From glenn  Thu Oct 26 10:52:35 1995
Return-Path: <glenn>
Received: from phineas.seismo.unr.edu.unr.edu by quake.seismo.unr.edu (4.1/1.34) 	id AA10819; Thu, 26 Oct 95 10:52:35 PDT
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 95 10:52:35 PDT
From: glenn (Glenn Biasi)
Message-Id: <9510261752.AA10819@quake.seismo.unr.edu>
To: louie
Subject: Re:  Latest draft of UNR Strategic Plan
Content-Length: 3145
X-Lines: 51
Status: RO

Hi John,
I didn't read the whole thing.  This language was also in the draft you circulated
a while ago.  In my opinion it is misdirected:

>> The university's mission weaves teaching, creative activity, and service 
>> into a seamless fabric.  Our instruction includes not only teaching what 
>> is known, but also seeking that which is not known and instilling the 
>> methods of creative and thorough scholarly inquiry in our students.  Our 
>> scholarship is both a service and a learning resource for our local and 
>> global communities and, as such, is inseparable from our instructional 
>> activities.  The sum of our activities empowers our students to become 
>> educated women and men in society, armed with the intellectual tools 
>> necessary to surmount the challenges of today and tomorrow.

The focus on our "empowering" students is 90's speak and reflects
inappropriate views of the instructional staff, the students, and their
relationship.  UNR students are empowered when they show up.  This is
not some mysterious gift or grant from us or others.  Their "empowerment"
is actually their ability to learn.  The implication that the staff "empowers"
students, as though it was some sort of 
gift is demeaning; students work hard, they learn, their capabilities
expand.  The focus must be on them and their earning their way.  Our message
must be consistent:  We will do our part, but what you get out of this
education in large measure will reflect what you put into it.
It will be their education when they are done, and they will be more or less
able to deal with the world principly because of their efforts.  Our job is
to provide the best opportunities we can, to promote interest, and
to ensure high standards.

"Mentoring" is also a trendy, 90's kind of thing.  In principle I think it is
a good thing, but it tends to be exclusive by nature.  Mentoring succeeds because of 
its personal interaction aspects, and is therefore limited in practice to
students you like and have time for.  Let me discuss what I think is a better
viewpoint in terms of a saying: "Telling is not teaching,
and teaching is not training."  Teaching includes feedback to see that people are
"getting it".  Training requires another step, ensuring that not only do
they know, but that they can do whatever they are being trained in.  
Training is more hands-on, but brings longer-term results.  If the goal
is well-trained students, then open-ended (no feedback) instructional styles (telling)
must be subbordinated to systems with richer feedback between the student
and the staff.  Some will complain that it takes too much time.  Others may complain
that the (effective) feedback process is subjective (it tends to require talking
to the students) and that the students don't like to expose their ignorances.
In my mind the issue is whether we want to invest in telling, teaching, or
training.  I would like to see training emphasized as a matter policy, and 
I think the quality and reputation of an UNR education will go up if we do.  

I'm out of time.  Thanks for representing us.  This stuff can be an ugly
time sink.

           Glenn