Wed 23 Apr 2008
A knowledgeable Eph writes:
The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HMMI) is the largest private sponsor of science research in the country and, by far, the largest benefactor of science research at undergrad colleges. In the five multi-year cycles since 1991, Williams has never missed a major grant: 1991, 1993, 1996, 2000, 2004. In 2004, Williams received the largest four-year grant $1.6 million.
HMMI announced the 48 winners of four-year grants in the next cycle yesterday. Look who is missing.
Wendy Raymond is the HMMI project coordinator at Williams. I have no idea what happened, but for one of the top LACs to not get one of these awards is hard to imagine. Somebody either forgot to submit the proposal, or submitted a godawful proposal, or failed to do the proper follow-up and butt-kissing reporting about the fantastic accomplishments from 2004’s $1.6 million grant.
Got any contacts in the Science Departments? Probably an interesting story.
Indeed. Comments?
Certainly, any non-racists would agree that it is more important for Raymond to spend her time working as Associate Dean for Institutional Diversity (e.g., this) rather than worrying about multi-million dollar grants.
UPDATE: Title corrected. Curious as to what it takes to get your HHMI grant extended? Me too! Consider Swarthmore and Amherst. Both seem to have spent HHMI’s money in useful and productive ways. So, they will get more money to spend. (Anyone with more knowledge about HHMI is welcome to comment.) Williams, on the other hand, seems to have wasted the money in a parody of PC preening.
While Williams College’s HHMI program has successfully initiated student research and curricular partnership with Bennett College, we have been unable to initiate Williams-Bennett faculty research partnerships to date. Multiple factors have contributed to this challenge. First, the physical distance and lack of non-stop flights between Bennett (in Greensboro, NC) and Williams (in Williamstown, MA) prohibit ready travel. Second, since the Williams-HHMI partnership was agreed to without input from the Bennett faculty, winning Bennett faculty buy-in to these opportunities continues to take time and patience. Third, most Bennett faculty members are not research-active, and they are stretched thinly by strenuous teaching responsibilities. Though HHMI funding would provide generous stipend, travel, and lodging funds to make summer research partnerships at Williams possible, this has not been enough to entice faculty members to give up even one or two weeks of their summer. Fourth, two Bennett faculty members considering the program soon left Bennett. Finally, Bennett and Williams liaisons now agree that such partnerships require annual visits to Bennett by one or more Williams faculty members. Though such visits have been made twice in the first three years of the grant, and two Bennett faculty members visited Williams in 2005, this has not been enough.
Glad to see that Professor Raymond is willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in such a flawed exercise. Why won’t HMMI give her more money? Can’t they see that Wendy Raymond likes black people?! And shouldn’t that be the primary criteria by which grant money is allocated?
Now, to be fair, it could be that Raymond spent the HMMI money in exactly the way that she proposed four years ago. It could be that she promised pointless PC preening and then made it happen. It could be that no one could have done any better. And it could be that it is just the vagaries of the grant-making process — perhaps conservatives have taken over HHMI? — which have deprived Williams of more money. Perhaps the only thing that Raymond promised four years ago is that she would leverage HMMI money into a reduced teaching load for herself and more diversity gibberish for the College. If so, she has delivered!
But if I were a Williams science faculty member who used to have use HHMI funding to support my students, I would want to know what the heck happened . . .
UPDATE II: Goodness gracious! Here is what Williams proposed to do with HMMI’s money back in 2004. Did Williams (read: Raymond) fail to deliver on what was promised or go off the reservation entirely? [Racist! -- ed. You know where to report me.] Answer: both! Williams/Raymond both failed to promote “collaborative research between Williams faculty and faculty from other institutions” and did not even seem to try to expand “outreach initiatives at local K-6 schools.” Or, even worse, Williams did engage in these outreach initiatives (right?) but then failed to inform HHMI that it had done so.
Someone’s got some splaining to do! [More racism! -- ed.]

