Archive for Lafayette Sports Fan Forum This forum is not affiliated in any way with Lafayette College, Lafayette College Athletics, The Maroon Club or any other official organization. Please be respectful of other posters as well as the athletes, coaches and administrators.
 


       Lafayette Sports Fan Forum Forum Index -> Whatever else
Pard4Life

Byerly Letter

Interesting that she dedicates a paragraph to key questions that Lafalum has been asking around here for a few years re school size and our relevance, capacity to offer programs that students expect etc. Of course getting a desirable outcome is another thing, but even asking the questions is a major start.  

I also like that IDEAL program.
Lafalum

Re: Byerly Letter

Pard4Life wrote:
Interesting that she dedicates a paragraph to key questions that Lafalum has been asking around here for a few years re school size and our relevance, capacity to offer programs that students expect etc. Of course getting a desirable outcome is another thing, but even asking the questions is a major start.  

I also like that IDEAL program.


where was the letter?? could you post a link??
Pard4Life

Re: Byerly Letter

Lafalum wrote:
Pard4Life wrote:
Interesting that she dedicates a paragraph to key questions that Lafalum has been asking around here for a few years re school size and our relevance, capacity to offer programs that students expect etc. Of course getting a desirable outcome is another thing, but even asking the questions is a major start.  

I also like that IDEAL program.


where was the letter?? could you post a link??


I got it in the mail yesterday. "Meassgae from the President." Came in large envelope but it's a four page "bulletin." Maybe it's on her website too.
SixtyEighter

The letter definitely sounds a death knell for fraternities with its reference to all loving the Lafayette of the past and educating the students of the future through the college's ability to "transform itself". That seems to be code to me for getting rid of greek life altogether.The letter reminds me of the Honeymooner's episode about the chef of the future.
ed65

Re: Byerly Letter

Pard4Life wrote:
Interesting that she dedicates a paragraph to key questions that Lafalum has been asking around here for a few years re school size and our relevance, capacity to offer programs that students expect etc. Of course getting a desirable outcome is another thing, but even asking the questions is a major start.  

I also like that IDEAL program.


With all due respect to Lafalum, he has plenty of company on the school size issue.  Not to mention the relevance of LC as "small liberal arts" college.
ed65

SixtyEighter wrote:
The letter definitely sounds a death knell for fraternities with its reference to all loving the Lafayette of the past and educating the students of the future through the college's ability to "transform itself". That seems to be code to me for getting rid of greek life altogether.The letter reminds me of the Honeymooner's episode about the chef of the future.


I guess we will find out what "transform itself" means.  Alison seems to be playing it close to the vest at this point.  However, she will have to get the BoT to approve it and God only knows what they will do.
Lafalum

I finally got the letter. I am not upset at the letter. I agree the language could have several meanings, I thought she was opening the door to getting larger which has its resisters."Pointed questions are being raised in  the media and elsewhere about the capacity of of a college of our size and type to offer the wide range of programs and disciplines that students have come to expect."  

In the previous paragraph she writes describing one of the committees, " to examine the overall size of the student body and how Lafayette's programs and structures relate to its business model," All well said, but the question is of course how well executed eventually.

As to the Greek system its not a bad thing that change within the Greek system conform to the college's culture and not interfere with educational progress. Again, will the college ( the BOT, Administration, Faculty) support that system and help it succeed? Its all in the execution.
ed65

Well said, Lafalum.  It is all about execution once the strategy is articulated.

The issue of size will be on the agenda for any opportunity to speak with Byerly.  

Only troglodytes (apologies to Jonathan Swift) think the "small liberal arts college" model resonates with many high school students and their parents in this day and age.  LC used to advertise itself as a small college with big college resources (or some such tag line).  I'm not sure we still do this, and for good reason.  Besides, if we moved to say 3,000 students (just to pick a number), we would still be a small college.
Kpard

As I read the president's email this AM, I was hit over the head with something that was not brought up anywhere. Everyone is basking in the glow of the 150th victory, The Event, the move to NYC, Yankee Stadium, all the promotion, all the hype, all the alumni events, all the school spirit, all the media attention, Good Morning America, ESPN, CBS Sports, the ringing of the bell at Wall Street, the lighting of the empire state building, etc, etc, etc.........

