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.