Unhappy students and faculty members at the University of California, Berkeley, are expected to jam a campus town hall meeting this afternoon to hear the dean of the college of engineering explain why he's dismantling a model program for underrepresented minorities and women.
In announcing the change last month,
Dean Shankar Sastry said he hopes that melding the Center for
Underrepresented Engineering Students (CUES) into a new Engineering
Student Services (ESS) office will actually strengthen the college's
efforts to promote diversity. The center’s three employees were told
last month that their contracts would not be renewed, effective 30
September.
Although the university is under severe financial pressure, engineering officials say the reorganization is not being done for budgetary reasons and that ESS will not be jettisoning any staff positions. Karen Rhodes, head of marketing and communications for the engineering college, says that the school’s “yield”—the percentage of students deciding to enroll in the fall after being accepted in the spring—is much lower for incoming minority engineering students than it is for the campus as a whole. She says a study by an outside consultant also found that many engineering students were dissatisfied with the current level of services being offered. "We need to become friendlier and in tune with what they want,” says Rhodes.
In addition, the school has seen a sharp decline in the overall percentage of minorities in its entering class—from 11% in 2004 to 6% this fall. That "alarming trend," says Rhodes, has led the college to "rethink our approach to serving underrepresented minorities."
However, supporters fear that the needs of minority students and women will get lost in the reshuffle. A precursor of the center was begun in 1981, and its cluster of activities—which include a summer bridge program, undergraduate research experiences, and academic and career counseling—have been emulated over the years by several other top universities. CUES’s supporters say that the current statistics argue for more, not less, emphasis on the needs of those students and that eliminating the center as an independent entity sends a signal that the college is diluting its commitment to broadening participation.
"I was absolutely shocked when I first heard the news," says Stanley Prussin, a professor of nuclear engineering and a former associate dean who oversaw CUES in the late 1990s. "It's been a model for the rest of the campus and for the entire country. The number of underrepresented minorities [within the college] is not what you would like it to be, but the problems have not disappeared. If anything, the need for a more intensive and independent approach to the problem seems to be greater than ever."
Ryan Shelby, a doctoral student in mechanical engineering, says that CUES was a big reason he chose Berkeley. "I wanted to make sure I had a support system, and they showed me how much they care. Their sole mission is to increase diversity and minority participation in engineering. It's not just a collection of programs; it's their entire approach." Shelby is a leader in a student group that is asking the dean to conduct a more thorough review of the center's impact before making any changes.
—Jeffrey Mervis
Although the university is under severe financial pressure, engineering officials say the reorganization is not being done for budgetary reasons and that ESS will not be jettisoning any staff positions. Karen Rhodes, head of marketing and communications for the engineering college, says that the school’s “yield”—the percentage of students deciding to enroll in the fall after being accepted in the spring—is much lower for incoming minority engineering students than it is for the campus as a whole. She says a study by an outside consultant also found that many engineering students were dissatisfied with the current level of services being offered. "We need to become friendlier and in tune with what they want,” says Rhodes.
In addition, the school has seen a sharp decline in the overall percentage of minorities in its entering class—from 11% in 2004 to 6% this fall. That "alarming trend," says Rhodes, has led the college to "rethink our approach to serving underrepresented minorities."
However, supporters fear that the needs of minority students and women will get lost in the reshuffle. A precursor of the center was begun in 1981, and its cluster of activities—which include a summer bridge program, undergraduate research experiences, and academic and career counseling—have been emulated over the years by several other top universities. CUES’s supporters say that the current statistics argue for more, not less, emphasis on the needs of those students and that eliminating the center as an independent entity sends a signal that the college is diluting its commitment to broadening participation.
"I was absolutely shocked when I first heard the news," says Stanley Prussin, a professor of nuclear engineering and a former associate dean who oversaw CUES in the late 1990s. "It's been a model for the rest of the campus and for the entire country. The number of underrepresented minorities [within the college] is not what you would like it to be, but the problems have not disappeared. If anything, the need for a more intensive and independent approach to the problem seems to be greater than ever."
Ryan Shelby, a doctoral student in mechanical engineering, says that CUES was a big reason he chose Berkeley. "I wanted to make sure I had a support system, and they showed me how much they care. Their sole mission is to increase diversity and minority participation in engineering. It's not just a collection of programs; it's their entire approach." Shelby is a leader in a student group that is asking the dean to conduct a more thorough review of the center's impact before making any changes.
