All Students Are Created Equal

I am a member of the Carroll Fellows Initiative and I think this piece is ill-researched and off-base. The Hoya has a tradition of regularly attacking the CFI. It seems like every few months, the editorial board selects us from their list of favorite targets and starts the invectives again. Let's take a minute and examine why Mr. Nolan gets it wrong. Here are some of his arguments, followed by brief refutations:

(1) Why doesn't Georgetown teach these skills to everyone?

Simply, not everyone wants them. Many are either indifferent to these skills, or, more likely, feel confident already. If a new required class (the only way to make sure this reaches ALL students) was instituted to cover research, etiquette, and proactivity, many would decry it as a waste of time and yet another troublesome requirement blocking us from our true studies. Creating an optional program with these skills as part of its curriculum makes it available to those who are actually interested.

ALSO (and this is where Nolan fails to understand the program) these skills, while important, are not what is at the heart of the Carroll Fellows Initiative. If he had bothered to actually interview or quote Dr. Glavin or even ONE of the Fellows, he would note that we are a group bound by a dedication to "The Life of the Mind" as well as a collection of students interested in research skills. The Forum (the first class for what Nolan calls "initiates") teaches a wide variety of skills -- not just research and etiquette. It inculcates a strong sense of responsibility and introduces the idea of the intellectual as a responsible entity, similar to the vision of Edward Said. We're not just being taught how to say please and thank you. The program goes far beyond that and is not something that the wider community wants or needs. It is application based, but candidates more or less self-select.

(2) The CFI as a redistribution of wealth.

Apparently the CFI diverts resources from some students to others. As a Fellow, I can say that I have not received any resources which are that far beyond what I would have had access to in a regular class. Yes, there are some special perquisites, but nothing which constitutes a significant difference from a normal class. And lest you forget, most of the best classes at Georgetown are limited-admission based on seniority, etc. The CFI is no different. Not everyone can take Madeleine Albright's class and not everyone can take the Carroll Fellows Forum.

Also, the University already redistributes our wealth unequally. Just look at any program on campus. We all ostensibly pay the same tuition, yet any one athlete has ten, even one hundred times the resources of one Carroll Fellow. When was the last time the Hoya went after that particular difference? I can't remember it.

(3) Dr. Glavin is both the coach and the referee.

We've talked about this question in Carroll Fellows frequently. It's even become a joking point that the Hoya constantly attacks us on this point. The fact is, there is no connection. The CFI is not chiefly "fellowship boot camp." If you had done your research, Mr. Nolan, you would know that. In fact, having our professor as the Fellowships Director means we are held to a higher standard than anyone else. He knows our work and he knows us. Dr. Glavin never spares necessary criticism and we have a harder time than any working to the level necessary for a fellowship.

Frankly, Mr. Nolan, you may be right on one point: Georgetown students do have a need to learn research skills. You demonstrated that very well with this particular editorial.

"The program goes far beyond that and is not something that the wider community wants or needs. It is application based, but candidates more or less self-select."

I know little about the Carroll fellows, so I won't comment on what or what not you do as that would be presumptuous. I have spoken to a fellows on their engagement however and it seems quite interesting. I guess I must have missed the application process, so I never got the chance to apply (is it open to all students?). Although I do think there should be some selective programs (Krogh's honours seminar springs to mind) frankly I find it insulting that you assume that the entire student body neither wants nor needs the valuable skills you are privileged enough to receive. I'm not saying we all deserve it- I'm sure many people would neither take it as seriously nor be as intellectually competent as you, however saying we don't want it is a different matter.

p.s. On research- Albright's class is actually open to all SFS juniors and seniors. There's no selection.

In Re: "Evan Regan-Levine"

I believe you miss the point. And your rebuttal is much too broad, committing the same logical fallacies as the Intellectual Life Report. The assumption that "not everyone wants them" is akin to saying that all Georgetown students get drunk (as predicated in the ILR). Your data?

(2) The point here is that we are subsidizing your prancing around like Edward Said (which, judging by your last name, if it is real, is even more amusing). Anyone who pays should have access. You give us a red herring, and point at our athletes.

(3) Hahaha, oh yes, another mistake by the Hoya! Except that this is a column. And despite your pretense that Dr. Glavin does not intermingle, the proximity is the most worrying.

Besides, the point of this article is that anyone who wants access to these services rendered by the university should have access. Not be blocked by a self-selective application process.

But I wont blame you for your myopia. Your probably caught up in your SFS reading on Saudi Arabia or something, and can't be bothered with the details. Cute.

For "Dalton Dwyer:"

Regarding Albright, I just meant that everyone who puts the class down as a selection when choosing classes does not get it.

For "Silence Dogood"

(1) My numbers

The CFI offers these skills which you claim the entire student body wants, yet our application numbers represent a fairly small percentage of the Freshman class. If everyone really wanted the opportunity to learn the skills, more would bother applying to the Carroll Fellows.

(2) Of Red Herrings

I still fail to see what "we" are subsidizing. The Carroll Fellows for the most part is an academic experience. We go to class and meet with advisors. You are subsidizing well...another class like any other. What do you think you're spending money on? It's not like as Carroll Fellows, we have special housing or free tuition.

As to my "pointing" at our athletes, don't you think there is a resource disparity there? Or have I hit on some sacred cow? Last time I checked, it would seem incongruous with the mission of a University to complain vigorously about resources for a program fostering academic excellence but keep poring money into athletics. I am not saying that I think athletics are wrong or shouldn't be supported, but the first priority of a University is to develop academic programs.

