Carleton Progressive

His Role as Carleton’s Dean of Admissions, Financial Aid, and Tales from Accepted Students’ Weekend

Scott Fox: How did you get involved in admissions and academia?

Dean Thiboutot: I’m a PhD candidate from graduate school years and years ago who decided he would give a try at some administrative work, and ended up working in graduate admissions, ended up liking graduate admissions, was offered a chance to undergraduate admissions, and so I did.

SF: How do you spread the name Carleton to the world?

DT: It’s similar to our American admissions work. There is mail and e-mail. You send materials to schools you can identify. You get materials to students through U.S. government agencies and the Fulbright Commission. There are a variety of resources internationally that students can turn to that is supported by counselors and other organizations. You then meet with representatives from different international organizations encouraging students to look at schools outside of the country and also visit international schools from various countries. It’s also hard to convince international students to attend a “college” because the word has a different connotation in some foreign countries as “university”, the word they use for schools we would consider as colleges and universities. There are many hurdles towards reaching an international audience.

SF: How did Carleton’s Office of Admissions come up with its humor-based literature and mailers?

DT: Look, it’s engrained I think in the college. I arrived here and thought this is a pretty fun place and started picking up on it. I would do it this way for admissions that (the college application process) all gets cropped up in the national press and media about young people sitting around saying, “Oh my god, this is the decision that’s going to affect the direction of my life.” We want to say, “Yes, it will, you know, and therefore, why don’t you cut your head off if you don’t get into the right college and of course, though, if you don’t want to go that root, consider Carleton.” In other words, that same sort of humor is how you get through winter here. You say, of course, it’s cold here. But the saving grace is that no one has lost a limb to the cold. And we keep track of that.

SF: What has caused the increased number of students from families making over $200,000 to come to Carleton as well as the widening of the socioeconomic gap among Carleton students?

DT: Yes, it has increased. Probably this is partially because there has likely been a parallel growth in the number of families earning over $200,000. Is our growth parallel to that?  I don’t know. But there is one another factor, which is our increased cost. It’s become that more families with means are the ones who can afford it. But the two factors have to run parallel.

SF: How much does the high school environment factor into admissions at Carleton?

DT: Yes, we factor that in but it ends up being somewhat of a subjective judgment on our part tied into any objective factors we have.  I would say our evaluation of high schools works on a sliding scale. Yes, there are high schools that we know that would be considered one of the top places in the country with all of their students going to college and have math classes beyond linear algebra all the way to the other extreme of a high school where there might be only nine students graduating and the top math courses you can take is trigonometry. And if you were number one in the class you wouldn’t be able to graduate in the top ten percent.

We’re not expecting the applicant from the less comprehensive high school to utilize as many resources as the applicant who goes to the top of the line school. We try to make a judgment call on the basis of what students are offered in their high school and how they took advantage of that and how well they did, and that it is as a good of a measure as I can think of because not every student has exposure the same kind of challenges. What you want to do is have as your boundary for admission to keep as level a playing field in terms of a criteria of how has the student responded to the opportunities available to him and what he ready to take a challenge of.

SF: Carleton has a policy of willingness to accept students from non-traditional high school backgrounds such as those who left high schools early when other similar schools do not.  Does that go along with the idea of leveling the playing field?

DT: I could say that. I mean we’re willing to look at students like that and there’s been a long tradition of that. You can go back and look at a college catalog from 40, 50 years ago and they would talk about the option if a student graduating or leaving their high schools early like at the end of Junior year if they have completed all of the challenging courses (their high school offers) and are ready to take off for the college curriculum. That’s a long tradition before we ever talked about non-traditional high schools and stuff like that. We’re ready to take a student if they’re ready for college and ready for the challenge of the kind of curriculum we offer.

SF: How will the new changes in Pell Grants that were recently enacted into law affect financial aid?

DT: It’s not the Pell Grant by itself that’s going to change financial aid much.  We still will be using Pell Grants in giving out financial aid. What is changing is that we are becoming a direct lender under the federal government and before we were a lender under banks. It’s not going to change financial aid in how we do it and the loans we offer; they’re the same federal loans but this an administrative change on how you process the loan. So what I think is that I hope nothing changes, but I may depend upon the efficiency of the Federal Education Department in how they deal with direct lending of loans. We’re just going to assume for a second that it’s going to be clean and efficient. We think it’s going to be fine and I say that with a smile but in fact, there are many colleges and universities that have done the step before and go back three or four years and they chose to become direct lenders, because there are several advantages to do that and they were able to do it and they testified, “No, it works very well. It is efficient and serves the students well.” So, there is evidence to be confident.

SF: The College recently renewed their commitment to Posse.  What forms of success has admissions have with the program?

DT: The reason why we are continuing with Posse is that its stated goal of encouraging non-traditional students who would not necessarily usually look at small, liberal arts colleges and selective colleges. Carleton works with Posse in the Chicago Public Schools. Posse’s claim would be with the exposure of the formation of a culture of students coming to these schools, it provides a reinforcement of their eventual success so they never have problems with highly selective, challenging academic environment. Why we continue with them is that it has proven to be undoubtedly successful.

This is not an argument that this is the only way to attract students from areas that would not normally look at a small, liberal arts college. They are usually from families in which they are the first generation to attend college and coming from an urban public school system which is not among the best. It doesn’t take long to look at a major urban public school system like Chicago or L.A. to realize that, boy, we need a lot of improvement there and those kids are not served very well. They’re not offered intellectually challenging academic options.

SF: Do you strive for geographic diversity?

DT: Yes and no. Yes, we give an edge to someone from a different geographical area (than the Midwest or Northeast). But then I have to tell you no. These students we select from other areas meet all of usual criteria. It seems to be working that we do attract pretty well-qualified, competitive students from all over the country. The difference might be, for example, let’s take Mississippi, we won’t have many applicants from there but among those that we have, we are easily admitting some. But would that mean that the criteria would give them an edge. Well, we’re glad they’re from Mississippi. They would have probably made it in given their qualifications if they were from the state of Oklahoma or Nebraska or even Minnesota but is there an edge? If, for example, they look like some of those candidates, that would be an edge for them.

SF: Any interesting stories from Accepted Students Weekend?

DT: None have materialized from this year. They sometimes take a little longer to materialize. We did not end up with too many complaints over the weekends. I think I got more deposits in hand this past weekend than ever before. One of them was in cash. We often get complaints from parents. And every now and then, you get the parent who expects us to really throw the red carpet out and yells at us, “Don’t you have this ready, right here?”

What do you study?
Whatever interests me. At the moment, that’s history and a bit of anthropology/sociology. But who knows? I could end up a bio major; it’s doubtful, but nothing is ever out of the question.

What’s the best way to make a political statement at Carleton?
Just speak up for what you believe in. I think that holds true wherever you are. Join clubs that support causes you believe in or just start a new one. Write letters to Congress, sign petitions. There are a million ways to make your voice heard.

What’s with the scarf?
The scarf. I don’t really know. I saw it, I liked it, and it was on sale. I’m just a dirty hippie at heart.

How has the economy influenced your style?
The economy hasn’t really changed my style mostly because I’ve never had much money. I’m the person who goes to the mall, shops the clearance rack, puts stuff on hold at almost every store I visit, and then goes back to purchase only what I really, really like.

Do you have any political inclinations or issues that are dear to your heart and soul?
I don’t know if you could call it political, but health. Not just health care reform (though I’m happy I might finally be insured). According to the USDA guidelines for public schools, French fries count as a vegetable. Seriously? Obesity and weight related issues are a huge part of this country right now, and the USDA is subsidizing processed crap for public schools? And the FDA is just screwed up, as is labeling. Did you know Cheetos can be called all natural? Those creepy neon orange things are natural according to the government. And supplements aren’t subject to approval by the FDA. Even your multivitamin could be killing you; there have been a few studies showing that the amount of certain vitamins and minerals is higher than listed on the packaging.

The CSA Budget Committee’s Weekly Recommendations*
Muira McCammon

Amount to fund the Carleton Bowling Club’s bowling expeditions for the rest of spring term: $799.92

Amount to support the Carleton Rugcutters Swing Dance & Social Dance Club’s annual Spring Swing: $2800

Amount to allow CSA to use campus vans to shuttle students to Speed Dating at St. Olaf: $10

Amount to run the Sayles’ Traffic Light Party: $275

Amount to facilitate three future trips by Nova Women’s Ultimate Frisbee Team to tournaments: $3253

Amount to fund Rotblatt: $3150

Amount to support the Cave and to solve its budget crisis: $7000

Amount for Happy Bodies to bring the Smitten Kitten to do a workshop about safe and healthy use of pornography and sex toys: $115

Members on CSA Budget Committee that think the  Arena is a “deathtrap.” : 1

*All data and quotes taken directly from: CSA Budget Committee Minutes (http://apps.carleton.edu/orgs/csa/bc/minutes/)

Samir S. Bhala

Assumptions form the basis of economic opinion. Whether it is an economist characterizing human behavior among peers or a politician invoking fairness among the masses, their assumptions largely determine the conclusions they reach. Economists describe three economic belief systems – Conservative, Liberal, and Radical – each of which makes its own set of assumptions about how economies work. My personal belief system is based on a repudiation of the Conservative approach; it is an eclectic mix of Liberalism and Radicalism, attributable to my family’s experiences and my own study of recent history.

My view of the world is not as much pro-Liberal as anti-Conservative.  The Conservative view is that freedom, alongside the market system and competition, can and will solve every problem, that government at its best gets in the way and at worst acts as an instrument of oppression. To the Conservative economist, government intervention—no matter how noble the intention—is not worth its inefficiencies.  The condition of the individual matters more than that of society. Businesses should value balance sheets above breadwinners. Society ultimately benefits as wealth created by entrepreneurs trickles down to the masses.

I, too, value freedom. But I also value a system that ensures that my economic freedom or my family’s does not fall prey to the whims of unfettered wealth-making by a few. Especially in the last year, the Conservative mantra—regulation is wrong always, everywhere, and for everyone—has failed spectacularly. Also, at some visceral level, I am repelled by the notion that after I consume as much pie as I can and leave some crumbs for those who have nothing, society will gain. I guess this makes me a Liberal. I do believe that government is necessary for the safety net it provides to the poor and powerless. However, I also feel strongly that government, like ordinary households and persons, should, by and large, live within its means.

I attribute both of these views, as indeed many others, to the way I was raised. Although personal responsibility, the crux of Conservative thought, was a sine qua non in our immigrant family, and so was the need for compassion for those down on their luck. When I was four years old, my father defined responsibility for me as “knowing what you have to do and doing it unasked.” The evil of living beyond one’s means, and consequent debt, was drummed into my sister and me on a daily basis. (If it were up to my father alone, we would not have had a home until he had the full amount in cash.) Despite his fiscal conservatism, my father never identified easily with wealth or power. He says this was because he never aspired to belong to an exclusionary club. He proudly pays his taxes, believing it to be a small price for the opportunities this country has given him.

I subscribe to Liberalism, because it tries to ensure that nobody falls behind and that everyone has an equal opportunity. The two major economic shocks during my lifetime, the Enron scandal from earlier this decade and the financial meltdown of the past two years, have convinced me that market regulation is a necessary evil. I am a Liberal because the Kenneth Lays, Dennis Kozlowskis, and Bernie Madoffs proved to me that unchecked greed, while very good for them, left society in a tremendously horrific condition. As we do on December 7 and September 11, I believe all Americans should chant, unified, “Never again.”