All of this, all of this, all of this....

GASP!

because of an................. ATHLETIC EVENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone (Admin., Faculty, Staff, BOT, whoever) who does not think a strong athletic program is not vital to an institution who wants to be recognized nationally, HELLO!?

AND.....the way that the athletic programs bring attention to the college is to win championships and get media recognition for that and participating in NCAA playoffs and tournaments.
Lafalum

Kpard wrote:
As I read the president's email this AM, I was hit over the head with something that was not brought up anywhere. Everyone is basking in the glow of the 150th victory, The Event, the move to NYC, Yankee Stadium, all the promotion, all the hype, all the alumni events, all the school spirit, all the media attention, Good Morning America, ESPN, CBS Sports, the ringing of the bell at Wall Street, the lighting of the empire state building, etc, etc, etc.........

All of this, all of this, all of this....

GASP!

because of an................. ATHLETIC EVENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone (Admin., Faculty, Staff, BOT, whoever) who does not think a strong athletic program is not vital to an institution who wants to be recognized nationally, HELLO!?

AND.....the way that the athletic programs bring attention to the college is to win championships and get media recognition for that and participating in NCAA playoffs and tournaments.

duh ..it's obvious to all but those who don't want to see or hear!!
65Pard

How much do most observers know about Gonzaga? Penn State? Alabama?

The face of a college to most is the face of their best athletic team.
flyfisher

65Pard wrote:
How much do most observers know about Gonzaga? Penn State? Alabama?

The face of a college to most is the face of their best athletic team.


Especially to alumni.

To an earlier comment about school size, parents and kids do like smaller environments but what is more important is resources available and opportunities. We are so small that we are on that cusp of not being able to provide those opportunities and resources. We're not the only school fighting this.
carney2

President Byerly has said that she is for a modest (my term) increase in enrollment.  My fear is that we will do it on the cheap.  It costs significantly less to increase the number of philosophy majors as opposed to chemical engineering majors.  The sciences could be squeezed even more.
ed65

carney2 wrote:
President Byerly has said that she is for a modest (my term) increase in enrollment.  My fear is that we will do it on the cheap.  It costs significantly less to increase the number of philosophy majors as opposed to chemical engineering majors.  The sciences could be squeezed even more.


While carney might be correct about this, it is premature to think increasing philosophy majors is the plan.  Byerly has consistently talked up the value of the engineering program so carney's comment will be a good indication of the seriousness of her commitment to engineering.  And, of course, the board and the faculty will opine on this (and already have I'm sure) so who knows what the result will be.
Lafalum

History, english, philosophy majors and even economics majors have alway paid for the sciences since all they need is four walls and some desks. Any population increase in the those majors  at the present tuition adds to the resources available to the sciences.
BillS

ed65 wrote:
carney2 wrote:
President Byerly has said that she is for a modest (my term) increase in enrollment.  My fear is that we will do it on the cheap.  It costs significantly less to increase the number of philosophy majors as opposed to chemical engineering majors.  The sciences could be squeezed even more.


While carney might be correct about this, it is premature to think increasing philosophy majors is the plan.  Byerly has consistently talked up the value of the engineering program so carney's comment will be a good indication of the seriousness of her commitment to engineering.  And, of course, the board and the faculty will opine on this (and already have I'm sure) so who knows what the result will be.
What is modest 3000 ,3500 ? There has to be a realistic goal in place and a commitment to achieve that goal.My opinion is a goal of 3500 is doable in a 10 year time frame, very interested in the opinions of others.
BPard

Lafalum wrote:
History, english, philosophy majors and even economics majors have alway paid for the sciences since all they need is four walls and some desks. Any population increase in the those majors  at the present tuition adds to the resources available to the sciences.