By the way, my last name is real. In fact, despite being a nefarious Carroll Fellow who steals your money and "prances around like Edward Said," I believe in attaching my name to my opinion as a matter of honor and common courtesy.

(3) Dr. Glavin

We are not trained just to go after fellowships. It is a logical outgrowth of our work. Dr. Glavin does not give us a special advantage. The proximity may be "worrying" to you, but think of any professor who could have been chosen. Most are somehow involved with the University community and these supposed conflicts of interest could be found everywhere. If you're really concrned, cut off the fellowship secretary from all students and bring them in from the outside, because, if you really want to try and get undeserved preferential treatment in the selection process, you could do it anywhere. Finally, it's not in Georgetown's interest to have unqualified students apply for Fellowships. Dr. Glavin knows that and will look for the most qualified candidate if even just to protect our reputation.

Final Comments

Students are not being blocked. If more cared, more would apply. If the University was turning away hundreds students who wanted the services Carroll Fellows provides, then you might have a case, but as it stands, there is barely enough interest to warrant an application at all. That is an indictment of our intellectual life here. We're not as interested as you think.

As to research, yes, this is a column. I am not looking for a full-on investigative report. At the same time, a little actual work rather than simple assumptions and accusations would be welcome.

Lastly, I would like to point out that it is you who suffer from narrow-mindedness. Look at how you immediately assumed I was not writing under my correct name and also how you suggest that somehow being a student in the School of Foreign Service makes one myopic. The insinuations about my name and appreciation for Edward Said are also borderline offensive. Just so we're clear, Evan Regan-Levine is my name -- you can look it up in the directory. I am in the College, not the SFS, and I believe that your comments are disrespectful to a great deal of students in that school. Learn how to state your arguments and avoid the temptation (which you have given me a great deal of) toward ad-hominem attacks.

I am glad this article came to my attention. I lived on the "Scholars floor" in New South my freshman year, but was not a Scholar myself. Aside from this, I had no knowledge of the Scholars program, nor what these students were learning and doing - which is my main concern about the program.

Just as the article suggests, I would have greatly appreciated the opportunity to learn the success-skills the Scholars program purports to teach; and I believe I speak for a majority of the Georgetown community when I say this: Had these opportunities been hand delivered to me (as they ostensibly are, to the Scholars) I would have jumped at the chance to enhance my post-graduate success, too.

Instead of keeping the other students in the dark about all the resources available to the elite students "in the know," Georgetown could do nothing but enhance its own prominence around the world by making such resources readily available to the general student body, thus allowing every student to become the type of professional and successful individual the institution claims to send out into the world.

-CB

Hilarity all around.

First, as regards these magical and wondrous skillz that Fellow's supposedly learn...Look, there are definitely some positives to the Forum and the rest of the CFI experience, but we're not talking about becoming Skull & Bonesman or one of the Illuminati here. The etiquette/interview/networking/etc. knowledge is nice, but it's nothing that you couldn't glean from perusing through any of a million "Career Builder" self-help books - or, for that matter, from attending any of the countless info sessions the Career Center offers.

The research skills part is even simpler. You develop research skills...by doing research! If you do research in your other classes, much of what you're told will be redundant. None of it is earthshattering - you could get all of it, and more, from Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science.

The "redistribution of resources" is the funniest part. I don't know what the CFI budget is, but it can't be more than a couple of students' worth of tuition, or a couple of dollars per every undergraduate. Far far more money is spent on things like athletic facilities (open only to varsity athletes), free meal plans and stipends for RA's (open only to a self-selected group chosen by application), funding for student organizations that also have self-selecting, application-only membership, etc.

I am completely unsympathetic to the "I didn't know about it" line of protest. Well, um, that's your own fault. It was advertised. A lot, in fact (as has been pointed out, it's not like CFI is beating them off with a stick). I saw it advertised, applied, and was accepted. If I could do it, so can anyone else.

This whole business about Glavin is silly as well. The analogy employed above is completely off the mark - the fellowship nomination process is not one of "teams" in which CFI members are competing against Everyone Else. It's an individual process, and is judged as such. Is there a disproportionate number of nominees from CFI? Maybe, I don't know. But if that were the case, it shouldn't surprise anyone. The kinds of people crazy enough to try for one of these fellowships are exactly the type of overachiever/title-and-honor-obsessive/careerist climber/masochist who would sign up for the Prestigious Timewaste that is CFI.

The comparison isn't to a ref and a coach - it's to a coach and a camp counselor. This is an imperfect example, but: JTIII runs camps for school-age players. He teaches the same sorts of skills at his camp that he would like to see from players he would recruit to be on the team. But if you got mad game, it doesn't matter if you didn't go to his camp, if you went to Coach K's camp or none at all. He's gonna take the best players. You can do CFI all you want, but if there's a more qualified non-Fellow, you better believe that John G. is not the kind of guy who's going to risk his reputation just to play favorites with the Fellows.

Finally, there's this simple fact: if CFI were open to everybody, most people would quit soon after starting. Whatever the CFI budget is, Glavin & Co. force every dollar of it up your ass, one nickel at a time. The sheer volume of timeconsuming activities (daily reflection pages!), inane-bordering-on-tragicomic activities, silly readings, high-effort-low-payoff projects, etc. would leave most people heading for the hills in a heartbeat. This program would never have more than a very limited audience.

