Shyamalan, Covenant College Admissions, Smooth E, Weichbrodt Radio

I'm a big shally wally bing bang fan myself. Though I've heard a lot of negative press on the lady in da water. Doesn't matter though I'll go and love it probably regardless because of sexy giamanti man.

Re: Covenant, do we really think that "recommendation from a prominent personality" or "student athlete" are the only two criteria? How many Covenant applicants actually know prominent personalities? (unless we're talking about the local PCA pastor, whose recommendation perhaps ought to carry some weight) As for student athletes, how many are applying at this stage? Haven't they already been recruited? And what do you have against student athletes, anyway?

What does "retention is way down" mean? Compared to last year? Compared to two years ago? I bet it's up in the latter case (since those folks were more directly impacted by changes in FinAid policies necessitated by the DOE audit).

Official word is that admissions hopes to hit 340 this year, not 360. If the college gets 340 freshmen, they will indeed represent almost 40% of the on-campus population, just like last year's class of 306 (or was it 309?) represented almost 40% of the on-campus population. I don't know what's typical, though I do know that my freshman class represented about 33% of the college's total student population (I don't know the on-campus ratio, but I'd wager it was close to this year's).

I don't recall saying anything negative against student athletes Derek; I do have a beef with those in question who go by their middle name, were Mac Scholars, and have a love affair with the Cubs.

Anyways, like you pointed out: the numbers show a consistent trend towards larger freshman classes and lower retention.

I'm not really sure how I feel about those two things (Wallace picking and chosing students or the aformentioned trend). But it's happening, and I wonder what it means for the College, the ramifications, etc.

I would venture to guess that retention rates are affected by two things. First, there's the fact that college students are somewhat volitile creatures. What they think today is not necessarily what they'll think tomorrow. This is okay as far as it goes, and is a normal part of growing up. But when that involves changing one's major, this can become problematic for a school with a narrow range of offerings. In this sense, retention isn't something the college can really do much about, because it will never have the resources of a research university. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, but it is a fact.

But the other thing that would tend to affect retention is if students feel like they aren't getting what they bargained for. I'm not talking about the quality or breadth of education (I think the quality is good and breadth is dealt with above), but about the local culture. Someone who goes to Covenant expecting the mature, culturally-engaged, self-aware student body for which Covenant is widely reputed will almost certainly be disappointed with a large percentage of straight-shooting "Student Athletes" who couldn't tell a serious cultural phenomenon from a hole in the ground.

And while I have no opposition to athletics or athletes as such, I don't believe sports should be a major reason for choosing a school, nor something on which the school should spend much time or money. Besides, anyone who is trying to go to school primarily to play sports won't go to Covenant unless they couldn't hack it somewhere else, i.e. they suck.

I would have enjoyed Sixth Sense better if I had not watched it with my mom, who, five minutes into the film, said, "Hey! I bet you the psychologist is DEAD!" And everything was sooooooo obvious after that.

All right, all right, enough with the quotation marks around "student athlete". You don't have to say anything overtly negative, Josiah, when you're bracketing them with quotation marks. And yes, you should certainly have a beef with the so-called-students, so-called-athletes who go by middle names, were MacScholars, and pull for the Cubs. After all, they've got a beef with you now that you've bracketed them.

I can say nothing but "amen and amen" to Ryan's remarks on choosing a school based on athletics. Even worse than the guys I knew in high school who went to Pembroke State University (now UNC-P) because they got a soccer offer were the guys I knew in high school who went to Chapel Hill because of Carolina basketball ... and were 5'7" tall and non-athletic.

Derek and Josiah... I think you guys are going to have to get your terminology straight or else you'll keep talking past each other. First let's be precise... the numbers you're bandying around (e.g., the 340 vs. 360 for next year and the 306 or 309 for this past year) are *not* freshman numbers. They're "new students". The "official website" () lists 259 "matriculated" freshmen for last year... presumably the other 47-50 were transfers-in. Retention... just above that link's location are the retention rates for last year, 78% freshman and 79% overall. The freshman numbers don't say much to me out of the context of other years... sounds about right, but my memory is that upperclassman rates SHOULD be (and traditionally were) higher, ... after all, it's really hard to go somewhere else as a Junior or Senior... not everything transfers, major requirements differ, etc.

