Back to Home Page
Confronted with a deadly virus, many American colleges and universities are choosing to protect their communities by teaching fall classes largely or entirely online. Last week, the federal government deliberately disrupted those plans by proposing a new rule that would have prevented potentially hundreds of thousands of foreign students from studying in the United States this fall if their classes were taught remotely.

Harvard’s president, Larry Bacow, termed this move “cruel and reckless,” a ploy to force institutions to open classes as if the pandemic had vanished. On Tuesday, responding to a joint lawsuit led by Harvard and my institution, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as well as pressure from many other quarters, the government revoked the policy.

Yet the larger battle is far from over. This misguided policy was one of many signals that the administration wants foreign students to stay away — an attitude that reflects a stark misreading of our national interest.

In any long-running competition, no one understands your strengths better than your rivals. At a dinner I attended a few years back, Chinese tech leaders contended that China’s most important economic advantage is scale: China’s vast population and market offer a permanent leg up. But they also remarked on America’s persistent advantage in scientific creativity.

What gives our country this advantage? Their explanation surprised me. Because the U.S. is heterogeneous, these leaders told me, it draws the best and brightest from all over the world to work and create together. This, they said, was much more difficult for China.

This astute observation perfectly captures why forcing foreign students to abandon their studies here would be disastrously self-defeating for America: Precisely at a time of sharp economic rivalries, we are systematically undermining the very strength our competitors envy most.

Why is foreign talent so important to the United States? For the same reason the Boston Red Sox don’t limit themselves to players born in Boston: The larger the pool you draw from, the larger the supply of exceptional talent. Moreover, America gains immense creative advantage by educating top domestic students alongside top international students. By challenging, inspiring and stretching one another, they make one another better, just as star players raise a whole team’s level of play.

Unfortunately, when you turn away great players, rival teams happily sign them. Other countries are working hard to attract students who have soured on the United States because of growing anti-immigrant hostility or bureaucratic roadblocks. As a nation, when we turn our backs on talented foreign students, we not only lose all that they bring to our classrooms and laboratories, we also give up a strategic asset.

First, we lose the kind of personal drive that built this country: the life force of brilliant young people with the courage and ambition to leave everything familiar in search of a better future. What’s more, most students who come here to earn a Ph.D. stay to build their families and careers, and often companies that create thousands of jobs. Many become citizens.

The latest data show, for example, that 83 percent of Ph.D. students from China, the kind of highly trained scientists and engineers who drive American innovation, were still in the United States five years after completing their degrees.

The percentage would be higher if longstanding U.S. policies did not require many students to return home after finishing their education — a system as counterproductive as training a great player and then insisting that she go play for a rival team. Recently, the percentage of doctoral graduates remaining here has begun to decline, in part because our national message is that they are not welcome.
As some in Washington have sought to limit foreign students, especially those from China, that hostile message has grown louder.

Of course the United States must screen students seeking visas and keep out those with dubious backgrounds. But even the fiercest China hawks acknowledge that when foreign interests engage in espionage or intellectual theft, they seek to recruit senior scientists; only a small number of Chinese students have been implicated in such cases. The vast majority we should welcome, not discourage with the blunt hostility apparent in recent policies.

I believe profoundly that we must increase the number of Americans pursuing training in science and engineering. But we must also understand that America’s strength in science and engineering is central to America’s strength, period — and that a core element of that strength, for decades, has been our ability to lure the world’s finest talent.

This country derives many intangible advantages from being a beacon of hope for people around the world; I first came to America in 1974 from Venezuela, where my parents finally settled as refugees from Hitler’s Europe. I came to improve my own prospects through a graduate degree. But I found a culture of openness, boldness, ingenuity and meritocracy — a culture which taught me that in coming to America, I had truly come home.

Our competitors openly envy our capacity to welcome and adopt talent from everywhere. I fear lately that we will recognize this strategic U.S. strength only once it is lost.