This piece strikes some nice populist fires, but it is a sentiment that is at odds with the meritocratic ideal at the core of modern academia. Not every program at Georgetown is, or should be, completely open-access. Not everyone can be in the Krogh Seminar - that would defeat the purpose. Not everyone can be a Baker Scholar, or be in the Landegger IBD Program, or be a TA, or an Honors candidate. There's inevitably going to be divisions, with those demonstrating certain qualities, however those might be measured, getting access to addition resources, responsibilities, etc. To argue otherwise may satiate some desire to be the voice of egalitarianism, but it is intellectually unserious.

RE: Evan.

At the outset, I think that you ought to ratchet down your tone a bit since you come off as overly arrogant (unfortunately, this is not terribly dissimilar from the content of your reply), and such arrogance does little to combat the image of CFI students as pompous hacks (regardless of the justification of such an image).

(1) Re: "Simply, not everyone wants them [the specials skills taught to the CFI]."

This claim is an accurate, though insufficient, response. It is accurate because anyone could point to scads of students who have comparatively little interest in the life of the mind or becoming a responsible intellectual. This response, as you note, has some force against the suggestion that CFI-style classes become university-wide core courses (though I'm not sure that anyone actually argued for that particular change). Even with that, it still seems reasonable to suggest that the teaching of certain skills ought to be made available to all university students, even if in somewhat more watered-down forms like limited modules designed to teach particular skills (e.g.: email etiquette). The obvious response to that particular proposal, which does not de-justify it, is that teaching these skills in isolation cannot match the commitment to intellectual depth supposedly required by the CFI. That, one might argue, requires a rigorous course filled with committed students, and this environment can only occur in an elite forum.

Yet even that position, which concedes quite a bit of ground to you, does not justify the limit on CFI-style seminars to just 30 students per year. You argue that the CFI is much like a course given by Madeline Albright: lots of folks want to take it, but there are only a few spots. This comparison is disingenuous. The draw of Albright's course is that she is a former Secretary of State with loads of elite experience and incredible connections. While Glavin is undoubtedly an intelligent professor and is very good at what he does (especially with regard to coaching fellowship candidates), I find it very hard to believe the proposition that he is the only professor capable of teaching these skills effectively on a campus brimming with brilliant professors. If there are more than 30 students capable of learning this material and putting it to good use (and there are) and if there is more than one professor capable of teaching it, then it is rather absurd to limit so tightly. Sure, keep the application and keep some requirements, fine, but it ought to be open to more than 30 students, and the general skills ought to be taught to everyone.

Years ago, when I was first starting at Georgetown, I had no idea that the CFI even existed. Perhaps Gervase Programs has done a much better job of publicizing it since then so that first-year students are aware of their options, but I certainly wasn't. It doesn't mean that I wasn't committed to the "life of the mind" or that I wasn't interested in intellectual achievement, but that, coming from a public high school, I just didn't know where to look or what my options were. If Gervase/CFI has not improved outreach significantly since then, they should now.

(2) Re: "As a Fellow, I can say that I have not received any resources which are that far beyond what I would have had access to in a regular class."

May I ask then: What's the point of the program? If it's redundant with other classes, it is a waste of resources and ought to be eliminated. If it's not redundant, then it has to be distinguished because it teaches special skills. I find it hard to believe that you have received no extra benefits from a rigorous eye on your work, intense criticism, advice regarding fellowships and research opportunities, and so on. The claim that you have received no additional resources appears to me to just be a false line of defense put up to slow attacks on the program.

The one defense of the program's redistribution of wealth that I can see would be that CFI students are more likely to win prestigious fellowships or research awards as a result of having been in the program. This would be like the ticket money and notoriety that Georgetown basketball can bring in when it plays well. But, since you seem to believe that this isn't the case, it's somewhat difficult to see how you can possibly justify it.

(3) Re: "The CFI is not chiefly 'fellowship boot camp.' . . . In fact, having our professor as the Fellowships Director means we are held to a higher standard than anyone else. He knows our work and he knows us. Dr. Glavin never spares necessary criticism and we have a harder time than any working to the level necessary for a fellowship."

Even if it's incorrect to think of the program as a "fellowship boot camp," you seem to miss the point. Of course Glavin is highly critical of your work and of course you have to work hard. But that's precisely the value of the program: receiving that rigorous criticism that improves your work so that you are more competitive than the other candidates. Sure, I suppose that I could run my ass off every day, climb walls, and learn to shoot automatic weapons on my own, but it a rigorous structure would make doing all those things easier (though perhaps not as fun). And that's the point: it provides the structure, the connections, the criticism, and the resources for you to be able to excel in fellowship competitions.

Eamon makes a good point: these skills ought to be available to many more students than just the 30 folks in the program, and most of them ought to be required of every student at Georgetown. Even if it's impossible or ill-advised to universalize the course into the core curriculum, making particular skills available through open modules and making seminar-style courses available to more students is justified. Your response to Eamon is pompous and incoherent, an unfortunate symptom of unjustified intellectual arrogance and entitlement.

Every single point about Glavin on the fellowships is wrong. He does not decide; it is a committee on which he has no vote.

