Vice President Pontari Defends Pathways
"Pathways isn’t a stagnant thing. It’s a living thing, and we’re going to have to make adjustments to respond to the faculty who have issues with it."
Welcome to Perspectives on Pathways — a compilation of interviews intended to make public a wide array of viewpoints on Furman’s two-year advising initiative.
This week, we focus on the perspective of Dr. Beth Pontari, Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost; Professor of Psychology
We hope you enjoy the insight.
Tell me about yourself and your role at Furman.
I have been at Furman since 2001 when I started on faculty in psychology. I was the department chair from 2013 to 2017. During that time I had the opportunity to participate in a resiliency study that was conducted across the four Duke Endowment campuses (Furman, Duke, Davidson, and Johnson C. Smith). That study in many ways launched me on the trajectory of being in administration and also connects to both Pathways and The Furman Advantage (which I’ll come back to later).
From 2017 to 2022 I was the Associate Provost for Engaged Learning. Then, when our provost went back to the faculty, I took the interim role for two years, and am now in my second year in the official role. Furman was my first job out of my PhD at University of Florida—I’ve been here my entire career, and that’s intentional. I really believe in and am very passionate about what we do. I believe in the mission, and I want to help continue to move that mission forward.
Can you give me an overview of The Furman Advantage?
When Elizabeth Davis arrived at Furman and took stock of the school, she quickly identified our many strengths, including our rigorous academics, faculty engagement, undergraduate research, student internships, and robust study-away program. She observed the powerful connections between faculty and students.
At the same time, she also noticed that not all students were having the same experience. There were some that, for whatever reason, were not getting the transformative experience that we really wanted for all of our students. So that’s where The Furman Advantage started and why it was so successful. It spoke to and leveraged the things that we were already really good at, and tried to make good on the every-student promise; to figure out how to get all students engaged at that level.
Another area where students told us we could improve—a finding repeated in our own internal assessment and eventually through a Gallup assessment—was first year advising. Students also said we needed to do more by way of professional development, especially for graduates looking to get jobs rather than advanced degrees after Furman. We needed to figure out how to both improve our advising and mentoring and do a better job of preparing students for life after Furman.
Underlying a lot of that was the question, “How do we get students to reflect more?” We know we have a student body that’s very motivated and very high achieving. They go and go and go, but they don’t always stop and reflect on what they’re doing and perhaps be more intentional about the choices they’re making. Figuring out how to do that was another piece of the puzzle. The resiliency study also showed that our students were experiencing a lot of academic stress. We needed a way to intervene and support students with time-management and study skills.
When we were first launching The Furman Advantage, we needed to know what the barriers to the full Furman experience were. The primary one, of course, was financial. If we really wanted students to do full-time summer experiences, whether research or internships, we needed to make those opportunities available to all students, not just the ones who could afford to not get paid in the summer. The other thing that was really loud and clear was that students would often say, “I just figured all this out way too late. I didn’t have the right advising and support.” So it was an information, access, preparation, and scaffolding question. That’s where Pathways really started to take form.
Tell me more about Pathways.
Pathways was designed to make sure that we are providing people with the information and basic skills, like creating a resume or sitting through an interview, that students need to be professionally equipped. Back in 2016 or ‘17 there were different committees working to launch all the pieces of The Furman Advantage. They were thinking about engaged learning and about advising over the course of a four year pathway. The committees independently came to the conclusion that Furman needed to do something differently in years one and two.
By the fall of 2017 we were ready to execute on a pilot program. We soft-launched the Pathways Program for what was supposed to be five-ish years. Covid happened in the middle of that, so it got extended. Each year we took a sample of about 120 incoming freshmen and randomly assigned them into cohorts. We also had a comparison group of non-Pathways students and would assess both on the outcomes that we were looking for: Are students taking advantage of more engaged learning? Are they reporting positive advising experiences? Are they learning to reflect? These are the kinds of outcomes we were hoping for, and we could actually compare the treatment group and the control group.
