In my last column, I focused on the lack of interaction between students and faculty in individual or small-group settings. Now I want to turn toward possible solutions.
Though administrators have worked to increase faculty-student interaction, a more comprehensive approach is still necessary.
Dean of Trinity College Robert Thompson wrote me in an e-mail that he focuses on influencing the culture of both faculty and undergraduates at Duke indirectly rather than through curricular changes.
Efforts to increase research opportunities have already made significant progress. In the last five years, the percentage of students participating in mentored research has more than tripled, to 48 percent of Trinity students. Furthermore, the percentage of students writing an honors thesis has increased from 13 to 21 percent in the last two years.
But still, more than half of the Trinity student body will never have a real one-on-one academic experience with a faculty member.
Dean of Undergraduate Education Steve Nowicki shares Thompson's interest in affecting Duke's culture rather than its policies. Students and faculty should be brought together simply through their common interests and activities, not through any forced interaction, he told me.
He cited Wednesday night's Jazz at the Mary Lou Williams Center as an example of a "real 'scene' where a bunch of faculty, undergraduates and graduate students all get together, hang out and listen to music."
Yet there is a real danger that events like this succeed only in getting the two groups together, not in facilitating real communication.
Nowicki acknowledges this, and notes that though students are often shy about speaking with faculty, many faculty members are equally unsure of how to communicate with students.
"I'd like to get faculty more involved in Orientation, have them meet with small groups of freshmen who expressed an interest in their field," Nowicki said. He envisions "no checklists and no notes," just a friendly meet-and-greet in groups of about eight students.
This idea seems sensible: In some cases the time together might prove fruitless, but for the most part, an hour spent in casual, normal conversation will open lines of communication and ease qualms about approaching faculty.
And who knows, on rare occasions these meetings might create a link between a student and a faculty member that will prove meaningful as students start thinking about majors, projects and goals for themselves.
Yet neither Nowicki nor Thompson feels it is necessary to alter Duke's curriculum to ensure that all students had this kind of experience.
"The approach we have taken is to empower students to be responsible for their own learning, and intellectual and personal growth," Thompson wrote.
Perhaps the problem is that students are not taking the initiative themselves. They should. But despite Thompson's best work and intentions, individual research, mentorship and collaboration with faculty is not yet "expected and normative," as Thompson said he hopes it will be.
Of course, Trinity College already requires that all students take two research-designated courses. Yet looking at my own transcript, I can think of no way in which the courses marked as research differ from my other courses. There needs to be real mentored learning built into the Duke experience from the outset.
I agree with Nowicki: Direct connection with faculty members should begin freshman year. Students in Focus programs seem to get to know their professors very well, yet those who don't enroll in Focus are left taking a smattering of often-large introductory classes.
Writing 20 courses and the required first-year seminar create some connection with faculty, but it is still too easy to blend into groups of 12 or 15. Truly small learning groups should exist, in which the faculty member does not act as lecturer or discussion moderator but mentor.
In my vision, second-semester freshmen or first-semester sophomores should either be required to or be clearly given the opportunity to work on a research project with a faculty mentor on any subject that they have taken or are taking a course in, regardless of their major.
Student-faculty interactions should not stop there. Existing systems that allow collaboration need to be strengthened. The house course system could provide a fertile ground for students and faculty to work together in designing a course, syllabus and readings. But too few house courses are undertaken today, and it is difficult for many students to find a professor interested in helping them lead a course.
Undergraduate teaching assistants could provide another great point of collaboration, yet too often they are treated like hired red pen-wielding graders whose sole goal is to reduce professors' workloads. They are that, obviously, but they also could come up with auxiliary readings and be real assistants to professors in planning and organizing their courses.
Small steps are already being taken towards this goal. For instance, Duke Student Government President Paul Slattery is pushing the institution of a system connecting students and faculty interested in the same topics. Still, we need strong student advocacy to ensure this remains a high priority in improving our undergraduate education.
Jordan Everson is a Trinity senior. His column runs every Wednesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.