Re: FormerFellow '08

(1) Re: "these magical and wondrous skillz that Fellow's supposedly learn"

First, it appears that grammar isn't among them. Second, you argue that fellows do not receive skills and knowledge that one could not obtain through some self-help books and Career Center information sessions. If this is the case, then, we have to question the point of the program. Perhaps the program could be justified because it teaches students unique research skills? You answer in the negative for this too: you learn to research by researching, some methodology course, or a general introduction to research in the field.

On the whole, then, I have to wonder precisely what the point of the program is when I hear current and former fellows talk. It sounds like nothing more than just a glorified title designed to pad your resume. One might even go so far as to claim that CFI students are lazier than the rest: rather than researching on their own, rather than going to career center talks, rather than straight-up bootstrapping it, they decide to take a seminar class that condenses those skills instead of a real course where they would have to learn new material in addition to figuring out all this stuff on their own.

But doing that seems to go too far. As I'm familiar with folks who have worked with Glavin on fellowships, I think you are correct that lots of "people would quit soon after starting." He requires a lot of work because he is very critical of your work. Responding to that criticism and doing all of the difficult (even if not rewarding) exercises markedly improve your ability to compete for fellowships. While I think you are right that the program as such has a limited appeal, I think it is inaccurate to suggest that not more than 30 students every year are capable of doing it, and they would were they to be aware of it or if it were available to more than the 30 people involved. Even so, many of the skills that students learn at part of the program ought to be taught to all Georgetown students.

(2) Re: "The 'redistribution of resources' is the funniest part."

Why? I think it can be demonstrated that varsity athletes provide value to the campus, even if such value is in the form of alumni who would not donate without a sports program (aside from ticket sales, merchandise or more general prestige). RAs certainly provide a necessary service and allowing them some modest benefits costs less than paying outside employees to come in and live with students, and I don't know what "application-only" student groups you are referring to. The fact is that many students pay the same as you did, and they received fewer services that should be provided, in at least some limited form, to all students. Why should some mediocre students get special help to become excellent while others don't? Why not just spend the money on those already with "mad game"? Claiming that this argument is on face ridiculous is not a valid defense.

(3) Re: "I am completely unsympathetic to the 'I didn't know about it' line of protest. Well, um, that's your own fault. It was advertised."

Even if it was advertised, the fact that many people claim not to know about it means that it wasn't advertised well enough. The lack of applications seem to be indicative of a problem with Gervase, not just with students. If I had been provided a 30-second description of it at one of the orientation events my first year on campus, I would have applied, but, unfortunately, it was not announced in any capacity whatsoever. Even if there are flyers (among the hundreds that we see daily) or emails (among the boatloads that we regularly get), they aren't enough. All incoming students should be aware of their options for these programs and for fellowships.

(4) Re: "Is there a disproportionate number of [fellowship] nominees from CFI? Maybe, I don't know."

If we were to take the percentage of people who apply for fellowships from the CFI and then from the rest of the student population, I'm sure that the CFI percentage would be much, much higher (even if only 5 of the 30 applied, that's a just a little under 17% which, put to the general student population, would be a few hundred). While it might be the case that those people who in the CFI are more likely to be the types to apply, there are certainly those outside of the CFI who have similar intellectual credentials and who might have benefited from the process. The thing is that you have to be in-the-know for all of this, and, after a year or two, sometimes it can be too late.

Your defense is this: "You can do CFI all you want, but if there's a more qualified non-Fellow, you better believe that John G. is not the kind of guy who's going to risk his reputation just to play favorites with the Fellows." That's fair enough, since there are plenty of people with better qualifications for fellowships than CFI students, but the CFI process gives middling students the criticism and guidance necessary to improve themselves to the point where they can compete with folks who have uncoached "mad game." The fact of the matter is that coaching is important, and the CFI provides an opportunity that more students should have.

(5) Re: "This piece strikes some nice populist fires, but it is a sentiment that is at odds with the meritocratic ideal at the core of modern academia."

I hate to burst your bubble, but academia isn't a pure meritocracy. Go talk to some extremely intelligent and qualified candidates about that on the job market this year. Academia is a combination of merit and connections, and it appears that CFI is more the latter than the former.

That said, my purpose isn't to condemn the CFI roundly as a waste of time (even if some of the contradictory defenses of it might indicate that) or to say that it should be universalized. My point is to say that these skills should be taught to more students. Better publicity of the program, more seminar-style programs teaching similar skills, open modules on select skills for those not in seminars, and providing all students the information that they need to be successful in fellowship applications would be a good start.

I should apologize for the ad hominem, "Evan Regan-Levine." You bit the bait, but lashed a a bit too wildly, and are caught in your own wake.

I second "RightOnEamon" in saying that you fail to see the point of the article, and the fundamental problem in the structure and administration of the CFI.

The point here is that the University should explain:
(1) Why Georgetown feels the CFI is necessary
(2) Why Georgetown has decided that some information is worth teaching some students while other students are left in the dark
(3) Why the appointment of Glavin as both head of the CFI and the fellowship secretary is a fair policy decision.

The CFI does not serve the university if these questions cannot be satisfactorily explained.

I agree with you that a wider distribution of the skills CFI teaches would be beneficial for students, but I must disagree with the Carroll Fellows Program being "insider information" given to hand-picked Freshmen.