April 23rd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Maybe the person at Williams responsible for the submittal addressed the application to the HMMI (instead of the HHMI) and (like college admission committees who take offense at errors that point to carelessness) the reviewers subsequently decided against awarding Williams a grant. Just kidding.
It was stated earlier this year that not as much science money as in the past was available for SSR positions this coming summer — maybe the College realized there had been (or was notified of) a major gaffe early in the process.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:00 pm
I would think that Prof. Raymond’s work on diversity and mentoring would actually be a plus.
If you read through the HHMI press release on these grants and some of the grant profiles, it is clear that HHMI wants their money to exand participation in the sciences. Mentoring programs, study groups, encouraging minority participation, exposing grade school kids to college science departments are all elements in some of the grants.
According to the press release, more than a quarter of the 48 schools were first-time recepients of HHMI funding, the largest number of new schools ever. So, maybe it was just a really competitive cycle for repeaters.
In the grand scheme of things, it’s not that much money. It would take $8 million in new endowment money to throw off the $400,000 per year in cash Williams got from the last four-year HHMI grant cycle.
This money is the major source for summer research positions. Figure the student makes $3500 or so, add some overhead, it probably costs $5000 for each position or $150k for 30 summer research jobs.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:17 pm
There were closer to 200 summer research jobs last summer. Not sure about this summer.
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:21 pm
I don’t think the two areas are exclusive, tying the two without any other evidence is akin to saying that I failed to write as much as I wanted in Winter Break because of the primaries and my interest in them.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:16 am
I know very little about how these grants are distributed. That said, if Williams received the largest grant the last time around, and nothing this time, it would seem to suggest something other than a very competitive cycle. It can’t have been uncompetitive last time. From without, it certainly looks more like a blown application than anything else.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:54 am
Is this disclosure an hatchet job? If so, by whom? Who is the knowledgeable Eph? David himself? How about some of the transparency about which we often talk?
April 24th, 2008 at 2:52 am
frank:
These quadrennial HHMI grants are a pretty big deal to undergraduate colleges. I believe they are the single largest grants received by the science departments at all of the liberal arts colleges.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:18 am
frank: I’m having trouble posting this comment, but the answers to your questions may well be found in the College Confidential Swarthmore College thread about receipt of a large HHMI grant. Note the similar phraseology used by “interesteddad” there as well as in his missive to dk, and the error in referring to the HHMI as “HMMI.”
FM has recently referred to the “Eph”’s tactics/intent; “hatchet job” is another way of putting it.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:37 am
Wow — the grant squandered on trying to cultivate a “community service” partnership with unwilling participant Bennett College for Women in NC (total enrollment 607)??
I suppose if it had worked it would have been something like hitting a trifecta …
One can only imagine the brilliance involved in selecting Bennett as recipient of the College’s largesse with proceeeds from the last HHMI award.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Good detective work, aparent. hwc/interesteddad had his hands all over that one. FM will get a big chuckle out of your sleuthing when she signs on from Family Weekend.
Why does hwc/interesteddad hate his alma mater so much? And why does he put so much time and energy into trying to make Williams look bad?
April 24th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Yeah. It’s all my fault. Dr. Cech called me and asked if I thought Williams deserved an HHMI undergrad science grant this year.
HHMI was all set to award one until I told them not to. I gave them all the dirt in a top secret meeting in a suite in Vegas. All very hush, hush.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
BTW, I wish that Wendy Raymond would offer me a two-week, all expenses paid, stay in the Williams Inn during the summer!
I would definitely take her up on it. Summer in Williamstown on someone else’s nickle is about as good as it gets!
April 24th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
None of the links to the HHMI site work, David.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
I tried to look at the links, too. The HHMI site is returning database errors.
Try again later.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Here is the link to the 2004 announcement: http://www.hhmi.org/news/051804.html
From it, it appears that the Williams proposal was closer to what the HHMI wanted during that round of funding, which should be somewhat evident from the size of the award.
So, the question, to me anyway, is:
1) Did Williams successfully complete the terms of its 2004 grant, and if not, why not?