But, again, trend lines would help understand the reality of the data.

As for the "student athlete" controversy, let me offer a Clinton-esque style proof that Josiah is wrong (i.e., proof by anecdote based on very small numbers :-) ) ... if I had to choose between a general, all around good student-athlete who might play 4 years womens bball at Covenant (like my eldest daughter) versus some nerdy geek hacker type that you would have to watch like a hawk to ensure that they didn't sabotage the entire campus network in between instigating pranks of one sort or another out of their dungeon-like abode (like a student I recall but whose name I won't mention so as to avoid violating FERPA laws) ... I'd take my daughter... er, I mean, the student-athlete.

:-)
--
RDS

Interesting timing Derek... your post which occurred while I was preparing mine almost seemed to presume my subsequent entry into the discussion... except that I went to Carolina at almost 5'11" (but yes, non-athletlically inclined) ... and yes, Carolina's sports reputation had to have played some role... after all, any compsci-oriented person like myself, all things being equal, would have more naturally gone to NC State... but I couldn't bring myself to wear red and support the wulfies!
--
RDS

Randy, thanks for the clarification on the terminology.

I certainly can't fault you for choosing Carolina. Despite the insane (and sometimes inane) fervor of those who have imbibed of the blue koolaid, it is a fine public university. I went to the Arizona game last spring (sadly, my MA alma mater didn't make much of a showing in Chapel Hill) with a friend from UNC's sociology department, and was reminded again of what a strong school it is, not to mention beautiful and fun (perhaps too much of the latter, which I a big part of why I didn't end up there).

I think retention is affected primarily by financial issues, then running a close second the flightyness of the average college student. A disturbing trend I noticed in my graduating class though was that a lot of people that came in with me (and some of the most brilliant, in my opinion) had some sort of psychological or situational difficulties that either kept them from graduating on time or led them to drop out entirely. I wonder how normal this is and whether Covenant could do more to provide a support network for the intellectual-type students who seem to have struggles of a totally different kind than the general student population.

I'm going to go out on a fragile limb here and respond to Evan's post. The desire for a "support network" at Covenant is a desire for a past that is gone, as best I can tell.

The first 10 or so years I was at Covenant ('92-'02), I felt the "safety net" there was broad and deep, perhaps too much so. All sorts of "fragile people" were caught up by the net and helped. This is primarily speculation on my part based on a little knowledge of the budget and staffing, a little knowledge of the people involved, and keeping my eyes open about what was going on around me.

I think when the Nielson administration came in this changed, and intentionally so. I don't think that was the wrong decision. For too long I thought students had been coddled a bit too much "psychologically" ... just my personal (and probably too uninformed) opinion. I think the new administration changed things in this area for two primary reasons: First was budgetary; those "counselors" (and I'm not just talking the budget items for outside counselor consultants, but the staff dedicated to this area, and even more-so the faculty and staff NOT dedicated to this area that were absorbed in counseling work) were a big drain on the budget. Second was the mindset of the new administration. I agreed with this as well... if you become known as the place to send wayward youth, "troubled" Covenant children, basket cases (sorry to be so blunt about it), etc. ... you end up attracting more of the same. I think the new administration had a mindset that said they wanted a different, "stronger", more "got it together" type of student.

As I said ... I agreed ... past tense. Now I just don't know if they'll be able to deal with the fact that NO ONE "has it together". Those that would argue that all the "problems" are (purely) spiritual in nature are, again IMHO, the very ones that will perpetuate DEEPER problems by their efforts to sweep problems under the rug, deal with it "in the church", or just flat out deny the existence of the problems. (The "those" I refer to aren't "the administration" in my opinion, but perhaps a vocal subset of the PCA that tends to the TR/Jay Adams/heresy hunter side of the PCA as opposed to the "sonship"/gospel cowboy side.)

Evan, I think you just missed the window on that changeover. The "shift" in philosophy pretty much took place with Scott's departure. I could disagree with him about the way to deal with things, the necessity for such "counseling", or a host of other policy issues, but no way would I question his love for the students or desire to help each and everyone he could. The man exuded "support net" thinking!