Since the current crisis began, columns by economists have strenuously made the case for financial reforms similar to those offered generations ago by Keynesian Democrats and moderate Republicans.  I find my Liberal ideology fueled at times by the fire of Radical populism. Fairness, ensured by Liberalism, should govern the economic world. However, in the society in which I live, the economy farcically resembles the movie Fight Club. To me, the greedy drive for material gains, for goods people want but cannot afford, causes crises to emerge cyclically. Unless we address this root evil, in twenty years the nation will face yet another mega-crisis. With the fate of the financial reforms we need in peril, it seems as though I have no power, no voice in this system in which hired henchmen, lobbyists, can deflect necessary regulation and those responsible for the mess receive only our ire, not punishment.

As an aspiring economist, I qualify the assumptions with which I view the world as reactionary. Informed by life experience, I choose Liberalism, bordering on Radicalism, because I do not find Conservatism palatable. Liberalism appeals to me because of my family’s background and our traditional commitment to social justice. Without government intervention to curb market excesses and ensure an equitable playing field, the social and political promise of the United States—that anyone can grow up to do anything or become anyone—ceases to exist.

Some may disagree with my own beliefs, but I find myself validated by the occurrences of the past two years.  We have been, from the time I entered college, in a recession. Those with more expertise in the field of economics would describe the factors that contributed to the recession in detail. But for the purposes of this narrative, we will focus not on what, but who, caused this panic.

In 1999, President Bill Clinton, riding the wave of regulated economic prosperity passed a repeal of the 1932 Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial from investment banking. Commercial banks loan out the money, invested in them by consumers, to businesses and individuals. Investment banks sell loans and other securities to other companies. At the same time, President Clinton had managed to control the nation’s finances in such a way that he left for his successor a projected budgetary surplus of approximately $700 billion dollars in 2010.

Yet, despite the good times, the nation became fatigued with the Democrats and George W. Bush became President. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, a massive well of support materialized for President Bush. He could do nothing wrong. From there, he engaged the nation in a massive social experiment, one for which Conservatives from Milton Friedman to Alan Greenspan had pushed. The leaders of the Conservative movement, rendered delirious by their religious adherence to the allure of free, supply-side markets and deregulation, advocated for massive tax-cuts for the rich and an end to checking the American economic system. For them, any regulation was too terrible a price, too monstrous of burden, for the markets to bear.

From this philosophy emerged massive attempts to let the private sector run unfettered. President Bush basically refused to fund instrumental bureaucracies like the SEC, which checks to see if whether or not financial transactions are legitimate, and FDA, which ensures that the food we eat and the drugs we take won’t kill us. But, according to the economic gurus, markets are self-regulating. The 1980s hyperbolized mantras of “greed is good, greed is necessary, greed is right” became the standard behavior of both private and public sectors.

Spurred by a seemingly endless economic boom in the housing sector, the nation engaged in a massive spending binge, the consequences of which led to excess all in the name of the privatization. Corporate accounting fraud, betting on businesses failure, creating shadow companies to assume bad assets, results of a fundamentally corrupted system that was built upon absolutely nothing precipitated the market crash in 2008.

So, when it comes time to clean up, assess damage for the crisis, who gets blamed? Bill Clinton, the President who signed a law which garnered bipartisan support in the last year of his term in office, or the George Bush, who got drunk off the lure of money and free lunches for eight long, agonizing years of divisive partisanship?

Conservatives would have us believe that Bill Clinton caused this mess. While repudiating George Bush’s actions—the likes of the Wall Street Journal claim that Bush was not truly a conservative—they cheer him for his foreign policy doctrine that led us to fight two wars, antagonize the world and saddle the nation with a crippling debt.

Thus, conservatives wrongly disown any sort of agency they possessed in the system, distancing themselves from George W Bush, calling him “not a real conservative,” despite their 8 year cheerleading refrain for unfettered markets, deregulation, and the like.