Isn't labor still the largest cost driver? If the student population increases in those departments and all new faculty lines are placed in those departments (growing student body while also reducing our student/faculty ratio takes hiring A LOT of faculty), that student growth does not necessarily lead more resources to the sciences.

We are currently over 10:1 (10.73 if you compare full time faculty to full time students). Do we really want to be at 10:1? Our peers (except Lehigh) are all lower. To get to 9:1 at the current student headcount, we need 46 more faculty. Granted, that's to down to 9.0 which we don't need to reach for rankings.

http://finadmin.lafayette.edu/fil...e-College-Operating-Data_2013.pdf

The $40M in the campaign for faculty positions won't get us to 9:0 even at the current size of the College, let alone if we grow.

http://liveconnected.lafayette.ed...ovation-in-teaching-and-learning/

World class faculty and small class sizes are expensive! Athletics may get cheaper because they're a fixed cost compared to size of the student body, but the instruction costs aren't fixed if you want a good ratio and quality of faculty.

IANAE
BPard

BillS wrote:
What is modest 3000 ,3500 ? There has to be a realistic goal in place and a commitment to achieve that goal.My opinion is a goal of 3500 is doable in a 10 year time frame, very interested in the opinions of others.
Growing to 3000 would require hiring a minimum of 63 more full time faculty members to stay at 10:1. I don't see that kind of growth in faculty hiring happening in five years or less.
Lafalum

BPard wrote:
BillS wrote:
What is modest 3000 ,3500 ? There has to be a realistic goal in place and a commitment to achieve that goal.My opinion is a goal of 3500 is doable in a 10 year time frame, very interested in the opinions of others.
Growing to 3000 would require hiring a minimum of 63 more full time faculty members to stay at 10:1. I don't see that kind of growth in faculty hiring happening in five years or less.


Tuition is 45k. 45k at a 10 to 1 ratio is 450,O00 in revenue. A new professor is about 85k including benefits, let"s say 100k..that leaves 350k in additional revenue. The limiting factor is classroom space of which we now have a surplus. New dorms are easily financed by bond issues secured by room revenues. Getting the 2700-2800 using using off campus housing is doable and then build to cover needed housing. There are now two empty frat houses as well. Given a successful campaign and growth in the endowment 3000 plus is very doable. I refer to the famous Dehne report that puts the sweet spot in size to 3-5k which puts us in play. That would enhance admissions taking us out of the 5% of high school graduates who want to go to "smaller" schools. It would also allow us to diversify and enhance our curriculum. The population of some of our departments are not sustainable or attractive.
BPard

Lafalum wrote:
Tuition is 45k. 45k at a 10 to 1 ratio is 450,O00 in revenue. A new professor is about 85k including benefits, let"s say 100k..that leaves 350k in additional revenue. The limiting factor is classroom space of which we now have a surplus. New dorms are easily financed by bond issues secured by room revenues. Getting the 2700-2800 using using off campus housing is doable and then build to cover needed housing. There are now two empty frat houses as well. Given a successful campaign and growth in the endowment 3000 plus is very doable. I refer to the famous Dehne report that puts the sweet spot in size to 3-5k which puts us in play. That would enhance admissions taking us out of the 5% of high school graduates who want to go to "smaller" schools. It would also allow us to diversify and enhance our curriculum. The population of some of our departments are not sustainable or attractive.
Doesn't that revenue model assume we are only admitting full pay students when we grow instead of keeping our profile of offering a discount (e.g., financial aid) to 60% of students?

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of growing the student body to 3,000 but if we're going to maintain, let alone improve, the quality of education then it will require a different investment mix than the one announced in the Live Connected Lead Change campaign.