We need Foreign Students 

by L. Rafael Reif, Pres. of M.I.T
Here's an interesting article by the President of M.I.T that is very much in the news and a new article by Frank Bruni 
about how the admissions progress may never be the same.by
In the context of a pandemic that has killed about 190,000 Americans and economically devastated many millions more, getting into the college of your dreams is a boutique concern. But for many teenagers who have organized their school years around that goal, it’s everything.

That was what I concluded after a recent series of conversations with Jeffrey Selingo, whose widely anticipated new book, “Who Gets In and Why: A Year Inside College Admissions,” will be published on Sept. 15.

Selingo was given extraordinary access to the selection process and the selectors at Emory University, Davidson College and the University of Washington. He uses it in his book to present one of the most nuanced, coolheaded examinations of the admission process that I’ve read. He explodes certain myths — for example, that SAT and ACT scores are absolutely pivotal — and confirms other suspicions, such as the ridiculous advantage conferred on middling students who play arcane sports.

But his knowledge and insights also put him in an excellent position to speculate on matters beyond the book’s bounds: specifically, the little, big, temporary and permanent ways in which the coronavirus pandemic, which dawned after his research was done, will change the way colleges evaluate students and vice versa.

“College admissions is never going to be the same,” he told me.
He was focusing on selective schools, which educate a small minority of Americans in college but loom monstrously large in the psyches of many high school students, who intricately game out how to breach these exclusive sanctums. Well, the rules of that game just changed.

Selingo predicts that many schools that allow “early decision” applications, with which a student sets his or her sights on one preferred institution and commits to attending it if accepted, will fill more of their slots that way than ever, meaning that these applications will have better odds of success than ones submitted later. Schools leaned extra hard on early decision in the shadow of the Great Recession, he said, and now face the same economic anxiety, the same motivation to figure out as soon as possible which new students will be arriving and how much financial aid they’ll need.

But a more broadly consequential change involves standardized tests. Because the pandemic prevented students last spring from gathering to take the SAT and ACT exams, many selective schools are not requiring them for the time being. That will force them to focus more than ever on the toughness of the high school courses that students took and the grades they got.

Which students will benefit from that? It’s complicated. On one hand, affluent students who are coached for these exams and usually take them repeatedly won’t get to flaunt their high scores. On the other hand, less privileged students from high schools whose academic rigor is a question mark in screeners’ minds won’t have impressive scores to prove their mettle.

While these exams have been blamed for perpetuating inequality, they in some cases play the opposite role. In fact, a special committee of educators in the University of California system produced an exhaustively detailed report this year that determined that the use of SAT’s in admissions had not lessened diversity and that SAT scores were useful predictors of college success. (University leaders elected to switch to test-optional admissions for a few years anyway.)

The SAT’s downgrade won’t be fleeting, Selingo said. “We’re going to have a whole admissions year with scores of places going test-optional,” he said. “Once their world doesn’t come crashing down and they still recruit a class, those colleges are not going to flock back to the test. I think it’s been knocked off the pedestal permanently.”

He makes the same guess about what he calls “application bloat,” referring to the flamboyant multiplicity of clubs, causes, hobbies and other materials that applicants assemble and showcase. The pandemic put many of those activities on hold, creating a pause in which he believes that some schools and some students will recognize the lunacy of this overkill.

“It’s going to be difficult for students to fill in 10 spaces for extracurricular activities, flag down teachers for recommendations or take six A.P. courses and exams,” he said. “Admissions officers are going to have to focus on what matters. That means in the future they can pare back the application and reduce our collective anxiety about what it takes to get into college.”

Apart from the increased early-decision emphasis, which can favor in-the-know kids from in-clover families, the changes that Selingo predicts represent a back-to-basics streamlining of the process. It may have been born of terrible circumstances, but it’s also sensible and overdue.

