Consortium Dreams: A Study of Worcester Students’ Hopes for Inter-College Connections By President’s Honors Seminar, Spring 2016 FOREWORD As befits this sort of project, the research team ac- crued many debts its members would like to This study is the end result of the President’s Honors acknowledge here. Without this help, this project and Seminar, an honors class at Worcester State University report would not have been possible. in which students work closely with a professor on a real-world research project. That project is determined Research team members would like to thank the in consultation with the university president and is following members of the Worcester State University aimed at providing useful and timely information that community: Barry M. Maloney, President; Lois Wims, helps him do his job. PhD, Provost and Vice-President of Academic Affairs; Carl Herrin, Assistant to the President; Karen Woods In Spring 2016, the seminar explored what Worces- Weierman, PhD, Honors Program Director; and Mary ter’s college students want from a robust consortium Flibbert, secretary of the Honors Program and Depart- relationship among the 10+ institutions of higher ment of Urban Studies. learning in and around the city. The research team expresses its gratitude to those Constituted as a research team, students and their who beta-tested the survey, and to administrators, fac- professor examined existing consortium models, and, ulty, staff members, and students from all the colleges based on this research, created an online survey for and universities who helped distribute the survey on Worcester students that asked about a wide variety of their campuses. Thank you to all Worcester students consortium possibilities. The team analyzed the survey who took the survey in its final form. results and its findings are presented here. Finally, the research team wishes to acknowledge Research team members and the report’s authors the Department of Urban Studies and especially the are: Vincent “Jake” Powers CityLab, the department’s re- search institute, for use of its staff and resources. And Brittany L. Boyle Thomas E. Conroy as always, I recognize my department colleagues for Ashley E. Dziejma Kaitlyn A. Favalora their support, encouragement, and assistance along the Brandy N. Klaes Jose J. Medina-Santos way. Benjamin J. Parker Jake G. Price Keri A. Riefenhauser Elizabeth K. Skaza Thomas E. Conroy, PhD Jocelyn K. Hurst, Editor Chair and Assistant Professor Department of Urban Studies CONTENTS Executive Summary p. 3 Consortia Models p. 4 Academics p. 6 Service Availability p. 8 Programs p. 10 Transportation p. 12 Universal Campus ID p. 15 & Shared Space Methodology p. 17 Suggestions for Next Steps p. 18 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • Respondents recognized that capitalizing on service- and programmatic-centered opportunities, This report presents the findings of a Spring 2016 sur- especially those that possessed a social dimension, vey designed to provide data about what Worcester’s can enrich college life in Worcester and fill academ- college students want from a consortium of local high- ic, social, and professional gaps by maximizing the er education institutions. Inquiring about academics, collective resources of the colleges and universities. service availability, programs, transportation, shared spaces, and a universal student ID, the research team Programs: gained insight into the strengths, challenges, and op- • Respondents expressed great interest in guest portunities for a consortium. The team presents its lectures, performances, and social events that were work here as a way to enrich future discussion. open to students from all campuses. In total, 639 participants took the survey. The re- • sponse was especially good from Worcester State Uni- Inter-campus groups/activities such as cultural versity and the University of Massachusetts Medical organizations, activist groups, recreational sports, School. Approximately 2/3 of the respondents were and game/hobby groups also received high ratings. female (68%), and just under 3/4 were between 18 and These activities were often tied to service-related 25 years old (73%). Most respondents identified questions and spoke to student desires for more Worcester (25%) or Massachusetts but outside Worces- interaction with each other across campuses. ter (64%) as their permanent address. Slightly more • Although school/work schedules affected re- than 3/4 identified as white (76%). spondents’ participation in programs and clubs, For a fuller discussion of the study’s methodology they reported the most significant obstacles to their and respondent profile, see the “Methodology” section participation in programs at campuses other than elsewhere in this report. there own were: lack of information about them, lack of adequate transportation, and costs. MAJOR FINDINGS Transportation: Academics: • Transportation was a major issue for Worcester • Only a small percentage of respondents have college students that emerged in students com- taken classes through the consortium. The vast ma- ments in every survey section. jority of students have not, and of that group, many express interest in doing so but are hampered by a • The majority of respondents said they depend- variety of obstacles. ed on their automobiles to survive in Worcester, and further reported that they had few practicable • Obstacles — particularly access to information, options besides cars. timing of classes, and lack of adequate transporta- • tion services — prevent students from taking ad- The majority of on-campus students in particu- vantage of the academic opportunities of the con- lar want access to public and alternative transporta- sortium both on-campus and off-campus in the tion, and the idea of an inter-campus shuttle and/ Worcester community. or improvements to both the WRTA and city bicy- cle routes/lanes were frequently noted. • Respondents voiced a lack of understanding Universal Student ID and Shared Space (and sometimes frustration borne from confusion) • about what the consortium offers and how to ac- There was considerable interest in the develop- cess it. Students often reported they were unaware ment of a Universal Student ID that students can that any consortium existed, while others said they use at different campuses for a variety of rea- were told of it only briefly. sons: cross-registration, library borrowing, pro- gram access, and service use. Service Availability: • Respondents were intrigued by the possibility • Respondents reported that inter-campus ser- of a shared space (or spaces) for all university stu- vices such as access to WiFi, library access, trans- dents for programs/events, meeting space, and re- portation, and social networks were wanting, which search services. in turn dissuaded cross-campus contact. 3 CONSORTIA MODELS Founded in 1925, the Consortium of the Simply put, higher education consortia are partnerships Claremont Colleges is or associations between two or more schools for spe- a higher education cific purposes. Through such associations, schools of- consortium located in ten share academic resources, offer joint programs and Claremont, California. experiences, enhance student experiences, and use their Its seven member colleges are: collective nature to maximize administrative resources • Pomona College and increase purchasing power. • Scripps College • Claremont McKenna College • Harvey Mudd College One example of a • successful higher ed- Pitzer College • Claremont Graduate University ucation consortium is • the Five Colleges Consortium in Western Massachu- Keck Graduate Institute of Applied Life Sciences setts, also called Five Colleges, Incorporated. Founded in 1965, it is one of the oldest consortia in Unlike the Five Colleges, Claremont College cam- the country. The five member institutions, which are puses are close neighbors and within walking distance within 10 miles of each other, are: of each other. The organizing idea behind this associa- tion came from European universities in which smaller, • Amherst College specialized programs with personal touches (colleges) • Hampshire College pool resources among a larger collective (university). • Mount Holyoke College • Smith College According to its webpage, the Claremont Consorti- • University of Massachusetts-Amherst um is a “nationally recognized educational model for academic support, student support, and institutional This consortium “promotes and administers long- support services.” Shared services among the term forms of cooperation that benefit faculty and staff Claremont Colleges include a central library, ethnic members and students.” Among its specific goals are: centers, a central bookstore, information technology, “shared use of educational and cultural resources and and risk management. It offers an extensive, cross- facilities” (including a joint library system, cross regis- campus website with program information and links to tration, and open theater auditions); “joint departments each member college, as well as a master calendar of and programs,” and “inter-campus transportation.” educational, cultural, and social events by type to keep faculty, students, and staff informed. The overarching mission of the Five Colleges is aca- demic and administrative collaboration, particularly as it “facilitates intellectual communities and broad curric- Established in ular and co-curricular offerings affording learning, re- 1995, the Boston search, performance, and social opportunities.” Its in- Consortium For stitutions