In fact, the CFI wants as many people to apply as possible. More applications mean a greater general interest level in the skills and (as Evan has pointed out) greater academic mindset it teaches. Dr. Glavin first started the program because he thought valuable ideals and skills students needed to succeed were vanishing from the curriculum--he hoped to preserve these tools for students who wanted them. If it weren't for the CFI we would have no program offering the skills and values the Fellowship teaches. And as the CFI is run today, I don't see why it couldn't easily be expanded to include more students; it is a "handpicked" group of 30 students a year because scarcely more than 30 students apply per year.

And this program is by no means hidden, insider information. As a transfer student, I would argue that coming into this semester, no one at Georgetown could be more out of the loop than I was--I hadn't taken a day of class here, or interacted with any Georgetown students. Yet the CFI made a point of contacting all the transfers, explaining the program, and encouraging us to apply. Such a gesture toward a group that is often overlooked (email listserve: there IS a difference between first-year students and freshmen), demonstrates the CFI's commitment to giving all students the opportunity to participate in the program.

Finally, Dr. Glavin is repeatedly encouraging us Fellows to have a greater presence on campus--mandatory service projects focused on giving back to the campus community are traditionally requirements of the Forum. Carroll Fellows aren't recluse elitists. We want to improve the ENTIRE Georgetown community, create greater knowledge of the program, and encourage more people to be part of it.

Re: S-V

I do not think the program is as well publicized as those in it would like to believe. Anecdotes about "Oh, I wish I knew!" confirm this partially, but I think the very low application rate to the program is even more telling. In a school were the underclass men and women are extremely competitive (especially during the first year), can we really believe that only 30 or so people would even venture to apply for a program that helps them to succeed? Since I was not a transfer student, I have no idea whether or not they got information about it. If so, bravo to Gervase Programs. But during my introduction and orientation to Georgetown's SFS, I certainly wasn't informed of it or other academic opportunities. Hell, I don't think they mentioned even the most basic of awards, distinctions, fellowships, or whatever to our incoming class. I found out about most of that after my second year here from a friend. Sure, I can be faulted for not looking into it, but the university has a responsibility to provide students paying buckets of tuition with the most basic of information that can help them.

The first step to solving the problem could occur during new student orientation. There should be a meeting for each school regarding the following: academic honors (including cum laude distinctions and thesis awards), research opportunities (GUROP, etc.), fellowship opportunities (you have to do this to be competitive for a Rhodes/etc, talk to these people if you want more info, etc.), honor societies (Phi Beta Kappa, etc.), and different fellows and scholars programs (Carroll, Krogh, etc). As it stands, I can't remember any of this being included in my orientation, and, as an overachieving nerd, I certainly would have paid attention. But, of course, if more people couldn't get access to those skills, it wouldn't matter much. That's why expanding it and making sure that tons of people have the ability to learn these things would be useful.

Um, Eamon, I was clearly joking with the "skillz" and "Fellow's" as a play on the idea that we're all some sort of specially super-trained geniuses. Come on, now.

Anyway, your analysis suffers from the fact that you clearly don't really know much of what actually goes on in the program. The point is not to teach people research skills or how to dress up for an interview. Actually, I'm not really sure that CFI knows what its mission is, but its definitely not those things. There's an understanding that it's about taking high-achieving students (and not the mediocraties that you for some unknown reason accuse us of being) and exposing them to a variety of practices and methods that would be useful for those pursuing future intellectual development and study. Again, that's very broad, and creating a coherent definition is one of CFI's challenges, but the goal is definitely not what you claim it is.

As for Glavin and preparing for fellowships, this is again a case of lack of knowledge about the program. Participating in the Forum and CFI in general is not going to prepare you to pursue a fellowship. That's not the purpose of the program, and it won't give you that much of a leg up. If you're serious about applying for a fellowship, then Glavin will work with you one-on-one in his role as Fellowship Secretary and will put you through your paces. Again, CFI is not some sort of "fellowship boot camp." Certainly there's plenty to be learned in CFI that could be useful to someone applying for a fellowship, but A) The number of CFI participants applying to fellowships is fairly small and B) You would get all of that, and more, directly once you started the fellowship process.

Redistribution of wealth: Once again, lack of knowledge. Fellows are required to complete a project of benefit to the university, and the work they do on Mentis Vita provides the opportunity for any student to have their undergraduate research published. Application-only groups would include performing arts groups with limited membership, as well as club sports teams.

You have a hilarious line: "Why should some mediocre students get special help to become excellent while others don't?" Aside from the needless and incomprehensible slander of Fellows as mediocre...what??? By this token, there should be no controlled-access programs. No Krogh Seminar, no Baker Scholars, no Landegger IBD, no honors candidates, no honor societies. After all, why should the people selected for membership in those programs have access to resources that others don't? Quelle injustice grave!

On advertising: look, we're big boys and girls now, we can't expect to have everything fed to us from mama bird's beak. If you want to know about undergraduate research... go to the GU homepage and type in "undergraduate research" - GUROP will be right there at the top. If you're interested in a program like CFI and somehow missed the various announcements and advertisements, then ask your dean, ask a professor. It is unreasonable to believe that the university has an obligation to make sure that every program and option on campus has universal name recognition among all students. CFI does their part (I'm sure they could do more, but, again, limited budget).

More funniness: "The CFI process gives middling students the criticism and guidance necessary to improve themselves to the point where they can compete with folks who have uncoached "mad game." The fact of the matter is that coaching is important, and the CFI provides an opportunity that more students should have."