—Jeffrey Mervis
Please excuse AAAS if they choose to cut through the marketing and communications spin. While it is correct that the programs are being offered for this year, what happens when budgets tighten next year and there is no glaring focus on the issue next year?
The reality is the UCB COE chose to take action and dismantle a model program based on statistics and surface level analysis that focused on the engineering student body at large. It did not focus on students that were currently in the CUES programs or alumni who could more accurately speak to the impact and success of those programs. Instead the COE chose to dismantle a program it should have instead marketed more intensely. The worst part is the COE chose to model the program after the SAO model that would have led many students, including myself, down the path of non-graduation had I listened to the SAO advice.
If UCB COE is to continue to compete with Stanford and MIT then it needs to model itself after those programs (who borrowed from the CUES playbook) and have independent offices dedicated to women and underrepresented minorities instead of modeling itself after lower rated engineering programs that exist within the UC system.
Sincerely,
Proud UCB, COE, CUES alum
The College of Engineering has a PR team that will take any statistical data that can be interpreted by a freshman and twist it into a lie. It is surprising that they continue to make comments that further show how unwilling the college is to make direct assessments of their actions and ask accredited individuals in higher minority education for help. Dean Sastry clearly stated after much pressure that integration in his opinion is better. Behind doors an advisory board has expressed their bewilderment with CUES as a stand alone program that serves the community for women, African-Americans, Latinos and anyone who signs up. Why can't we serve people of color without the direct and stagnating influence of the college?
The only reason Sastry, Doyle and the rest of the invisible advisory board have decided to close CUES is they don't "feel" that there should be a stand alone program [Doyle]. Listen to the tape from the meeting as Sastry expresses his curiosity and dismay over the current organizational model [http://soundcloud.com/eurquiza/town-hall-meeting-with-uc-berkeley-college-of-engineering-dean-sastry].
Just because America integrated, does not mean integration is always the best schema; especially when you are trying to build a community to stabilize the students in a climate that expects them to fail. Assuming the integration model will work and hiding it under the guise of "change" does not mean that the decision to close CUES was acceptable. There are two types of change: good change and bad change. Dean Sastry only states this integration will be a change, but he cannot find supporting data that says it will be good. For all we know this change can be "Weapons of Minority Destruction (WMD)" at Cal.
Btw, removing the Assistant Dean position that CUES currently has leaves minority students in Berkeley Engineering powerless when it comes to having equal footing during meetings in order to defend minority rights. And if the college is willing to get rid of minority rights to defend minority rights then they deserve to be viewed as the harshest and most unrelenting group on campus. No wonder why COE faculty and staff advising satisfaction rating are a dismal 33% across the board [Helding & Associates].
If you want accurate information that can be independently interpreted ask the students because the college has hired a PR team to cover their tracks.
-Concerned CUES Student
-"Engineering Dean's Office- Student Services Effectiveness Maximation STudy", John Helding of Helding & Associates, June 10, 2009.
-"Admissions and Registrations Trends in the College of Engineering 2005 to 2009- Women and Underrepresented Minorities", Fiona Doyle.
-"Town Hall Meeting with UC Berkeley College of Engineering Dean Sastry", http://soundcloud.com/eurquiza/town-hall-meeting-with-uc-berkeley-college-of-engineering-dean-sastry.
I’m quite dismayed by your article. You chose to lead with (and use two quotes along the same lines) the misperception that CUES is being dismantled, rather than state the facts of the case: the “summer bridge program, undergraduate research experiences, and academic and career counseling” that make up CUES will continue to be offered under the reorganized student services program. In fact, the goal of the reorganization is to improve our services for underrepresented students, with improved recruitment and retention outcomes as measures of success.
Even Cal’s student newspaper managed to provide more objective coverage of this issue:
http://www.dailycal.org/article/106124/students_oppose_restructuring_of_engineering_diver
I’m sure that, as a AAAS publication, ScienceInsider keeps high journalistic standards. I’m of course disappointed that this apparent lapse involves UC Berkeley.
Karen Rhodes, Berkeley Engineering