Unless there's a clear goal to grow the size of the College announced in the campaign that I missed, I'm doubtful we'll get anywhere close to 3,000 students in 5 years.
Lafalum

BPard wrote:
Lafalum wrote:
Tuition is 45k. 45k at a 10 to 1 ratio is 450,O00 in revenue. A new professor is about 85k including benefits, let"s say 100k..that leaves 350k in additional revenue. The limiting factor is classroom space of which we now have a surplus. New dorms are easily financed by bond issues secured by room revenues. Getting the 2700-2800 using using off campus housing is doable and then build to cover needed housing. There are now two empty frat houses as well. Given a successful campaign and growth in the endowment 3000 plus is very doable. I refer to the famous Dehne report that puts the sweet spot in size to 3-5k which puts us in play. That would enhance admissions taking us out of the 5% of high school graduates who want to go to "smaller" schools. It would also allow us to diversify and enhance our curriculum. The population of some of our departments are not sustainable or attractive.
Doesn't that revenue model assume we are only admitting full pay students when we grow instead of keeping our profile of offering a discount (e.g., financial aid) to 60% of students?

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of growing the student body to 3,000 but if we're going to maintain, let alone improve, the quality of education then it will require a different investment mix than the one announced in the Live Connected Lead Change campaign.

Unless there's a clear goal to grow the size of the College announced in the campaign that I missed, I'm doubtful we'll get anywhere close to 3,000 students in 5 years.


Even with financial aid it is net plus but in the campaign there will be money for more financial aid. Where we do have a problem is the discount rate which the  school has reduced from 40 pct down to 35 pct in recent years. Colgate's discount is around 20 pct I believe, allowing for a larger cash flow than us. I have read somewhere that over 40 pct does not work for most schools at all.

With the ability to enhance our curriculum and the attractiveness of a school at 3,000, I would bet that the discount rate could be moved another 5% to 30%.
bethlehempard

Has a similar school: established, selective and generally land-locked made such a move recently?
Lafayette owns a good chunk of the Hill. That or buy the airport (they haven't been interested) and establish a second campus and condominiums for retired alumni.
ed65

BPard wrote:
Lafalum wrote:
Tuition is 45k. 45k at a 10 to 1 ratio is 450,O00 in revenue. A new professor is about 85k including benefits, let"s say 100k..that leaves 350k in additional revenue. The limiting factor is classroom space of which we now have a surplus. New dorms are easily financed by bond issues secured by room revenues. Getting the 2700-2800 using using off campus housing is doable and then build to cover needed housing. There are now two empty frat houses as well. Given a successful campaign and growth in the endowment 3000 plus is very doable. I refer to the famous Dehne report that puts the sweet spot in size to 3-5k which puts us in play. That would enhance admissions taking us out of the 5% of high school graduates who want to go to "smaller" schools. It would also allow us to diversify and enhance our curriculum. The population of some of our departments are not sustainable or attractive.
Doesn't that revenue model assume we are only admitting full pay students when we grow instead of keeping our profile of offering a discount (e.g., financial aid) to 60% of students?

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of growing the student body to 3,000 but if we're going to maintain, let alone improve, the quality of education then it will require a different investment mix than the one announced in the Live Connected Lead Change campaign.

Unless there's a clear goal to grow the size of the College announced in the campaign that I missed, I'm doubtful we'll get anywhere close to 3,000 students in 5 years.


BPard: thanks for your input.  Byerly is playing it close to the vest on the enrollment size issue.  When she finally lets us know what she and the Board are thinking, then we can really have a go at this topic.  I would really like to see the college get to 2,800 to 3,000 students as Lafalum has discussed.  And, frankly, at least Byerly is discussing it.  But I feel strongly  that Byerly and the Admin should be the ones who execute a policy which is determined by the Board, not the other way around.  If LC had an active Board, they would take the lead on this but, if past experience is any guide, the Board of our alma mater is incredibly passive so the President and the Admin tend to take the lead on the issues.  The best recent example is the Greek situation on which Weiss wasted incredible amounts of time and money (and fudged the numbers) for something that accomplished absolutely nothing other than antagonizing alumni.