Again, you go off insulting Fellows as 'middling students.' Let me assure you that this is not the case. And, again, CFI is not some sort of Kaplan Prep course for applying for fellowships. In any case, it is an opportunity that students do have. They just choose not to apply for it.

On meritocracy: nowhere did I claim that academia is a meritocracy, merely that academia is built in a meritocratic ideal and it is anti-intellectual (not to mention wasteful) to argue that everyone should receive the same training in the name of fairness. With limited resources, you have to spend them in the most effective way possible. The current conceptualization of how to do this is to use it on those who have demonstrated both interest (by applying) and acumen (by having an application worthy of acceptance). Everyone has the opportunity to apply. Those not selected can obtain the skills you named from any number of other available sources on campus.

If there really was such a huge underlying demand for this program, don't you think there would be more applications? More outrage over the program's small size? Most Georgetown students have no interest in taking upon even more academic work that yields little tangible (read: resume-building) benefit. Until such time as there is actually evidence that such sentiment exists in any kind of quantity, accounts like this one will remain simply the grumblings of a disgruntled few who happened to miss the boat or who can't stand the thought of there being an honor or award out there that they didn't get. The comments along the lines of "Georgetown should tell everyone about all the awards they can get" is just proof of this.

I'm going to take the liberty of clarifying FormerFellow08's comment based on some of the reactions to it.

A lot of subsequent commenters have asked what the point of CFI is if it doesn't teach that much and isn't that special. Let me tell you, a lot of Fellows ask that very same question. (Case in point: http://www.thehoya.com/node/14330 )

It may be changing nowadays (the program changes every six months, it seems like), but a lot of people in my day joined sort of on autopilot when they were freshmen or sophomores because it was advertised in class, and then kept going through it because it was actually easier to stay in it than to drop out.

Sure, it had its advantages. I met a lot of very intelligent people through CFI, just as I met them through my other extracurriculars. It was yet another way of meeting a group of people I might otherwise never have known existed. Plus, Glavin is good for hilarious stories, and I did pick up a few things in the forum.

But I think what's got most current-and-former fellows chuckling is the amount of energy (and, it seems, envy) coming to the surface over a program that, to be honest, isn't that great or prestigious or useful.

There are many other programs more worthy of your envy. Baker Scholars is one, they get about ten million times what anyone at CFI gets. GUSA's Alumni Board of Governors appointments are another. How about the Corp? That's supposedly representing all of our students, and yet it's a very cultish and clique-y organization. Patrick Healy Fellows? Talk about unfair.

The truth is that CFI isn't great enough to be worth all this drama. If you were in it, you'd understand why this looks so funny from the inside.

RE: "RightonEamon"

"The first step to solving the problem could occur during new student orientation. There should be a meeting for each school... I certainly would have paid attention. But, of course, if more people couldn't get access to those skills, it wouldn't matter much. That's why expanding it and making sure that tons of people have the ability to learn these things would be useful."

Ah, then here's where you've hit a nail on the head. Your disapproval should not be directed towards Gervase or the Carroll Fellows, but towards the University, all the schools, for making Fellowships and the other academic opportunities you have listed so hard to attain.

On advertising the CFI specifically:
This year the CFI saw a bit over 60 applicants, a larger number than most years. The CFI advertised all over campus with bright yellow flyers and held many informational sessions. Sadly, you can only apply to the Carroll Fellows as a freshman or incoming transfer student. Please know that the CFI is trying to correct the "I didn't know about it" scenarios. However, with more applicants, the size of the program increased as well. I believe they accepted 37 students this year.

Those of you asking for the program's size to be increased: what would be your target number? Having been in the Forum, I think its usefulness would be completely lost in a large lecture setting. It is an important part of the CFI that everyone knows everyone's name - which is unlikely in a large lecture hall of even 60 people.

Also, what seems to be missing from this discussion is that there is in fact a "Fellowship Workshop." The application to this is wholly separate from the Carroll Fellows and and e-mail was sent to all sophomores, juniors, and seniors with a "high enough GPA." True, this workshop is led by Dr. Glavin but it is completely different in spirit and purpose than the Carroll Fellows. The CFI focuses on the life of the mind, on building excellence and high standards (whether it does its job is another point entirely). The Fellowship Workshop takes students who may be good candidates for the biggies - Rhodes, Marshall, Mitchell, etc. - and trains them in writing personal statements and answering interviews.

The kicker? Plenty of Carroll Fellows apply to the Fellowship workshop and don't get in. Why? Because the Carroll Fellows is NOT a training ground for Fellowships, and Dr. Glavin does not play favorites in such a manner.

Just a quick clarification for the first commenter, Evan. This columnist is not on the editorial board; this is not an editorial. He did not work for The Hoya when it wrote a somewhat negative editorial about CFI in the fall of 2007.

Even so, the Hoya should pay more attention to the editorials it publishes and establish a stricter guideline for research. This opinion piece, as well as the Econ TA article this year, seem to pull statements out of thin air. As a reputable newspaper, the Hoya should place more care into everything it publishes, including the pieces of those who do not work for the newspaper.

"Even so, the Hoya should pay more attention to the editorials it publishes and establish a stricter guideline for research. This opinion piece, as well as the Econ TA article this year, seem to pull statements out of thin air. As a reputable newspaper, the Hoya should place more care into everything it publishes, including the pieces of those who do not work for the newspaper."