I will tell you that that type of assessment is very rare in higher education. It was a quasi-experiment that had random group assignment (in that incoming students were randomly selected to participate in the pilot or comparison group). And the data from the pilot was compelling! We saw an increased sense of belonging in the Pathways group, along with more satisfaction with advising. There was definitely more early connection with the Career Center. In the end—which is right now—we’re actually showing better retention.
In order for the Pathways Program to become part of the curriculum and a graduation requirement, it had to go through the faculty for an official vote. We went through that process, presented the data that we had collected over the years, and got it approved by the faculty with the caveat that at year six, which will be next year, it would come back up for a vote. We’ve continued to do a lot of assessments, including the same ones we did during the soft launch. The difference now is we’re really looking at correlation over time. For example, sense of belonging seems to have continued to increase over time. Is that due to Pathways? Not necessarily. But I think the combination of that pilot data and the current data gives us confidence that Pathways is certainly playing a role.
Were the original pilot groups self-selecting?
No. We contacted 150 incoming students and said “you’ve been selected for this program.” Now, did all of them agree to do it? Not necessarily. Some people dropped out. Some said the time commitment was too much, some said they didn’t need the program, and then some left Furman, so there’s not much you can do there. But yes, they were random. Imagine it this way: we take 600 incoming students, pull out 150 names, randomly put them into cohorts, and then pull out the students from the remaining 450 that best matched the Pathways population for the comparison.
What kind of assessments do you conduct now?
Our assessments now are fairly robust. The students provide feedback through “snap evaluations” after each module or course. They also complete course evaluations at the end of each semester like they would for any Furman course. What will be interesting now is that our current seniors are the first class to go all the way through the program. It will be really useful to get their mature reflections on the program, since, as is often the case, you can look back and understand some of the things you had to do as a student better than you did at the time. I think we’re probably going to see some of that in our feedback.
We’re also still working with Gallup. Gallup assesses our students and employees once a year, and our alumni every five years. So that’s another big basis for some of our evaluation of Pathways. We also do an assessment (The National Survey of Student Engagement) every three years that looks at things like mentoring, access to high-impact practices, etc. We also create a Pathways Report every year.
We do these sorts of evaluations because we urgently want The Furman Advantage to be successful and to actually live up to our guarantees. Our assessments initially showed us that we were going to have to provide a bit more scaffolding on the front end. When we looked at what our barriers were we saw that this was an opportunity. Students were saying that freshmen advising was kind of luck of the draw—whether they got a good advisor or not. We’re hopeful that Pathways will solve some of that, because the training that’s involved with being a Pathways advisor is pretty heavy in terms of understanding the curriculum, learning how to interact with students, etc.
The other piece that I think is really important about the program is that students see their advisor and peer mentor once a week, which is on average far more than students used to see their first year advisors. The peer mentor piece has been super powerful for the program, for the students and the peer mentors alike. A lot of our peer mentors will say it’s like one of the best things that they’ve done in terms of an engaged learning experience.
I think it’s also good for students who, say, come midterms get Bs and Cs when they’re used to that. They can find camaraderie amongst their Pathways class and realize that they’re among many others who are having these sorts of new experiences. These experiences can be stressful and anxiety provoking, but I think it lowers the temperature a little bit when you see them as what everyone’s going through.
This goes back to the resiliency project that’s meant to help students understand the things they’re experiencing—setbacks, failures, challenges, roommate conflicts—and help them develop skills to work through and learn from these experiences. Pathways is aimed to increase resiliency. And the pilot showed Pathways students self-reported more resiliency than the control group.
What has student and faculty feedback looked like?
It depends. When you’re talking about feedback on the outcomes of the program—like students’ reported level of belonging and things like that—those are in line with what we would expect. Are there students that dislike Pathways? Yes. Are there students that really think Pathways is great? Yes. It’s like anything else; there’s a mixed bag. I don’t think the majority of students think Pathways isn’t useful, which is what our assessments have shown so far. There are challenges—not all the students complete the surveys. That’s just part of doing surveys, right? But the majority overall are still finding it useful. They might find some of the content less useful, and some of the students really do push back on it, and those are all things that we try to listen to, gather, and address.
