Letters
Why cut successful Methods of Inquiry?
Dear Editor:
Why would UB cut Methods of Inquiry, one of its most effective undergraduate programs?
In mid-March, Kelly Ahuna, director of the Methods of Inquiry Program, received a voice message that put an abrupt end to her career at UB. The voice relayed the cancellation of her Fall MOI 2010 classes. Ahuna and Christine Tinnesz, associate director, knew their fight had ended to convince UB’s administration that Methods of Inquiry was not only valuable, but worth the cost of keeping this applied critical thinking program.
We worked for Methods of Inquiry for several years as teaching assistants while pursuing our PhDs in the sociology of education. During this time, we not only strengthened our own cognitive skills, but witnessed the countless undergraduate, graduate and post-baccalaureate students who improved their own methods of thinking and, as a result, their grade-point averages and their confidence as learners. This award-winning program served all levels of the student body at UB; putting an end to its significant contribution constitutes a serious disservice to the university, particularly as it moves into the future with the stated goals of critical thinking and academic excellence.
As teaching assistants for Methods of Inquiry, we were able to observe the value of the program on individual and personal levels while working with students each semester. During our years working for Methods of Inquiry, we witnessed student growth and appreciation for a demanding curriculum as they progressed through the course and simultaneously progressed in their other courses. Our claims are supported by institutional statistics that provide evidence of overall undergraduate academic improvement, as well as high indicators of appreciation for a course designed to improve thinking inside and outside the classroom. Students not only benefit scholastically from MOI, but appreciate its contribution to their own learning. Former students are surprised—and many outraged—that such a valuable student resource no longer exists.
As PhD students studying sociology of education, we find the decision to remove a program designed to help students improve their thinking and learning deeply distressing. Program data continue to illustrate the effectiveness of Methods of Inquiry—increased GPAs, higher rates of retention and increased graduation rates. Given the data, we cannot help but wonder why UB would wish to remove one of its most effective student programs, one that has proven to help students of all levels of ability and prior preparation to effectively participate in the stated educational goals and direction of the university. When an institution dissolves its only program dedicated to critical thought, this decision sends a counterintuitive message.
It seems as though the administration failed to consider the voices of its faculty, and undergraduate and graduate students—those who live out and directly feel the costs and benefits of these kinds of decisions (we voiced our concern in numerous impassioned letters). But perhaps worse, the administration failed to handle this decision in a respectful, professional manner. In fact, it was nothing more than another gross demonstration of disregard for the work and dedication displayed by Ahuna and Tinnesz and their devoted staff.
As students ourselves, we cannot help but think about the lack of professional commitment to student learning and development that this injustice signifies; however, as products of Methods of Inquiry, we also understand that there are varying points of view and decision makers hold a different perspective that is perhaps just as valid. Nevertheless, this perspective remains concealed and this, along with the process by which this decision was reached and communicated, becomes territory for contestation.
Amy E. Stich
PhD candidate
Sociology of Education
Heather Jenkins
PhD candidate
Sociology of Education
Reader Comments