2) What exactly was proposed for the 2008 grant?
Of course, I would love to know if the answer to question 1 affected the outcome of the 2008 grant, but, barring the committee showing up to comment on Ephblog, I would be engaging in speculation more appropriate for a junior high school girls’ sleepover.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
What’s really crazy is that Williams has the perfect partner for an ongoing science outreach program right around the corner: North Adams State. Do a joint research project with faculty cross-polination, Williams students summer interning in labs at State and State students summer interning at Williams. Perfect.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Here are links to the Google caches of the broken HHMI links:
Amherst: Link to Amherst 2004 Outcomes Summary
Swarthmore in next reply.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Swarthmore: Link to Swarthmore 2004 Outcomes Summary
Swarthmore College (Award Year: 2004)
Outcomes
Science Associates (SAs): Science Associates, who are selected from among successful former introductory biology students and trained to facilitate peer learning in small groups, organize students into groups of about four and use Socratic questioning to facilitate solving Challenge Problems. Challenge Problems are designed by faculty to provoke thoughtful synthesis of the material and practice in preparation for bi-weekly quizzes. A full time professional SA Coordinator trained in biology education is available nearby to assist if needed. Student participation in the program has been strong (attendance is voluntary), with 50-80% of students in introductory biology attending at least one SGM every two weeks. Current data indicate that the Science Associates Program is associated with gains in performance and retention for introductory biology students, and particularly those of under-represented minority (URM) status. Regarding performance, we find a significant correlation between final course grades and overall attendance at study group meetings. Regarding retention, we find a significant increase in rate of progression to additional biology courses among URM students following implementation of the Science Associates Program. These strong results have led to the adaptation of a similar program in Computer Science and in Engineering, funded by the Provost’s office, and to Chemsitry, funded by this grant. All three deprtments adpted the SA program to meet their specific needs, and preliminarlily report increased student retention and success. In our currently pending proposal we propose to expand the Science Associates program significantly throughout the Natural Sciences and Engineering Division.
Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowships: Undergraduate research continues to be a core component of the HHMI-supported programs at Swarthmore College. The research opportunities offered by this grant have enormous impact, as they allow each student who receives a fellowship to explore his or her own potential for a scientific career. A subset of the summer research fellowship awards address three specific goals: (1) to retain underrepresented minority (URM) students as science majors, (2) to enable Swarthmore students to work in university research laboratories, and (3) to foster interdisciplinary research collaborations on campus. Initial outcomes are encouraging: Eight of ten URM students supported in 2005 and 2006 have continued as science majors. Over the past three summers, off-campus fellowships have allowed students to join laboratories at universities including Yale, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, NYU, University of Pennsylvania, UC-Irvine and UC- San Diego. These students reported significant benefits in surveys and to an External Review committee (May 2007) that evaluated our HHMI programs. During the summer of 2007, a total of 38 Swarthmore undergraduates received HHMI support. Of these, five were off-campus, ten awards were given to 1st or 2nd year students from underrepresented minorities in the sciences, and one qualified for interdisciplinary status. The students conducted full-time research for ten weeks either with a Swarthmore science faculty or with a Swarthmore science faculty member providing project oversight. The 33 on-campus researchers were mentored by 23 Swarthmore faculty members in seven different departments.
Science For Kids: Pennsylvania ranks the Chester-Upland school district the lowest performing district in the state. It is >75% African American and approximately one-third of the households with children under 18 are below the poverty level. The Chester Children’s Chorus is a group of 60 children aged 8-18 from this District. The chorus was founded and is led by Swarthmore College Associate Professor of Music John Alston. Children in the chorus take part in a 5-week summer program. In summer 2007, we were able to offer a science program to 28 children in the program. The program has been expanded annually to include segments in multiple disciplines, so that children who have been in the program do not repeat experiences. In 2007 a Computer Science/Robotics segment was added to a roster that included biology, chemistry and physics/astronomy. As a culminating activity this year, the students from all program areas presented posters and/or science projects at a science fair open to the greater college community. The session encouraged SFK participants to synthesize their summer experience and enabled them to share what they had learned with both their peers and other visitors to the science fair, including Swarthmore faculty, staff, and students. All the children were able to explain to others clearly what they did and why they did it and they demonstrated enthusiasm and pride about the projects and their learning. Questionnaires indicated that science groups included solid science content, opportunities for interaction, and activities and tasks that supported the development and deepening of understanding. Children evidenced change in their understanding of what science in that discipline involves.
