|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 16:25:02 -0500 Reply-To: "Finder, Randolph J Mr NGB-ARNG" <Randolph.Finder@ngb.army.mil> From: "Finder, Randolph J Mr NGB-ARNG" <Randolph.Finder@ngb.army.mil> To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU >Your statements confuse me. You seem to contradict yourself on issues >such as the desirability of GLOs, and you say you do not wish to >denigrate schools who have chosen not to emphasize athletics, yet you >continue to put the burden of proof on why we would want to expand to a >non-Division I-A school and why we would *not* want to expand to a >Division I-A school. 1) Having social GLOs is a better characteristic than not having them. Please point out where I said differently. My first email on this had "issues with administrations that had issues with social GLOs" (paraphrased) rather than issues with social GLOs. 2) Only the second. I desire a burden of proof of a statement to *not* expand to Division I-A schools. I'd like to extend to a great number of them, regardless of Division. But non Div-I schools as a group covers a *very* wide swath from Div I-AA schools such as College of William and Mary to NJCAA schools like Garrett Community College(MD). A lot of those have been and continue to be great places for schools, but some are not. >I agree there are *many* factors to consider in extension efforts. I am >not arguing we should treat all schools as equal, but we should be >*very* careful not to use one classification type (e.g., size of >athletic program) to justify whether or not we should extend to that >school's campus. We must not weigh potential extension efforts---as you >seem to propose---against Division I-A or even large state schools. There are a great deal of individual factors, but being Division I-A means that a large number of those individual factors are positive. A Social Greek system takes care of the majority of others. For a school which no activity (official or under the table) in the last five years that is Division I-A and with a social greek system, I can't come up with a reason that it would not be a target. >This discussion of NCAA classification over-simplifies the question, and >in my mind diverts our attention from the real question of asking what >traits we should look for in potential extension efforts and how to >weigh the various advantages and disadtantages of these schools in >deciding if we should attempt to establish a presence on the particular >campus. If we can define these traits in such a way as to not >contradict ourselves, perhaps we can know where to focus extension efforts. I'd think of it as a cluster rather than an over-simplication, but I'll give it a try to simplify things. These are *not* in order. 1) Size. Ten times as large does not equal ten times as likely. My personal rule of thumb is that anything above 2500 students is a net positive, anything below 1000 students is a net negative, but not an automatic rejection. 2) Dormitories. Students who live in Dormitories and thus are likely to spend free time on campus and get involved in student organizations. Once a chapter is started, this becomes less of an issue, but at the beginning it can be critical. If this had to be expressed as a formula, effective students count = students in dormitories + 1/3 of students not in dormitories. (If Fraternity Houses are on/adjoin campus property they count as "in dormitories".) 3) Social Greeks on campus. I'm not sure if this is directly a trait, or an effect of a trait, but indicates that the administration/Student Activities will not reject us out of hand. National Social Greeks would be better than local only in terms of the administrations being willing to give some external control of student groups. 4) Other Service Groups. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if this is a net positive or net negative. Organizations reflect the interest at their campus, so a school with eight service groups may indicate enough additional interest for a ninth or may be all they can handle. Conversely *no* service groups may either indicate an unfilled need or that everyone on campus is interested in something else. Strongly organized enforced student service can indicate that the administration has found what it wants and isn't interested (In their view) in the type of organization that Alpha Phi Omega has. 5) Well defined campus. This has both physical and mental components. For the physical, a campus with an identifiable campus (with a fence?) vs. being spread over 12 city blocks with a office building between the science hall and the student union makes a difference in "school spirit", and for the mental, if a student is a student 24/7 and tightly identifies with the campus, they are more likely to be involved. 6) Bachelor's degree seekers. Those seeking Bachelor's degrees are more likely to be involved that those seeking higher degrees and I believe associates as well. 7) Involved Faculty. How much is the faculty likely to leave campus the moment the last class it taught... 8) History on campus. If we were forced inactive by the administration two years ago, forget it. *comments Numbers 2&6 combine for the concept of "Traditional" students. These characteristics would put Community colleges after almost all four year colleges on any target lists... And all traits must be considered. Maine Maritime (721) students has size as an area of concern, but *rocks* in many of the others. Our first 30 (to pick a segment) chapters are at schools where most of these characteristics were very favorable. And while the characteristics of a school that was best for expansion have changed in the last 70 years (Cedar Crest College wouldn't have been appropriate prior to 1976), many have stayed the same. Alpha Phi Omega will be challenged to see if the additional students in "non-traditional" schools are an area we can tap or not. Community Colleges do not seem to have a record that has been all that favorable for us. And the University of Phoenix and Devry campuses will require additional challenges. President Heismeyer talked about some of this at a seminar that he did at the Dallas convention, I'm sure that this issue will be talked about during his time as president. >We must look at the individual merits of each school, just as we must >look at the individual merits of each potential member and not assume >that they would or would not be a good brother because of some >classification to which they belong. To that end, I propose these >extension discussions would best be served by removing *all* discussion >of NCAA classifications. Instead focus we must focus our discussion on >the individual traits that make a school a good potential chapter. Agreed. NCAA classification represents a cluster, analysis of what traits (favorable & unfavorable) that cluster represents is useful, but that is determined it should be dropped from analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |