This fall, we’re piloting a new-ish type of course: the Honors Bridge.
When I became dean of LAHC, one of the programs in my portfolio is the Honors Program. I spent a good bit of time last year in conversation with colleagues, both here and in other institutions, thinking about Honors. I was very lucky to have a spirited group of faculty in the ad hoc Honors Workgroup, and they helped formulate a new direction for Honors, building on the great work of the past.
One of our major concerns is access — which is another way of saying that we were concerned about the inclusiveness of the program. I have often pointed out that decisions on the “front-end” of a decision-process often have unintended but destructive effects on the implementation end. I think that’s a good way to look at Honors programs.
And so, I did look at Honors programs, not just ACC’s, but all over the country. While I don’t think most people would put it this way, I think one can group honors programs into two philosophical styles: (1) getting in, and (2) staying in.
The “getting-in” philosophy tends to enforce high entrance requirements: GPA, number of hours attempted, SAT/ACT, etc., etc. On the front end, this philosophy rewards high achievement, but high achievement is significantly predicated on access. And so, an unintended consequence of the “getting-in” philosophy is that, in such programs, people of color tend to be underrepresented. We could spend a lot of time analyzing why this is the case, but for our purposes, it is enough to notice that this is the case.
On the other hand, programs pursuing a “staying-in” philosophy tend to cultivate the “honors potential” in students and provides multiple points of entry into the program, including but not limited to GPA and other traditional measure of academic achievement. But such programs also tend to value leadership, community service, and other characteristics. Not that getting-in-oriented programs don’t value leadership: It’s a question of emphasis and guiding values.
ACC Honors is transforming itself into a staying-in program, and one of the new features of that transformation is the establishment of Honors Bridge courses as additional entry points. An Honors Bridge course is a “regular” course (whatever that means!) taught by an Honors professor, in which students may self-select as candidates for Honors program membership. The professor, perhaps in conjunction with colleagues, provides these students opportunities for additional enrichment assignments, and at the end of the course, if the would-be Honors student meets certain criteria, then she is an ACC Honors student. For instance, the student’s grade must be high enough, and the student must have a recommendation from an Honors professor. From that entry point, the focus shifts to staying in Honors.
And since we’re on the topic of staying in, what might that look like? We’re working on the details, but GPA will play a role, as will leadership and service. One of the most exciting ideas on the table is to create opportunities for Honors students to serve as peer mentors or tutors — a way of paying forward the support and nurturing they get as Honors students.
I’ll conclude this briefing on bridges with some words of appreciation: First, to those of you who served on the ad hoc committee last year. Your input and in particular, your conversations about what you value in the Honors program were the foundations! I don’t know if this post will makes it way to them, but I also benefitted greatly from conversations I had with Honors professors and leaders from all over the country. Your experiences with your students have proved invaluable as a source of inspiration (and caution!).
I can’t express how grateful I am to current and former ACC Honors students. Your input and encouragement have meant so much to me! You are the reason we have Honors at ACC.
Finally, I have to shout out to Stacey Stover, current Honors DC. Stacey’s vision and leadership will carry the day as we reinvent our Honors program.