Challenges
Postdoctoral Fellows: Ttwo Postdoctoral Teaching Fellows were hired for 2005-06, and both terminated their Fellowships early. In their review letters, both reported surprise at the intense demands of teaching undergraduates. Student feedback reflected concerns about the postdocs effectiveness as lecturers. Faculty mentors reported surprise at the time effective mentoring required. We solicited a second round of applications in the summer of 2006. This time, applicants were required to identify a faculty mentor in advance of applying, and to include a specific teaching proposal in their applications. Two new Fellows have been chosen. Dr. Gupta has been on campus since spring 2007, and his Fellowship proceeds smoothly. Dr. Baker has just begun his Fellowship. In our pending HHMI proposal we propose a three-year Postdoctoral Teaching Fellowship in Mathematical Biology. Our experiences have motivated significant redesign. The three-year time-frame will allow the Fellow to develop strong collaborative relationships with faculty and mentoring relationships with undergraduates. A mentoring committee will be comprised of faculty members in both departments who might collaborate with the Fellow in teaching or research. The Fellow will mentor student researchers in mathematical biology who will be supported by HHMI summer fellowships for interdisciplinary research. The Fellow’s own research will also be supported with the standard annual faculty research and travel allowances. Finally, we will offer significantly higher annual compensation by basing it on comparable salaries for mathematical postdoctoral fellows at peer institutions, rather than on the NIH scale, as was used in the current grant.
Interdisciplinary teaching and courses: Inspired by the compelling arguments of Bio 2010, we included in our 2004-2008 proposal to develop a series of new interdisciplinary first-year seminars in the sciences. Initial interest among several professors ultimately conflicted with departmental needs to sustain core offerings. Fortunately, Assistant Professor of Physics and Astronomy Catherine Crouch persisted in her commitment to develop a new Physics course for life science students: Physics 4L: Biomedical Applications of Electricity, Magnetism, and Optics. It is expected that this course will increase the number of biology majors taking two semesters of Physics, thus improving their preparation in the physical sciences. This grant provided funds for a teaching reduction for her to develop this new course. In the currently pending HHMI proposal, two interdisciplinary programs have been proposed, one a postdoctoral fellowship in biological mathematics and the other the development of an introductory course in computer science for biology students. We believe the proposed programs address the institutional challenges to interdisciplinary teaching and course development, and NSE faculty look forward to these experiences and to building on them in the future.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Here’s the Google cache of the Williams summary:
Williams: Link to Williams 2004 Summary
April 24th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
The sad thing here is that Williams does all of the same things the other colleges do. Summer research positions. Post doc fellows. Local school outreach.
They even write about it in other documents such as This one on science at Williams
Too bad Prof. Raymond didn’t simply cut ‘n paste that text in her HHMI summary.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
hwc - I know you are not stupid. We were, quite obviously, referring to how the initial posting showed up here and to its negative (rather than, say, regretful) slant (and perhaps to the gloating about Swarthmore?); equally obviously, no one was blaming you for the College’s failure to be awarded a grant.
Congratulations to Swarthmore and Amherst and to all of the other institutions that won HHMI grants in this cycle. I’ve found writing proposals quite difficult, and I greatly admire those who succeed at it.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Larry:
So I take it you do not think Williams blowing a $1.6 million grant opportunity is newsworthy enough for blog pertaining to all things “Eph”.