The advising committee is responsible for taking all that feedback every year and making changes to the program and curriculum. They look at what students are saying—what they find not useful or don’t like. I will say that if a minority of students raise something we might not make the change right away, because those students might be really well prepared for college while others are less so, but we at least try to take that feedback into consideration. The great thing about the program is that because it’s modular, we can make adjustments and evolve really easily. And the committee’s job is to do that every year.
We have gotten some faculty feedback recently. Only 100 faculty responded, and the big divide about Pathways is whether the faculty member taught the class. Faculty who have been a Pathways advisor definitely have a more positive view than those who haven’t taught in it. That’s an interesting data point.
I mentioned we have a vote coming up in the 2027-28 academic year. We’re going to make changes to the program before then based on all this feedback. What those changes will look like is mostly up to faculty governance, advising committees, and faculty who weigh in on what those changes should look like. Pathways isn’t a stagnant thing. It’s a living thing, and we’re going to have to make adjustments to respond to the faculty who have issues with it. The goal is not to get rid of it. I think it’s really useful.
We’ve got to listen to those voices and make the changes that we need to make. I fully support that. The goal is, by the time Pathways goes up for the vote, it’s edited to the point that people think, “yeah, this is useful.”
We see retention going up—very few schools have gone back to pre-Covid retention between freshman and sophomore year—and we think that’s really important. We have to really think about what’s best for the students over time. We’re also seeing higher rates of use of the Center for Academic Success. We’re seeing students going earlier to the Malone Center for Career Engagement. It seems very likely that Pathways is benefiting students in the end. They have a resume and they have done an interview. I do think the original need is still there, and we need to make sure that we’re providing students with all the information and support they need to be successful.
What are some of the changes the advisory committee overseeing the Pathways’s curriculum has made based on student or faculty feedback?
They make curricular changes. Things like doing this but not that module or taking into account that something might become less relevant based on what’s happening at Furman and in the world. Honestly, I can’t give you examples of the specifics because I’m not that far in the weeds, but they’re adjusting the curriculum based on what’s working and what’s not working. They’re not making big changes. The big changes are going to come—if we make those—as we go closer to the vote. Could you go from a two year program to one year? We could think about that. I’m not saying that’s what we’re doing, but the idea is—in great Furman fashion— that we’re innovators, right? We’re going to come together and think about how to make this program really good, and continue to evolve and move it forward.
To give you examples of recent faculty discussion, there were two open forums in the fall for faculty to come and give feedback on Pathways and have in-person conversation. There are also always opportunities to give written feedback. So that conversation is happening. One of the conversations we’re having simultaneously is about the liberal arts. What’s the future of the liberal arts? How does Furman define the liberal arts? I think it will be great if those conversations start to come together. We’re going to continue to do the traditional liberal arts and embrace the strengths we have in that space, but like any other school, we need to think about what’s next, what’s new, and what’s important for students to have in their curriculum. So I could see those two conversations feeding off of one another as we move closer to making any changes to the program in the next couple years.
What is the relationship of the Duke Endowment to Pathways?
The Duke Endowment supported The Furman Advantage, and not just Pathways. The more costly parts of The Furman Advantage were making sure that we have stipends for all summer internships and research. A lot of the Duke Endowment funds have gone to making sure students get a $3,500 stipend to do research and internships. Now, that’s not all Duke Endowment funds. We have our own Furman funds, we have grant funds, and we have restricted funds, but that’s a big lift every year. We also invested in the Malone Center. We have invested in positions to try and execute the 100% guarantee to engaged learning. So Pathways is part of many things that get funded.
The rough cost of Pathways is about a half-million dollars per year. When you compare that to a lot of the other things we do, Pathways is relatively cost-efficient. Contrast that with the study away budget, which is close to $4 million a year. So, yes, some of the Duke Endowment funds are supporting Pathways, but they’re also supporting a lot of the other elements of The Furman Advantage. And I would say many of those are more costly than Pathways.
