Response to the Nov. 16 article “Faculty votes on new dual credit policy”
November 19, 2012
I saw the issue as “lose-lose.” That is, either we accepted high school courses (two courses that met junior college standards taught by teachers with an MA) or we had students walk away from our recruiting table after learning that we put restrictions on accepting dual credit.
The argument that we if didn’t draw the line at 26, we would have incoming students with 17 was a scare tactic that almost worked. But there were those of us who did not want to lose all the students between 22 and 26. Yes, we could administer a test on campus, but the problem was that high school seniors were not even picking up applications. A bare majority of the faculty did not want to have a student body divided into a small minority who had superior scores in English and a majority which had no interest in taking courses that earned college credit. That is why I called the proposed policy of 26 suicidal.
The proverb here is that “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” It would be great to be more selective, but it is necessary to get good students to look at us. The new building, the dedicated faculty and staff, the admissions efforts mean nothing if students won’t pick up a brochure and an application.
- Sarah Zaubi