(1) An editorial is a piece written by an editor or an editorial board. The publication stands behind it and is oblidged to check its facts and assumtions.

(2) An opinion piece is not written by an editor/board. The paper does not stand behind any statement and any mischaracterizations are attributed only to the author. The paper is providing a forum, and is not in any way oblidged to check the facts or assumtions by the author. While the paper reserves the right to deny access to their forum, they do not endorse the author.

(3) An article is a statement of facts and facts about other peoples statements (which may be opinions). The paper is oblidged to check these carefully.

The above article was an opinion piece. You got a problem, blame it on the author, not the paper.

Cool?

Cool.

I'm not quite sure how 'the program is secretly worthless' - essentially echoed in many of these response - functions coherently as a defense of the program.

I hope you weren't calling me hopeless. You might want to invest in spell check, however.

Thank you for clarifying the types of works expressing opinion within a publication. A point, however: this author has a column. I assume this means his "opinion pieces" are repeatedly featured in the Hoya. Repeat publishing seems like a sort of endorsement, in a way. I don't know if the writer has written many columns without research, but this one is very incomplete. I should think that the "Newspaper of Repute" would care about promoting a responsible forum for students to express their opinions. Or does the Hoya publish anything typed up willy-nilly at 3 o'clock in the morning that has a bone to pick with someone but little evidence behind it? There's a difference between "standing behind" an opinion and publishing something that's just plain uninformed.

Options to consider: Maybe the Hoya should take some responsibility for even the facts behind "opinion pieces." That would promote responsibility, research, unbiasedness, and good journalism for anyone who wanted the honor of having something published in the Hoya. Or maybe the Hoya should just put a giant disclaimer at the top of every work that is not written by a staff member.

The article raises serious questions. It loses a lot of credibility though because facts were not double-checked.

what facts were not double-checked?

what facts were not double-checked?

Re: Former Fellow '08

(1) I'm not Eamon, though I think the point he makes is fair.

(2) I think the comment that you aren't "really sure that CFI knows what its mission is" ought to be troubling to anyone evaluating the merit of the program. Former fellows have said that the forum does not provide fellows with resources outside of that which one could find in a regular class, the career center, or some brief reading on research methodology. What is the purpose of the CFI then? Why should it exist apart from a resume-padding entity? Reading these responses, I don't think I could come up with a good answer to that except that it's a place for "high-achieving students" to hang out, chat, and feel all smart and elite. The remaining justification is that fellows must contribute to something to campus, which they ought to be doing anyway if they are interested in the life of the mind. This is not to say that there isn't a justification for the program, just that its defenders here have not adequately made a case for it.

(3) On fellowship preparation: I understand that the CFI won't prepare you fully to directly apply for a fellowship without going through the admittedly rigorous fellowship process with Glavin. My point is that such a forum in which one receives substantial feedback and criticism of one's work as well as more academic guidance gives fellows a distinct edge in the subsequent fellowship process than non-fellows. I didn't claim that CFI was exclusively a "fellowship boot camp." Both fellows and non-fellows have questioned the relationship between the initiative and the fellowship training program, and I don't think restating those concerns is unjustified.

(4) On my comment regarding mediocrity and the CFI. This was simply a response to the fact that the fellows program is not very competitive by the admission of the current and former fellows posting here. If the acceptance rate in a year with an above average application rate is 50%, then I have to question just how "high-achieving" fellows are, which is not to say that some are not intelligent or academically inclined.

(5) Re: "By this token, there should be no controlled-access programs." I never made this argument and this is a false reductio ad absurdum. The question I raised was this: if the fellows program is based more on being in-the-know than on competition (again, 50% acceptance rate in a tough year) and if there are non-fellows who have "mad game," then why not transfer the expenditure of resources to more highly achieving students? As you mentioned, in an environment with limited resources, the university ought to focus them on those with the most promise. Such a move would even more tightly control access to these benefits rather than broadening them, and I wasn't suggesting that it should actually happen -- just questioning what I saw as problematic logic in the respondents' defense of the program as it is.

(6) Re: "On advertising: look, we're big boys and girls now, we can't expect to have everything fed to us from mama bird's beak. . . . It is unreasonable to believe that the university has an obligation to make sure that every program and option on campus has universal name recognition among all students."

I didn't claim that *everything* ought to be spoon-fed to students. That's a straw-person argument. My argument is that (1) the skills that are taught in the CFI ought to be more widely disseminated throughout campus and some perhaps even required of students prior to graduation (assuming that the CFI is effective, which is now questionable in my mind); that (2) it would be beneficial to open up more seminars that teach similar skills to that of the CFI (even if not under the name of the CFI); that (3) the university should do a better job publicizing academic honors, fellowships, research opportunities, and so on.

This attitude is particularly troubling in light of the 2007 Intellectual Life Report. If the university is concerned with improving intellectual achievement and community among its undergraduates, it should do everything in its power to promote that achievement, including better publicity for existing programs and opportunities. Poor publication and limiting it to those in-the-know isn't good enough. There just isn't a solid justification for the university to not publicize these opportunities at every opportunity if they are as valuable as you claim they are. I think you implicitly believe that there is some elite cadre of smart students here who achieve and the rest are just a bunch of dullards who are too slow to apply to these programs or win awards, though you'll certainly disavow any such inclinations explicitly.