How has Furman improved since you came on board? Are there any ways where you feel like we’ve declined?
I’ve been here 25 years, and like I said earlier, I was convinced from the beginning of what an amazing place Furman is, and that has not wavered. Our strengths are still our tremendous faculty that prioritize our students. I’m biased when thinking about improvements because I think I’ve been a part of the most recent improvements through The Furman Advantage. But I think that through The Furman Advantage people really became aware of what we were doing and became better able to talk about it, which was something new for me in my 25 year span. Students say “The Furman Advantage,” and though they might not completely understand what that means, they at least had some language for the things they did while at Furman.
I have always thought the challenge for me at Furman is, how do we differentiate ourselves? Because I do think we do things better. I think we do things more intentionally. I think more students get more experiences. One of the things we’ve seen is about a 15 to 20% increase in students who have two engaged learning experiences. So 60% of students are doing two internships, two research experiences, or one of each. That is a huge differentiator, even compared to our liberal arts competitors.
I also think it’s just clear that we have improved our advising and mentoring. I think we have definitely improved on career prep in terms of students understanding where and how to get help. One of the things we learned early on through the Gallup data was that we were failing the students after graduation who weren’t going to grad school, med school, or law school. Pathways is part of addressing that. It makes them think about what skills employers and graduate schools want. It teaches how to get those skills in sophomore year.
For years three and four we created the Purposeful Pathways Program. The Pathways Program is the first two years. Purposeful Pathways is years three and four, where every academic department now has a faculty member whose job it is to think about discipline-specific types of professional-development activities, opportunities, and skills that students in the department need. They partner with the Malone Center, help students with internships, and bring programming to the department for students to engage in. That has been wildly successful.
Where do you see Furman going in the next 20 years?
The higher-ed landscape right now is really challenging. The liberal-arts landscape is incredibly challenging. The enrollment landscape is like the wild wild west. And so we’ve got things we really have to take head on. We need to keep evolving the transformative student experience that we have created. And honestly in higher ed, people point to us as the exemplar. You know, we just appeared in Dream Schools. But how do we keep evolving with it? That’s the question about the evolution of liberal arts. What engaged learning opportunities do we need to think of that maybe are more relevant now than they were five or ten years ago? We still need to evolve and do better.
For example, we’re looking to do more industry-specific career coaching. The Malone Center recently hired a finance/business consultant to help students interested in those fields. The idea is that as soon as a student expresses interest in finance/business as their career trajectory, there is a person that they can go to that has all the specialized knowledge, contact with alums and corporations, and know-how to help them find internships and eventually jobs. Over time, we want to create more advising positions for more industries. We chose finance as a pilot because, if you don’t already know that’s what you want to do and have solid direction by the time you’re a sophomore, you lose out on opportunities. And students were telling us that we needed to do better in this particular area.
How are you looking to grow academically?
For one example, this past fall, the faculty approved a new Finance major. We’re also looking at some data-science opportunities. We have the Data Analytics minor that has been wildly popular. We’ve been thinking about how we can build that out into computer science or applied math. We’re also rebuilding our Physics department a bit, and have a new chair. He’s hopefully recruiting two new faculty right now. One of the things we’re trying to address is students who say, “I think I’m interested in engineering, and though I don’t really know what that means, I certainly am not going to Furman because they don’t have anything in that field.” Well, I would disagree. What we’re hearing from people looking to hire engineers or bring them into their master’s programs is that they want engineers with liberal arts skills! Applied physics is an area that speaks to some engineering possibilities, while still allowing students to study in a liberal-arts context.
Is there anything you would like to add?
I really feel that out of 25 years, the last five to ten have seen serious change. The higher-ed environment is difficult. Enrollment is changing. But I really believe that Furman is having a moment. There’s a lot of good things in alignment right now. We have worked really hard to figure out what our future is, and we know what we have to do. We know what the challenges are and we have a plan to address them.
Each subsequent week, we will publish another perspective from a Furman community member, including interviews from:
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.
 |
|