carnegie hacks

Decreasing your Carnegie learning curve
so you can focus on what really matters


Carnegie Hacks are insights and tools to save you time and energy you can use to

advancing CE on your campus, instead. We post them every week, right here.

#18. Change No 3, Co-Curricular & Civic Engagement

Updated: Apr 16, 2018

In a strong parallel to the change regarding staff, the third major addition relates to co-curricular community engagement.

Until now, questions about student activities have been dominated by the topic of curricular engagement, or what your campus might call “Service-Learning,” “Community-Based Learning,” etc. These questions involved the opportunities, the integrated expectations, the rates of participation by students and faculty. All the while, the application turned a blind-eye to many campus’s signature community engagement activities in the co-curricular sphere.

The new application includes multiple questions that offer a home where this work can be highlighted and its importance and impact recognized.

One of the unintended negative consequences resulting from the omission in the old applications of certain work, such as co-curricular, and certain stakeholders, such as staff or non-tenure-track faculty, was that it sent a message about whose work was valued and whose wasn’t. And that perception played out pretty painfully for a few campuses; certainly not the intention of the application architects or National Advisory Board.

So the 2020 application has finally addressed that topic and made space for a few types of work that were previously without a home. Some questions are about co-curricular engagement in general, others are about specific opportunities that speak to various types co-curricular community engagement, including alternative spring breaks and athletics, as well as activities relating to civic engagement outcomes, including voting initiatives and civic dialogue.


There’s some question about the definition of “Co-Curricular” offered in the application and how connected it has to be to an academic course to warrant inclusion. Hopefully, some positive and negative examples can be solicited by audience members attending the conferences where Brown University’s Carnegie introduction is presented.

12 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

#19. Change No 4, Partnership Survey

The final addition we’ll be addressing this month is both a big opportunity as well as a big shift from the original data collection method used in the application. For the first time, the Carnegie ad

#17. Change No 2, Staff

The second major change to the Carnegie application relates to staff. The shift is so significant, we’ve updated the Carnegie Roadmap stakeholder category from “Faculty” to “Faculty & Staff.” Until no

#16. Change No 1, Context

So, let’s start with the first major addition to the new Carnegie application... Context. The first two questions on the new application aren’t actually about your campus’ community engagement at all,

Heather Mack Consulting, LLC

Getting Carnegie Classified™️ and Heather Mack Consulting, LLC operate independently from and are not affiliated with the Brown University Swearer Center for Public Service or the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education.