Hmmm, that limb wasn't as fragile as I thought, so let's go out a *little* further. As opposed to going back to a counseling-intensive (and thus presumably more costly) approach to dealing with the problem, you could deal with the problem more "at the root" ... and that would be back in the home churches and families where those fragile students come from. Yes, I agree, some of the most intellectually gifted students were also very fragile in a number of ways. But the more I learned about family backgrounds, traumatic experiences of various sorts, bases for various neuroses (please, no one sue me for diagnosing out of ignorance), etc., the more I wanted to go whip a few "church leaders" into shape. But, in case anyone is worried I'll start a rampage... don't... I'd have to start with myself and my impact on my own children first, and that would take all my time! :-)

So... want more help??? What would it be worth to you to provide it? $60/semester *additional* cost per student? (I don't know why that number comes to mind...) That might not even touch the problem today!

Was about to Post and realized I could provide "evidence" of the change: go check out the Chaplain's job ad, (), note that the closest thing you'll see to asking that person to be a "counselor" to students is Task 4's "spiritual mentor" (and I think the intended picture there is intentional and quite different than what you might have thought chaplains were all about during the time up to and including Don Graham), whereas Task 6 is the definitive guide to "Covenant's presumed role in providing a safety net" today.
--
RDS

Derek,

The use of quotations marks was meant to imply an actual quote from a speaker as to the ideal Covenant student. I was, for once, lacking in sarcasm.

I know I know. It's rare, precedents set and all that.

Randy, that past "philosophy" of the College went far above and below the Dean, and was far more nuanced than a simple "support net". As Frank once put it, for good or bad, "Never put the reputation of the College before the well being of a student." Call is near-sighted, naive, or straight-up unwise: it's a ballsy stance to take. One that he somehow managed to pull of in his tenure.

Finally, Randy you shouldn't let your particular ummm, er concern over the rogue geek hacking your computer function as some kind of paradigm for determining the ideal Covenant student. That's just kind of weird.

I'm not going to argue with you, Randy, since we've obviously had different experiences and are thinking of different individuals. I'll just clarify that I wasn't thinking so much of professional counselors, chaplaincy staff, per se. That would only help the people who actually wanted to see them. I think closer contact between professors, the staff at large, and the student body is the best approach, although I recognize this can only happen at a small school, which Covenant necessarily has had to move away from being in order to survive economically. I'm not saying I want students to be coddled or that Covenant should be a dumping ground for problem youth, some kind of higher-ed reform school. I do think though that when you have floors where a significant number of the students are on anti-depressants you have to wonder what's going on, and it's a problem you'll have to deal with if you want higher retention rates. Some people will always slip through the cracks; I don't think the college should try to substitute its authority for that of parents or elders. In fact, regarding behavioral issues, I wish the current administration wasn't watching students as closely. There's no simple solution to the problems I'm thinking of - I initially only commented to bring out another major reason why students leave the college, as far as I know.

if covenant could find a way to retain it's students the way that chattanooga tends to retain covenant graduates/malcontents we might be on to something truly ground breaking.

because seriously, the dip in retention between fall and spring semesters...during my four years at covenant (while i wasn't concerning myself with finding a wife) i thought for certain the rapture had taken place and i just missed it somehow.

perhaps if the campus were to relocate to st. elmo and hoppy's supplanted the great hall we could start catering to the folks are commited to graduating in no less than six years. everyone would be a winner - especially now that hoppy's has cognitive spray on tap.

if covenant could find a way to retain it's students the way that chattanooga tends to retain covenant graduates/malcontents we might be on to something truly ground breaking.

because seriously, the dip in retention between fall and spring semesters...during my four years at covenant (while i wasn't concerning myself with finding a wife) i thought for certain the rapture had taken place and i just missed it somehow.

perhaps if the campus were to relocate to st. elmo and hoppy's supplanted the great hall we could start catering to the folks are commited to graduating in no less than six years. everyone would be a winner - especially now that hoppy's has cognitive spray on tap.