Introducing: Perspectives on Pathways
Our new initiative to better inform the broader Furman community about Furman's flagship advising initiative.
The Pathways Program is Furman’s two-year advising initiative aimed at preparing students for their time in college and for life after graduation. The program, which launched as a pilot in 2017, has been roundly praised by Furman’s administration. It has also received positive attention more broadly, most notably in Jeffrey Selingo’s recent book Dream School.
The administration presents Pathways as their attempt to “[ensure that] every student maximizes their college experience.” The program claims to connect students “with dedicated advisors, trained peer mentors, and a comprehensive support network that guides [students] through every step of [their] academic and professional development.” During weekly classes through the first two years of college, students receive guidance in building resumes, having conversation across differences in belief, and other necessary elements of college and career preparation.
What’s not to like? Well, those familiar with Pathways’s on-the-ground execution have long perceived a wide gulf between the Program’s promise and the Program’s reality. Students and professors alike doubt its utility and are frustrated by its requirements. These, of course, are not universal sentiments, but they are wide-spread.
It was this disparity between administrative rhetoric and feedback from students and professors which led the Furman Free Speech Alliance (FFSA) to begin investigating the Pathways Program more seriously.
We have conducted interviews with faculty, students, and administrators, both on and off the record, in an attempt to comprehend why the program has created discontent among so many of its participants. The result is Perspectives on Pathways, a compilation of interviews intended to make public a wide array of viewpoints on the program. This project is not a campus-wide survey and it is not intended to give any systematic indication of Pathways’s popularity. Instead, it aims to give voice to Pathways’s defenders and detractors alike, to better inform the broader Furman community about what is happening on campus.
In addition to the interviews, we want to offer some reflection on what we’ve learned over the course of FFSA’s investigation. We recognize—as I think any fair reader of the interviews will—that some of the program’s goals are laudable. It is good to provide systematic instruction in academic integrity and connect students early with career-preparation resources, for example. At the same time, we have come away with some serious concerns.
The Pathways Program, while not a serious academic endeavor, awards students four academic credits over the course of two years. We think this practice fails to meet the high standard of academic excellence Furman has traditionally modeled. Additionally, students tend to view aspects of the Program which don’t deal substantially with college or career preparation—such as reflection exercises, “storytelling” modules, and conversations about personality tests—as wastes of time. We think this is seriously damaging to the university’s ethos and share the concerns of many students about how effective a required, once-weekly class can be at prompting serious and productive reflection.
If Furman’s administration is going to advertise Pathways as one of the university’s flagship initiatives, then they should strive to make it excellent. Right now the program is mediocre at best. Successful reform of the program could take different shapes: Furman could fortify the curriculum to make it more worthy of academic credit, as Dr. Turner suggested in her interview, or they could strip out the parts not substantially related to college and career skills, as several students suggested in their interviews. Whatever direction they choose, it is clear that the Program needs reform.
Ultimately, the nature of that reform—and whether the Program continues in existence at all—will be decided by a faculty vote. This is fitting: Furman’s faculty are its sentinels standing guard against encroachments of academic rigor. They are best fit to judge and reform the program. We call on Furman’s faculty to consider the issues carefully and to exercise their power with wisdom and faithfulness to their office.
The project’s interviewees speak for themselves. They do not represent or endorse the views of FFSA, or of any other interviewee.
We will publish our first interview featuring Tyler Tewell ‘25, a former Pathways Peer Mentor, next Wednesday (March 4). Each subsequent week, we will publish another perspective from a Furman community member, including interviews from:
Provost Beth Pontari, Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
Professor Helen Lee Turner, Professor of Religion
Nathan Johnson, Junior, Politics and History Major
We will also be conducting more interviews. So, if you are a student or faculty member who has experience with Pathways and would like to voice your perspective, please reach out to us at furmanfreespeech@gmail.com.
 |
|