Should dkane limit EphBlog to puppies and unicorns and the morning dew on the green green grasses of the Purple Valley?
April 24th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
BTW, there’s no “gloating”. The top liberal arts colleges are expected to get top HHMI grants every four years. Like clockwork. They always do.
It’s not getting one that’s news.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
[LG] Who is this “we” that you speak of? It certainly does not include me. In fact, anyone who thinks that hwc “hates” Williams is barely worth arguing with. The same applies to the many who have accused me of the same.
We all love Williams. hwc just thinks that Williams would be a much better place than it already is if, among other things, athletic talent counted for less in admissions. And, guess what! Morty agreed. He has dramatically decreased the athletic preference. (Background here.) Do you think that Morty “hates” Williams? I agree with the changes that Morty has made. Do I “hate” Williams?
Now, hwc (obviously) thinks that Morty should go much further than he already has. Maybe such a change would make Williams better. Maybe it would make it worse. I am agnostic, although I would prefer continued change in that direction. However, just because you disagree with hwc about this is no reason to accuse him of hating Williams. He doesn’t.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I used “we” because several other posters have noticed the same patten I noticed, and have mentioned it repeatedly over the last few months. If you don’t see the pattern, there’s little point in arguing about it.
I don’t accuse hwc of hating Williams because I disagree with him. In fact, there seems to be much that we agree about (including the newsworthiness of — and on my part, my regretfulness about; on hcw’s as well? — the College’s failure to win a HHMI grant).
I would welcome hwc’s saying that I am mistaken and that he does, in fact, have a very deep fondness for Williams (flawed though it and every other institution are). I would then apologize.
Other than that, I will have nothing further to say on this thread.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
You should have seen the two-year effort I put into getting my daughter to consider Williams after my wife made the mistake of taking her to a weekend conference in Williamstown during a February artic blast one year during junior high. My hard work paid off…I convinced her to send an application, which she subsequently withdrew when she got her ED acceptance elsewhere.
The trick, BTW, in case any other Eph alums have stubborn children: give ‘em the car, a tank of gas, a map of Williamstown, a couple of friends and send ‘em on a road trip (sans parents) on a nice summer day.
One of her high school best friends does goes to Williams with the strong recommendation from our family to her and her family (it was a financial sacrifice — she had full-ride merit deals at other schools).
Until this year, my wife and/I had given a token pittance to Williams every year as far back as I can remember. Both of us have generally warm and fuzzy memories (or is that just plain fuzzy memories?) of college in the Berkshires. My wife would be considered a pretty active alum…enough so that she’s had her share of pleasant little conversations with Morty at various functions.
April 24th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
One more thing: You will never find a stronger advocate of liberal arts colleges than I am. Williams College is without question one of the top academic LACs in the country, excelling by any and all measures. I would absolutely recommend that the College be on any excellent student’s initial list of colleges for consideration, regardless of whether or not it ultimately proves to be an appropriate “fit”.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I wish you had just said it straight out, but I will take Posts #25 and #26 to be your saying that you are, indeed, very deeply fond of Williams (I wasn’t quite sure from #25).
Because you are very deeply fond of Williams, hcw, I apologize for saying that you hate the place.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I wish you had just said it straight out, but I will take Posts #25 and #26 to be your saying that you are, indeed, very deeply fond of Williams (I wasn’t quite sure from #24).
Because you are very deeply fond of Williams, hcw, I apologize for saying that you hate the place.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Eph loyalty oaths? A tad McCarthy-esque? No?
April 24th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
hwc–nobody questions your respect of Williams college as an academic institution or your previous commitment to Williams. Somewhere in the college search process, something went sour. Your posts consistently have a clear anti-Williams agenda…that is what other posters have reacted to.