It will be most interesting to see what happens.
Lafalum

Amen we   need new players.
flyfisher

ed65 wrote:
SixtyEighter wrote:
The letter definitely sounds a death knell for fraternities with its reference to all loving the Lafayette of the past and educating the students of the future through the college's ability to "transform itself". That seems to be code to me for getting rid of greek life altogether.The letter reminds me of the Honeymooner's episode about the chef of the future.


I guess we will find out what "transform itself" means.  Alison seems to be playing it close to the vest at this point.  However, she will have to get the BoT to approve it and God only knows what they will do.


i think the current Greek system is dead however I am convinced the Greek model has changed. i was in a frat. My son at LC is in one as well as 20-30 football players are in the same one he is in. Greek life has to fit more in the mainstream of college social life and as a component of the social habits of the college.

When i say the model has changed, its not going to be like the days of the Wild, Wild West with alcohol abuses and rowdy behavior and it shouldnt be. I think you will see more Greek Life off campus. This is good and bad for the college. It means they have much less control but it is now off campus. At least the kids have a place to go. They are still having some dances and events, just off campus.

I think going forward frats are going to be more involved with civic duties as well as social. And as valuable as land is, i dont see many coming back to campus. It might be better that it is off campus.

To increase housing for enrollment the college may have to lighten up on the rules as to how kids can even live off campus.

Pardon the spelling and grammar, been in a hurry lately. Plus this is a blog.
NewXbo

I was under the impression that Frank did now allow football players to join fraternities.
Pardsfriend

Enrollment

Agree with most of FF.

My kid was also in a fraternity at LC. College needs to act responsibly, but afford social opportunities for kids to enjoy college life outside the classroom.

 Increasing enrollment by 50-60 kids annually over five years is clearly achievable without any downside.  My other kid attended a small, 3700 undergrad Jesuit institution in New  England with an 11:1 teacher student ratio.  And I was more than satisfied with the quality of her education.  In fact, with a tuition and board comparable to LC, she received two job offers immediately upon graduation.

 I support additional curriculum offerings to grow to the 2,800-3000 enrollment.  The college will retain a very good academic reputation and continue to attract outstanding students.
Lafalum

flyfisher wrote:
ed65 wrote:
SixtyEighter wrote:
The letter definitely sounds a death knell for fraternities with its reference to all loving the Lafayette of the past and educating the students of the future through the college's ability to "transform itself". That seems to be code to me for getting rid of greek life altogether.The letter reminds me of the Honeymooner's episode about the chef of the future.


I guess we will find out what "transform itself" means.  Alison seems to be playing it close to the vest at this point.  However, she will have to get the BoT to approve it and God only knows what they will do.


i think the current Greek system is dead however I am convinced the Greek model has changed. i was in a frat. My son at LC is in one as well as 20-30 football players are in the same one he is in. Greek life has to fit more in the mainstream of college social life and as a component of the social habits of the college.

When i say the model has changed, its not going to be like the days of the Wild, Wild West with alcohol abuses and rowdy behavior and it shouldnt be. I think you will see more Greek Life off campus. This is good and bad for the college. It means they have much less control but it is now off campus. At least the kids have a place to go. They are still having some dances and events, just off campus.

I think going forward frats are going to be more involved with civic duties as well as social. And as valuable as land is, i dont see many coming back to campus. It might be better that it is off campus.

To increase housing for enrollment the college may have to lighten up on the rules as to how kids can even live off campus.

Pardon the spelling and grammar, been in a hurry lately. Plus this is a blog.


There are three frats left plus a suspended Zeta ,suspended for five years. They own their house. The "tell" will be if Chi Phi is allowed to come back. They have and own their own house, a strong alumni base and have made an application. IF they are turned down that will say it all. That will be the moment that the administration and BOT will have to reveal their hand. I think within the next seven months we will know.During the last rush there were 50 plus men who wanted to join but couldn't find a home . Each of the existing frats took in at least 25 men. There is enough demand for  one or maybe two more frats if the school wants to allow it.
flyfisher

NewXbo wrote:
I was under the impression that Frank did now allow football players to join fraternities.