That streamlining extends to how students will choose schools during the coming admission cycle. For epidemiological and economic reasons, many of them will forgo all the campus tours and all the assessments of how comfy the dormitories seem, how tasty the food is, how high the spires rise and how lushly the trees grow. They’ll perhaps look more closely at the course catalog, the roster of professors.

Selingo noted that many colleges based a big part of their sales pitch on their physical setting and even on lifestyle and social perks that are less relevant than ever, given pandemic-related restrictions. “That’s forcing parents and students to ask, ‘What are we really paying for?,’” he said.

The answer is, or should be, an education, and students may come to realize that excellent ones can be obtained at colleges that are less expensive than others in their sights and closer to home. The lure of going far away to college may diminish.

What I suspect will happen, at least in the short term, is that students’ thinking about colleges will be less emotional and more practical. The pandemic has soured the romance.
Colleges had previously presented themselves to students as nurturing homes away from home, then had to send those students packing when the virus spread. Colleges were endless parties, then the partying stopped. They touted the intimacies of classroom instruction, then had to defend the tuition-worthy effectiveness of remote learning. How can students not feel some skepticism in the wake of all that?

“This morning I listened to a Planet Money podcast called ‘The Old Rules Were Dumb Anyway,’” Selingo said. “It talked about the rules that went out the window because of the pandemic and which changes might be here to stay: alcohol takeout from restaurants, telemedicine, using nursing credentials across state lines.”

“It got me to thinking about the old rules that were dumb in admissions,” he added. And it got him to wondering how many were gone for good.
I invite you to sign up for my free weekly email newsletter. You can follow me on Twitter (@FrankBruni).



 it’s going to be a different admission season this year
 and It may well be different forevermore.






Mount Holyoke College professors get the highest marks in the country, according to The Princeton Review. In its guidebook “The Best 386 Colleges,” released today, Mount Holyoke was ranked No. 1 for “Professors Get High Marks.” 

“Professors at Mount Holyoke are ‘wonderful scholars and wonderful people’ who are ‘caring and receptive to concerns’ and ‘incredibly accessible and helpful in and out of office hours,’” The Princeton Review said, quoting student surveys. “Courses offer ‘hands-on lab experience, real-world scenarios outside of the classroom, and creative teaching exercises,’ and when not on field visits, students take part in ‘a vibrant, excited classroom experience that inspires students to go above and beyond.’”

The publication also ranked Mount Holyoke in the top 20 colleges and universities in categories for academics, demographics and extracurriculars. Mount Holyoke ranked No. 2 in the country for “Most LGBTQ-Friendly,” No. 6 for “Most Active Student Government,” No. 9 for “Best College Library” and No. 10 for “Best College Dorms.” 

“Mount Holyoke's outstanding faculty, the vibrancy of the educational experience and exceptional resources here, the engagement, advocacy and strong values of our students, and our extraordinary global network of alums are all reflected in these rankings, as are the value and impact of the education we provide,” said President Sonya Stephens. “It is heartening to see our community, our campus and a Mount Holyoke education recognized in these ways.”

Other rankings include No. 13 for “Best Classroom Experience” and “Best Alumni Network,” and No. 18 for “Most Beautiful Campus.” 

Mount Holyoke also appears on several unranked lists, including Best Northeastern Colleges, Best Value and Green Colleges. 

“Since 1992, our goal in publishing college rankings—and our ongoing mission at The Princeton Review—is to help students find, get accepted to, and thrive at the colleges best FOR THEM,” said Robert Franek, editor-in-chief at The Princeton Review. “We recommend every one of the 386 colleges in the new edition of our book as a ‘best’ choice, and we salute them for their exceptional offerings, especially during this extremely challenging academic year.” 



Princeton Review: Mount Holyoke faculty #1 

Mount Holyoke College faculty were ranked No. 1 in 
“Professors Get High Marks” by The Princeton Review 
Employee vaccination mandate and other fall 2021 updates

Mount Holyoke College will mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for all College employees, with documentation of full vaccination due by August 13, 2021.