For example: when the topic of alcohol consumption at Williams comes up, you inevitably take the “Williams is a campus full of drunken idiots” side of the argument and refuse to deviate, no matter how many current students describe a far more complex situation. When the topic of sexism at Williams comes up, you take the “Williams is a campus full of misogynistic idiots” side of the argument and stick with it, no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented. When the topic of athletics on campus arises, you take the “Williams is a campus full of jock idiots” side of the debate. Do you see the pattern…? Without fail, you present a negative caricature of Williams at every possible opportunity, which you seek to maintain at all costs. Your goal rarely seems to be understanding the place as it now exists. Your goal rarely seems to be enlightening conversations. Rather, your goal always seems to be to give voice to a portrayal of Williams so unreasonably negative that even the more cynical posters on ephblog tend to disagree with you. Your justification of every negative post by saying things along the line of “well, I’m just saying…if you like that sort of school, great!” doesn’t make your posts any less biased or obviously agenda-based.
Look, we all understand that on some level you do respect Williams. However, I think it is important for you to understand how these sort of caricature-based comments can be destructive to a dialog on ephblog or collegeconfidential. We all understand that Williams is not perfect. There are misogynists and alcoholics and sexists at Williams (albeit, in my opinion, not many). However, I am sure that you understand to some extent that it is not as extreme of a place as you present it. Even acknowledging the possibility that these may be bigger issues at Williams than its peer schools, you must understand that they are nowhere near the problems that you present them as, and that Williams’ drinking at its posited worst is barely any different than Swarthmore’s at its posited best.
Does this help you understand why so many posters are rubbed the wrong way by your comments?
April 24th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Sure, I understand. They are in denial about the significant alcohol and behaviorial “culture” issues at Williams College (alcohol poisoning, feces spreading, n-word and penis graffitti, and so forth).
The College is not in denial. These issues have been at the forefront of the campus news and driving administration agendas for at least the last five years.
Blame me if it makes you feel better.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Which is more likely?
1. The scores of current and recent students posting on ephblog have an accurate perception of the campus reality based on their on-campus experiences and conversations as well as their observation of Record news coverage and administrative announcements.
or
2. One alum, approximately thirty years out of college, has an accurate perception of the campus reality based on his observation of Record news coverage and administrative announcements as well as his daughter’s prospective visit several years ago.
You tell me.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I graduated last year. While I continue to actively follow campus news and talk to my on-campus friends, I feel strongly that my perception of things happening on campus isn’t 1/10th as accurate as it was last year (when I was actually on campus). Sure, in some ways being out of Williamstown gives me perspective…but that perspective does not make up for the vast amount of constant on-campus rumblings and grumblings that don’t make it into off-campus announcements.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
These would be the same current students who see nothing offensive whatsoever about writing “f— n—-r whores” on their dorm quoteboard?
April 24th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
I think you misinterpret the responses of those students. Regardless, you cannot discredit the judgment of every student who has ever posted on ephblog because several students once disagreed with you about where the line should be drawn when it comes to public speech.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
While current students obviously have more information about current conditions on campus, on many issues its possible to miss the forest for the trees. I think hwc provides a very valuable perspective here on Ephblog, even it occasionally seems over-critical and sees many issues through a particular lens (at least one other prolific and enjoyable Ephblog author could be accused of the same thing).
As for the HHMI (non)-grant, I think its very unfortunate, but presumably the College could - if it chose - make up for this “lost” money somehow. Hopefully, the next HHMI proposal will be better received.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
I had to chuckle. Timing is everything. My wife just called and asked if I wanted to go hang out with Morty at a (non-Williams related) event.
Discretion being the better part of valor, I suggested that Morty would probably enjoy his evening more if I didn’t join her!
April 24th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
hwc:
FWIW, I am in agreement with ‘current eph’s’ long and thoughtful post regarding the nature of your comments. You consistently lean towards the negative view of Williams, (especially on certain subjects) and you look for every opportunity to rehash them. And, you never seem to take in even the most informed and intelligent arguments presented to the contrary.