In their warped reality, they did nothing wrong. “I truly thought,” Alan Greenspan testified to Congress, “that what we did was right.”  It is in their defense of Goldman Sachs that one truly understands the Conservative mindset.  In the mind of many, Goldman Sachs could possibly have not done something illegal, as it lost money on the deals.  To them, profit is the bottom line.  Regardless of the fact that the firm sold what could only be appropriately described by its own CEO as “shit,” Goldman bet against the nation and, often times, won.  The nefariousness of this Conservative ideology has steeped so far into the system that the SEC, the regulators, the watchdogs, apparently watched pornography on computers for as much as eight hours a day.  Now, calls for strengthening reform, or holding people accountable in front of Congress, are chided by the intellectually dishonest as playing politics.

The guiding light of the past eight years allowed for a system in which the winners were allowed to win much, win always, and win outright.  This damned the rest of society to having to bear the burden of unimaginable social costs.  Yet, now, instead of ameliorating the situation, those advocates of the entrepreneurial spirit instead refuses to innovate, thinking it better to wait out this Democratic President as they did the last.  And that, my friends, is why conservatives are anathema to me.

Gilah Benson-Tilsen

During the Quest for the Next President of Carleton, I heard the opinion expressed that our president should be a black lesbian atheist. It didn’t matter what the candidate’s qualifications were. We needed a woman, a member of a racial minority, a member of a religious minority.

This was flippant, I’m sure. Yes, yes, we all know there are limits to what affirmative action should do, and we can’t accurately quantify the discrimination and reverse discrimination that exist.

But still! It is frustrating that every president must be white, must be male, must be Christian, must be heterosexual, must be… Carleton will never have a president with blue hair, and we know it.

The search committee certainly did everything they could to find the right candidate. That was what I said when asked for my reaction to their decision: I think they did well. I fully believe the search committee did everything possible to choose the right candidate.

When I saw the name of Carleton’s new president (Stephen G. Poskanzer, for those of you living in The Cave), the first thing I thought was, That sounds like a Jewish name. And the next day my mother called me to say that my father had done research and found the names of Poskanzer’s great-grandparents, and they were unmistakably Jewish names. This made my parents very excited. And Poskanzer’s from New York, went to Princeton and Harvard, worked at SUNY for twelve years – I suppose that means he has the right background. There may be some Northeastern privilege in there somewhere; you might find it if you tried. However, why try? When I saw the videos of Poskanzer, I thought, He looks like a nice guy.

I haven’t met him in person; I assume he’s nice, because in the videos, he has a friendly smile on his face. Perfect for Carleton, no? My reaction to him was above neutral, if not enthusiastically positive.

However, when my roommate watched the same videos of Poskanzer, she said to me, “He’s so generic.” And, I noticed, she was right. He wasn’t saying anything unusual or even humorous. He was sticking to the safe answers – though I’m sure he genuinely meant them – using big words, smiling big, performing for the camera, trying to be impressively intellectual, a conscientious man, a trustworthy man, one committed to the ideals of this educational institution and blah blah blah. I have to hope that when he takes on the duties of a real president he’ll relax a bit and leave behind that job-interview mode, start expressing himself with more humor. Poskanzer will be cracking jokes and spinning yarns just like Oden. Not that I expect him to be flamboyant- this place isn’t ready for a real flamboyant character. Just an occasional spark of life, if you don’t mind! Thankfully, the interviews don’t last forever.

And now, for the question that motivated this essay: do I care that he’s a man? Answer: no. Not really. Honestly, I don’t much care about the president of a college. There are Ivy Leaguers with female presidents, so it’s been done and we shouldn’t sweat it.

What do I care about, though, is political power. I would so love to see a female President of the United States (and I could name a few presidents who were less equipped to handle the office than the average U.S. female). I would really, really love to see that glass ceiling shatter into a million beautiful sparkly pieces. My mother is a feminist, and it’s time she had something to celebrate.

I suppose that’s only a dream of a better future where there are no wars and children have health care and cities have public transportation and no one wears shoes and we all sit around the campfire singing sweet love songs.

But right now, at this point in real time, HABEMUS PRESIDENTUM! And I have no complaints about Stephen G. Poskanzer. I wish him the best of luck!