COVID-19 Vaccine Challenge

The White House and the U.S. Department of Education are inviting colleges and universities across the country to join them in their efforts to end the pandemic by signing up for the COVID-19 College Vaccine Challenge. Mount Holyoke is joining with other participating colleges by committing to taking three key actions to help get their campus communities vaccinated: engaging every student, faculty, and staff member; organizing their college communities; and delivering vaccine access for all.



COVID NEWS AS OF JULY 1, 2021

July 18, 2021

Dear members of the Mount Holyoke community,

Those in our campus community received an emergency alert yesterday afternoon, and a brief statement thereafter, informing them of the lightning strike to Mead Hall at around 5 pm and the fire it caused. The building was unoccupied at the time of the event and no injuries were reported. I am very grateful to all those who, over the last 24 hours, have expressed their support and concern for Mount Holyoke and for this beloved building on campus, home to many students for 120 years. 

The lightning struck Mead on the fourth floor, on the southwest side of the building, and resulted in a fire in the attic area. The sprinkler system operated as designed, and the fire was soon contained by South Hadley’s Fire District No. 2 (SHFD2), with mutual aid from South Hadley Fire District No. 1 (SHFD1) and several other units from neighboring towns. Some areas of campus experienced a brief power outage while we shut off power to Mead, but electricity was soon restored to all other buildings. There is currently no impact to other areas of campus, other than some traffic restrictions as clean-up efforts continue, and assessment of the damage in Mead moves forward, with guidance from water and fire experts, structural engineers, local officials and external contractors. The emergency response team will provide further updates to the campus community as we gain greater clarity about the damage sustained and the repairs to be undertaken.

While the damage from the fire appears to be limited to a relatively small section of the roof space, there is extensive water damage to a significant part of the building. Regrettably, Mead Hall will be closed for some time.

It is very likely that Mead Hall will remain unoccupied throughout the fall semester. The College’s emergency response team is working to identify alternative housing for the more than 140 students whose fall 2021 housing assignments are now impacted by this event. 
All students who have been assigned rooms in Mead Hall this fall will be offered alternative housing. The Office of Residential Life has already contacted those students directly, and will stay in touch with those students as the plans take shape. We are currently exploring a number of options, including off-campus accommodations.
We are also working to ensure that the Mosaic and Mary Woolley Living Learning Communities, which are based in Mead, are accommodated in any new arrangement. 
Some students had stored items in Mead in the spring of 2020, when the campus was evacuated as a result of the pandemic. Those students will also receive a separate communication, once we are able to assess the status of their belongings.
While it was deeply distressing today to see one of our cherished buildings so badly damaged, I was heartened by the prospect of its full restoration, thanks in large part to the rapid and effective response of our local firefighters, and to the efforts already undertaken by our colleagues in Facilities Management (FM). The clean-up operation started early this morning, and FM staff also acted quickly to assure the protection of the building and its contents from both the water in the building and from further inclement weather. The residential life staff was also present last night and this morning and connected immediately with students on campus. They are working diligently to make arrangements for fall. While the temporary closing of the building certainly creates unforeseen challenges and deep disappointment, we are confident that Mead Hall will again be a backdrop for future memories and connections, both for Mount Holyoke students and for our many visiting alums.

I know that you will join me in offering heartfelt gratitude and appreciation to the first responders from SHFD2, SHFD1, their colleagues in local fire districts and our own Public Safety and Service, as well as to all those in Facilities Management, for their swift action to mitigate damage to Mead and to keep our campus safe. Without their rapid arrival on the scene, and their expert intervention, the outcome of this event could have been significantly worse. We are deeply grateful for their rapid response in the face of this serious event and for their work to save this historic and deeply loved campus landmark.

Sincerely,

Sonya


​LIGHTNING STRIKE ON MEAD HALL