As the parent of a current student, with whom I have conversations on just about every controversial Williams issue running through these threads, it has become clear to me, that your view, along with many others on EB (mine included), are very incomplete when it comes to the real story behind the events. Ronit and Jeff touched on this when they discussed ‘context’ in the Sexual Degradation thread, and current eph and ‘10 also tried to clarify it, here and there. And while it is fine for all of us to care, and to ask questions, and to discuss… it is totally inappropriate for us to pass judgement and make decisions, when we cannot and will not know the full story.
I have been a bit nasty with you…and I apologize for that. Ironic in that it is your nasty attitude towards Williams of which I am so critical. But again, I am in complete agreement with Current eph’s assessment of why you ‘rub’ many of us ‘the wrong way’.
That said, I go back to enjoying my visit here at Williams. What a place!
April 25th, 2008 at 12:10 am
I was a thesis student with Dr. Raymond, and without having a fuller accounting of the situation, would be disinclined to believe that anything was “blown.” Williams, at least during my time there, showed the utmost commitment to undergraduate research.
April 25th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
It’s apparent that, for whatever reasons, the Williams 2004 grant “Outcomes” and “Challenges” report to HHMI was not as detailed and positive as academic year-in-review reports on its own science department web pages. Perhaps Prof. Raymond, given her other responsibilities, was not charged with submitting either the report or the new proposal for this year’s grant; these may have been assigned to (a) staff member(s) with little expertise in or experience with grant writing. The brevity of the Williams outcomes and challenges report suggests that it was done in haste, without the numerous specific references/ due diligence evident in those of the successful 2008 awardees.
In their April 22nd announcement of the grant winners, HHMI indicated what it was looking for in this year’s successful applicants — primarily proposals to initiate creative, engaging ways of teaching the biological sciences to a wide cross section of undergrads:
“A year ago, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute issued a challenge to 224 undergraduate colleges nationwide: identify creative new ways to engage your students in the biological sciences. (…)
Colleges in 21 states and Puerto Rico will receive $700,000 to $1.6 million over the next four years to revitalize their life sciences undergraduate instruction. HHMI has challenged colleges to create more engaging science classes, bring real-world research experiences to students, and increase the diversity of students who study science.
‘The undergraduate years are vital to attracting and retaining students who will be the future of science,’ said HHMI President Thomas R. Cech. ‘We want students to experience science as the creative, challenging, and rewarding endeavor that it is.’
The grant recipients, primarily undergraduate institutions, include traditional liberal arts colleges, historically black colleges and universities, small religious schools, and larger state institutions, all united by a commitment to teaching undergraduates. (…)
‘This diverse pool of grant recipients and large number of first-time awardees shows that HHMI is committed to fund new ideas and new ways of approaching science education,’ said Peter J. Bruns, HHMI’s vice president for grants and special programs. ‘We want to help create successful models for teaching science that can spread throughout the higher education community.’
Creating interdisciplinary science classes and incorporating more mathematics into the biology curriculum were among the major themes proposed by the schools. Many schools will also allow more students to experience research through classroom-based courses and summer laboratory programs.
For example, Oakwood College in Huntsville, Alabama will create a pre-research program to ensure its students are ready to work in research labs. Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon will pull together teams consisting of a faculty member, an undergraduate student and a high school or community college student to attack a research problem. And Washington and Lee College in Lexington, Virginia will take a long-term approach to research, assigning students to work in the same lab for two years then travel to labs doing similar research and professional research meetings. (For highlights of the new science education program proposed by each school, see college20080422_list.html). (…)
Many of the grantees have programs that focus on encouraging more minority students to major in science, often through mentoring programs. (…)
The 2008 grant winners were selected through a stringent review process by distinguished scientists and educators that narrowed the 192 applicants down to 48 winners. HHMI invited 224 colleges with a track record of preparing undergraduate students for research careers to submit proposals. (…)”
If Williams did in fact submit a proposal for an innovative life sciences education program, it is regrettable that it wasn’t successful in this round of the awards.
April 26th, 2008 at 5:17 am
hwc: Sadly loyalty oaths were a Truman initiative - one of the few blotches on my favorite President’s record.