The penalty for not meeting these federal guidelines, including the publication of misleading information, would be to withhold many govern- ment loans to students and institu- tions. Needless to say, this would make it difficult for many schools to function. Such a law was needed because there has been a rising level of com- plaints and lawsuits against institu- tions concerning some of the follow- ing: quality of instruction, academic standards, grading policies, financial aid, career counseling, and dormitory crowding. It is unfortunate that colleges and universities are being dragged into court because they should be as free of government con- trol as possible. Yet, according to a re- cent article in the New York Times. There is wide agreement among educators and critics of the educational establishment that colleges and un- iversities have simply not given stu- dents enough information to go on. RIT and most other colleges and un- iversities in the country must try now to give an honest assessment of both their good points and shortcomings. Student pressure for this new legislation has come partly as a result 13

Page 13 text:

1? HOLZEMER

Page 15 text:

of increased competition among colleges for a diminishing number of students. As colleges and universities have seen their student body decline, they have begun to use more aggressive marketing and sales techni- ques to attract more students- Clearly, RIT has been more successful than many other schools in attracting stu- dents. In large part this is because career education is in vogue. RIT has legitimately been able to claim that it has long experience in this area of education, and this has attracted many students. Vet it is also clear that RIT is subject to the same fluctuation in de- mand that affects other schools. Ac- cording to a recent article in the Repor- ter 'Enrollment in CCE, forecase to be the place for the growth in higher education, reached its peak in 1966 and has been declining ever since, dropping a surprising 18 per cent. The exaggerated paranoia the administra- tion exhibited at having to do a bit of financial belt-tightening this year demonstrated where the administra- tion s larger sympathies lie. Of course, the administration is committed to 'education' but it is no secret that the administrators at CCE are worried and are pushing to increase enrollment. If we were to write a critical guide to RIT to offset the exaggerations of the official bulletin, what should be in- cluded? No doubt, there are any num- ber of legitimate gripes. Some of the most obvious criticisms have already come out in the campus media this year. An article in Counterpoint poin- ted out that in the opinion of many in the Institute College, the program is a patchwork quilt of unrelated programs, its components spread all over campus ... It frequently appears that RIT looks at the Institute College as some sort of bastard relation. Isn't a student about to spend thousands of dollars on an RIT education entitled to this information? In an article in Reporter, John Hosuler, Chairman of Rochester's In- dustrial Management Council, com- mented that many RIT students are well prepared in their technical areas but do not, unfortunately, seem strong in some of the basics such as English grammar, or the ability to do some mundane things like write let- ters. Isn't a student about to spend thousands of dollars on an RIT educa- tion entitled to know this? Many articles in both Counterpoint and Reporter have discussed ad- ministration intransigence on the deferred payment issue, as well as the administration's general callousness toward students A quote from a Counterpoint editorial is an example: The administration treats the stu- dents with contempt, the students look upon the administration with suspi- cion, and tension grows.' Besides the elimination of deferred payment, the following example of the administration s reaction to a class complaint about a particular professor is illustrative. A class of graduate stu- dents in photo-science complained wn- animously that their professors lec- tures were unclear, his homework problems poorly constructed, and that there was a real lack of feedback bet- ween the professor and the students in the class. Eventually the administra- tion agreed to let the students take the course again at no extra cost. But that's not as reasonable as it sounds. First, the department is not expecting to of- 11