I dont think that is the case. Many on the team are in one currently not on campus. It doesnt require the duties or commitment that some frats require. The college is aware. they have to take tests on alcohol knowledge and other social issues, get permission for social events and such.

I still say frats and soroities cannot have the social life that many of us grew up with. Nor should they. Lets face it, while most of us had some fun at the time, it wasnt productive and was probably dangerous. There really is no place for that any longer.

I can tell you my son enjoys it. Lafayette is a social dungeon. Just having something organizied and planned makes the school more socially tolerable.
Lafalum

I understand there are 29 students who have petitioned the college to form a new fraternity, and DTD and Sigma Nu have petitioned to come back along with Chi Phi. As I said before, the credibility of the BOT and Byerly are now on the line. Seven months…..we will know.
carney2

Lafalum wrote:
I understand there are 29 students who have petitioned the college to form a new fraternity, and DTD and Sigma Nu have petitioned to come back along with Chi Phi. As I said before, the credibility of the BOT and Byerly are now on the line. Seven months…..we will know.


What happens in seven months?  What will we know?

I fail to see where Dr. Byerly's position on Greek life makes or breaks her reputation at Lafayette.  That train had left the station long before she arrived and is now a runaway express to oblivion.  Throwing herself in front of it at this point is probably not wise.

Flyfisher refers to Lafayette as a social dungeon.  If true - and he is in a better position than most to make that judgment - something needs to change.  Alas, it does not appear that the "something" will be the rebirth of the fraternity system.
Lafalum

carney2 wrote:
Lafalum wrote:
I understand there are 29 students who have petitioned the college to form a new fraternity, and DTD and Sigma Nu have petitioned to come back along with Chi Phi. As I said before, the credibility of the BOT and Byerly are now on the line. Seven months…..we will know.


What happens in seven months?  What will we know?

I fail to see where Dr. Byerly's position on Greek life makes or breaks her reputation at Lafayette.  That train had left the station long before she arrived and is now a runaway express to oblivion.  Throwing herself in front of it at this point is probably not wise.

Flyfisher refers to Lafayette as a social dungeon.  If true - and he is in a better position than most to make that judgment - something needs to change.  Alas, it does not appear that the "something" will be the rebirth of the fraternity system.


They have promised to institute "living learning communities" that fraternities would be part of. Alumni have been told a process will be in place at the end of this semester. There are three frats waiting to be recognized, Chi Phi, ( who is in the best position, monetarily and organizationally), DTD and Sigma Nu. In addition there are 30 students asking for a new frat not including those who want Chi Phi. Over fifty men were not offered a spot in the existing 3 fraternities. Assuming there is a process implemented as promised one semester is ample time to take applications and decide, ergo  7 months. So we have demand, willing organizations and housing. If they do not follow through and allow re colonization Byerley and the BOT have lied. What does that do to a 400 million dollar campaign!???
BPard

flyfisher wrote:
I dont think that is the case. Many on the team are in one currently not on campus.
They should be very careful.

Student Handbook '14-15 Page 16-17 wrote:
Any student who violates the College’s policy against Prohibited On-Campus Conduct with an Unrecognized Greek Organization will automatically be brought before the
Student Conduct Committee, and be subject to the full range of disciplinary sanctions available at the College, up to and including expulsion.
/snip because it is a long policy written by lawyers
Participation by students in Unrecognized Greek Organizations while completely off-campus, without the use of any College resources, and without reaching on to campus to engage in conduct is strongly  discouraged, but is not prohibited.

This means if your son (or any student) receives an e-mail about his off-campus fraternity that he reads while on campus, he is violating policy and subject to disciplinary action.

That being said, I'm glad to hear there is sanity returning to athletic teams. Several, including football, used to prohibit student-athletes from joining fraternities or sororities, presumably in the interest of keeping their focus on their team and sport.

A healthy and enjoyable social environment is a necessity for a place like Lafayette College. After all, the social component is a key point of a residential college, especially a relatively small one. It is even in the College's Mission Statement. Let's hope the campaign takes steps forward.

