A new form of campus identity is rapidly bearing down on Montana State. Late this September, the Montana Board of Regents passed a controversial measure known as the “Success Agenda.” Meant to improve factors of performance in Montana universities, the Success Agenda has withstood condemnation and concern for its focus on improving freshmen retention rates. Although retention is a primary factor in the efficiency of a university, such a focus on students as numbers may have disastrous consequences.
As the theory goes, the more defined and supportive MSU is, the better it can curb the 30 percent second-year freshman dropout rate. According to the Success Agenda, certain essentials, such as state research funding, will be directly correlated to the percentage of freshman each Montana university can retain.
The many community-involvement campaigns that litter campus, such as “ChampChange,” are one of many efforts by MSU to instill a sense of belonging in freshmen before academic or personal queasiness sets in. The controversy surrounding the Success Agenda and retention rates is not unfounded; it's possible MSU could lose millions of dollars in funding. However, as much as MSU and its students need a healthy rate of returning students, this and other efforts may end up inducing no change at all or, even worse, student alienation.
College has been, and will always be, a time of change and discovery. Students leaving either their house or their hometown for the first time will almost inevitably stumble upon a new sense of identity, responsibility and purpose, with many such aspects held in dissonance. Through goals, dreams and decisions such as dropping out or transferring, students will find some sense of self that is best maintained by the self, not programs meant to assimilate individuals into a community. Reaching out to students can definitely induce a strong sense of belonging. It should not be considered an end-all to a problem that, on a personal level, might not be a problem at all. Efforts to convince students otherwise could be perceived as irrelevant and even ham-fisted.
MSU and other universities are trying to avoid tension in the first place by making each campus a unique destination for students with different test scores and professional goals. Each university will ultimately offer exclusive programs, giving students a tailored and more comfortable experience. For this sort of planning, the Board of Regents should be applauded. However, such concentration on students as numbers may have changed college from a personal journey to a bean-counter’s paradise. If any sort of institutional or moral success is to be had, MSU must realize that not everybody belongs in college, and not everybody can be easily defined.