(7) Re: "In any case, it is an opportunity that students do have. They just choose not to apply for it."

This is where the major dispute is. Fellows view the lack of applications as a decision on the part of the student population not to apply, while many who are not fellows and learn about it later are surprised to learn that it even exists. Maybe fellows cling to the view that others choose not to apply because it gives them an inflated sense of achievement and allows them to pat themselves on the back for bootstrappin' it up to the elite. Even so, let's say that applications ballooned to a few hundred because of good publicity and high student desire. Even then, only 30 would be accepted. Why should only 30 students be taught these skills? Why shouldn't there be similar seminars open to more students? Why shouldn't there be modules teaching specific skills? There has not been any argument against this.

(8) Re: "With limited resources, you have to spend them in the most effective way possible."

I don't find this argument convincing. You noted that the CFI cannot cost more than a few dollars per student. Others have said that it takes up no more resources than a regular class. Either the CFI consumes so many resources that it must be tightly limited (in which case we have to wonder why it exists if it provides so few benefits) or it doesn't take up that many resources and similar seminars should be opened to more students. If it is redundant with skills that can be taught through other sources on campus ("Those not selected can obtain the skills you named from any number of other available sources on campus"), then why should the program exist if it is so resource heavy?

(9) Re: "If there really was such a huge underlying demand for this program, don't you think there would be more applications? More outrage over the program's small size?"

Don't you think it's a bit ironic that you are making this comment in an editorial that attacks the limiting of the teaching of the program's content to the program itself?

(10) Re: "Until such time as there is actually evidence that such sentiment exists in any kind of quantity, accounts like this one will remain simply the grumblings of a disgruntled few who happened to miss the boat or who can't stand the thought of there being an honor or award out there that they didn't get. The comments along the lines of "Georgetown should tell everyone about all the awards they can get" is just proof of this."

First, as mentioned, one of the reasons that such a sentiment might not exist could be the result of inadequate publication of academic and research opportunities for students. The argument here is that more students should be made aware of these from day one and that doing so would foster higher demand in similar programs, in which case the skills taught in the CFI should be taught more widely (even if not in the CFI itself). There is simply no reason why any incoming student should not be aware of research opportunities, fellowships, honors, and awards. None. I challenge you to give me a good reason.

Second, your speculation as to the reasons for peoples' discontent with the status quo on this matter is problematic. You assert that people are angry because they either "missed by boat" (in which case they are culpable according to you) or that there was "an honor or award out there that they didn't get." Well, it's a bit harder to fault people for missing the boat when very few knew its schedule or that it even existed... Simply put, more should know about the wondrous voyage of research and intellectual life, and restricting it to those just in-the-know isn't good enough at an elite university. But, not content with faulting people for missing a secretive boat, you then assert that those of us being critical here are just jealous for not being as smart as the CFI folks or not getting certain awards. I have no desire to brag, but I did fine with research grants, awards, and honors; I'm not basing any of my criticisms out of jealousy, just a feeling that the university is not educating its students, especially when a few simple fixes might change a lot. I'm simply critical of a university not doing more to stimulate all students rather than those who just happened to find out about a program.

Provide me one good argument why the university should not:
(1) Publicize academic opportunities and honors more than it does now;
(2) Stimulate demand for such opportunities;
(3) Teach relevant and helpful skills to all willing students in the form of (a) skills modules and (b) seminar courses.

Your arguments here do not address the fundamental claims that I have made, even if you take issue with some rather minor points.

-----

Re: Educated Georgetown Student

Re: "Ah, then here's where you've hit a nail on the head. Your disapproval should not be directed towards Gervase or the Carroll Fellows, but towards the University, all the schools, for making Fellowships and the other academic opportunities you have listed so hard to attain."

I am critical of the university for limiting the amount of students taught those skills and for not better publicizing opportunities. This is not incompatible with critically evaluating defenses of the program. If CFI is worthless, it should be replaced with something better. If it's worthwhile, the skills that it teaches ought to be taught to more students through similar seminars and open modules.

I took the CFI my freshman year -- I am a senior now -- and it was a waste of my time. I suspect that most people would find it an enormous exercise in silliness. The program is by and large a good one, but only for the right people.

Some people found it very rewarding and got a lot out of it, but 99% of the students here would balk at the amount of labor-intensive, high-effort and low-reward work we were expected to produce on a weekly basis. My friends and I who all dropped the course late in the spring still joke about how worthless all the projects were and how professor Glavin spent so much time ridiculing us and our work.

So, sure, the university could do more to promote it, but more uninterested students (like me) would be a big drag on the program and the students who sign up and then quit.

You want research and experience, sign on with a professor and do research, publish something and go to a conference. Or go to the Career Center for one of their workshops. But you probably do not want to do the CFI, as cool as the description and skills they advertise sound.

Charity,

You miss the central point: CFIers aren't TRYING to defend the program, they're calling it worthless and trying to undermine the histrionics whipped up by this article.

That's what I meant, anyway (writing under AlsoFormerFellow). My point was that the program wasn't that great, so there's no reason to claim that it is an elitist scam withholding some glorious secret knowledge like a Hilltop version of the Priory of Sion. I wasn't trying to defend the program, but rather undermine the central argument of this needlessly inflammatory piece, that CFI is hoarding some incredibly useful knowledge and denying vital skills to a wider community desperately trying to get Dr. Glavin to teach it the proper etiquette of a handshake.