I disagree with FF that moving off-campus is a good solution. What is the point of being a residential college then? Occasionally, sure. But the default options should be on-campus and the center of gravity needs to be on campus.
Lafalum

There are two teams that prohibit joining Greek organizations that I know of FH (especially odd since two of our best players in recent years Emily Valeo and Deanna DiCroce, both all americans were greek) and track and field. Posibly basketball is an additional two teams. Since instituting prohibition on greeks the FH  team has won no more than 6 games in a season and last year did not make the PL playoffs for the first time in 7 years. Football can join.
LafStudent2016

I think what many alumni miss now is that no social activities occur on campus anymore.  All fraternities are gone and those few that remain host all events off-campus to avoid losing their charters. Campus is effectively dry now in all but name due to the college's policies. The college may claim it has a "vibrant" culture and social environment but that is simply not the case. This has resulted in a miserable freshman year for most students that has led to a sharp increase in transfers freshman year. Myself and most of my friends seriously considered doing so, but decided to see if joining a fraternity would help. Unfortunately the fraternity I joined was kicked off a year later after I joined for some trumped up charges that occurred before my class joined. Lafayette today is still excellent academically, but very divided and socially lacking on campus. If this is not changed soon it put the college at a competitive disadvantage to Lehigh and Bucknell who are on par academically but are well known for having a vibrant Greek system and social culture.
Lafalum

Thanks for your input. Alumni are well aware of the social situation which is why the subject comes up so often. Students could help by speaking up louder. You have more power than you think. You just need to find a venue. Organize!!! You have alumni on you side. ( other than the BOT)
bethlehempard

Are there any statistics to back up the transfer comment?
Net transfers in/out would be helpful.
flyfisher

BPard wrote:
flyfisher wrote:
I dont think that is the case. Many on the team are in one currently not on campus.
They should be very careful.

Student Handbook '14-15 Page 16-17 wrote:
Any student who violates the College’s policy against Prohibited On-Campus Conduct with an Unrecognized Greek Organization will automatically be brought before the
Student Conduct Committee, and be subject to the full range of disciplinary sanctions available at the College, up to and including expulsion.
/snip because it is a long policy written by lawyers
Participation by students in Unrecognized Greek Organizations while completely off-campus, without the use of any College resources, and without reaching on to campus to engage in conduct is strongly  discouraged, but is not prohibited.

This means if your son (or any student) receives an e-mail about his off-campus fraternity that he reads while on campus, he is violating policy and subject to disciplinary action.

That being said, I'm glad to hear there is sanity returning to athletic teams. Several, including football, used to prohibit student-athletes from joining fraternities or sororities, presumably in the interest of keeping their focus on their team and sport.

A healthy and enjoyable social environment is a necessity for a place like Lafayette College. After all, the social component is a key point of a residential college, especially a relatively small one. It is even in the College's Mission Statement. Let's hope the campaign takes steps forward.

I disagree with FF that moving off-campus is a good solution. What is the point of being a residential college then? Occasionally, sure. But the default options should be on-campus and the center of gravity needs to be on campus.


Then we better get some uniforms for our cheerleaders. And it is a recognized group. Options should be on campus but they are not so no choice but to go off campus. On a different topic, the role of Greek life has to change nationally as well as at Lafayette. Go back and read the post from the student. He's right.  And just in case, I'll make sure he reads his email off campus.
Zeus

What percent of the money from 150 is going back to the football program?
One would think the football+ recruiting budget should be going up because the football program was the one that brought in all the income for the event.
Pard4Life

Zeus wrote:
What percent of the money from 150 is going back to the football program?
One would think the football+ recruiting budget should be going up because the football program was the one that brought in all the income for the event.


You would think, but the game revenue goes back to the College. We discussed this a few weeks ago.  Plus athletics is a money-loser like everywhere so I gather all revenue goes back to the College and the budgets stay the same.  Not too surprising I guess.  And I'm sure the Yankees took their cut too.
ed65

Zeus wrote:
What percent of the money from 150 is going back to the football program?
One would think the football+ recruiting budget should be going up because the football program was the one that brought in all the income for the event.


Sadly Zeus, it is only in your dreams that the money from 150 would go into the football program.  Although, it certainly would be a great debate to look  at the LC Budget and make some cuts in that bloated administrative staff.
flyfisher

BPard wrote:
flyfisher wrote:
I dont think that is the case. Many on the team are in one currently not on campus.
They should be very careful.

Student Handbook '14-15 Page 16-17 wrote:
Any student who violates the College’s policy against Prohibited On-Campus Conduct with an Unrecognized Greek Organization will automatically be brought before the
Student Conduct Committee, and be subject to the full range of disciplinary sanctions available at the College, up to and including expulsion.
/snip because it is a long policy written by lawyers
Participation by students in Unrecognized Greek Organizations while completely off-campus, without the use of any College resources, and without reaching on to campus to engage in conduct is strongly  discouraged, but is not prohibited.

This means if your son (or any student) receives an e-mail about his off-campus fraternity that he reads while on campus, he is violating policy and subject to disciplinary action.

That being said, I'm glad to hear there is sanity returning to athletic teams. Several, including football, used to prohibit student-athletes from joining fraternities or sororities, presumably in the interest of keeping their focus on their team and sport.

A healthy and enjoyable social environment is a necessity for a place like Lafayette College. After all, the social component is a key point of a residential college, especially a relatively small one. It is even in the College's Mission Statement. Let's hope the campaign takes steps forward.

I disagree with FF that moving off-campus is a good solution. What is the point of being a residential college then? Occasionally, sure. But the default options should be on-campus and the center of gravity needs to be on campus.


This seems odd on the email. The school is sending out emails on taking on-line alcohol knowledge testing as well as sexual harrassment. School
Its going off campus. that is where it is all headed so you dont have to worry so much about the school. Heck, some of the boys went to a alumni meet and greet at the chapter on the Lehigh campus. To use their words, with the randomness waste land at Lafayette, the kids are going elsewhere.

Some of you think this is all about alcohol. Has little to do with that. At a recent formal dance the kids were slamming the Gatorades. My son simply enjoyed putting on a tux, (and a sport coat for some functions) and taking a girl out for a dance. Is that so bad? To want to get dressed up and take a girl out/ Geez, let them live a little bit. I had to fight for years to get him in a jacket. Now he enjoys putting suits on. he just came home and the first thing he wanted to do was help on what shirts and pants to wear with what jackets. Is this so bad?
BPard

flyfisher wrote:
This seems odd on the email. The school is sending out emails on taking on-line alcohol knowledge testing as well as sexual harrassment. School
Its going off campus. that is where it is all headed so you dont have to worry so much about the school. Heck, some of the boys went to a alumni meet and greet at the chapter on the Lehigh campus. To use their words, with the randomness waste land at Lafayette, the kids are going elsewhere.

Some of you think this is all about alcohol. Has little to do with that. At a recent formal dance the kids were slamming the Gatorades. My son simply enjoyed putting on a tux, (and a sport coat for some functions) and taking a girl out for a dance. Is that so bad? To want to get dressed up and take a girl out/ Geez, let them live a little bit. I had to fight for years to get him in a jacket. Now he enjoys putting suits on. he just came home and the first thing he wanted to do was help on what shirts and pants to wear with what jackets. Is this so bad?

I totally agree with your point of view and I'm not criticizing you or your son, just giving a warning. In reaction to the death of a student, the College created a policy that is overly broad because it applies to any use of any college resources and an off-campus, unrecognized Greek organization.

Many students have no idea this is the case because it is a relatively new policy (and how many kids actually read the handbook)?

The wasteland you described is caused in large part by stifling policies remaining on the books long after their relevance and applicability. Unfortunately, this new policy just makes that worse - although I suspect it will be a non-issue until the College takes direct action to apply punish behavior under the policy for the first time.

       Lafayette Sports Fan Forum Forum Index -> Whatever else
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum