A Letter to the Department

Kelly Lynch // September 28, 2012

I’ll begin this post by saying that this is, firstly, a peaceful position on the recent changes made to the BPR co-op program. Several students approached me with the desire to create a dialogue around the changes, and I’m using Symmetry to provide this for them.

I hope everyone will read this article through to the end, and feel free to comment on its content in a diplomatic, mature way. I will moderate any comments on the article I see as inappropriate.

In short: Let’s be civil about this. Let’s be nice. Let’s talk.

I’m going to go through this and give you a whole bunch of context, and I will do my best to be the voice of the students. If I have said anything incorrect, unfair, or naïve, I encourage you to approach me about it. I apologize in advance if I don’t get it quite right, but I think this issue has snowballed to a point where we need to talk about it or there’s going to be unnecessary resentment.

Here we go.

Those of us in the program were recently informed by the co-op office that:

“ [Students ]will not be presenting a reflective seminar in January; however we feel it’s important for you to reflect on your professional and academic growth. Therefore, you will be writing a reflective report (see attached guidelines) which must be submitted by Monday, December 3^rd no later than 4:30 p.m. AST. You will upload your report using the Moodle class, 2012FA PR Co-op Students.

This new deadline will ensure your co-op term grades will be submitted by the end of the fall term. This will alleviate a number of issues, including the issue some students have had when applying for a student loan. Student loan was not providing financial consideration for co-op work term tuition fees until a co-op grade was posted which was resulting in a delay for many students.”

It is my understanding that the department is able to make changes to the program without consulting us. While this may seem unfair, let’s think about it this way: consider having to consult with hundreds of students every time a change is proposed. It would end up being time-consuming and money-eating – precious commodities, especially when tuition is already so high. It’s not that universities aren’t democratic; in many ways they are. However, a university is also a business.

On the other end of the argument, there’s the fact that we are customers or clients of said business, and though we are not always “right” (I have never believed this when it comes to customer service), we are one of the university’s most important stakeholders. Even if we can’t be involved in the decision-making progress, the university should be doing its best to ease any kind of transition with proper communication. There was very little said around this particular issue until the last minute.

I think the Mount does what it can to ensure the decisions made are in the best interest of its students and, though we are paying customers, at times it doesn’t make sense we have a say in particular changes. This doesn’t always mean the university is “right” either, but I think this change to the program is just such a decision. In the initial letter from the co-op office, it was made quite clear that the change from presentation to paper was, in the end, to ease administrative and financial roadblocks. Let’s approach this from a student perspective.

First common argument I’ve seen surrounding this change:

PR students were not consulted. This is not two-way symmetrical communication.

No, it isn’t two-way symmetrical communication. One of the problems we encounter continually in class is the idealistic approach to two-way symmetrical communication. It is not often defined as ideal – as an ‘ought’ if you will. It’s defined as the only way to communicate well. While this may not be the intent of the professors, students often perceive it this way. But sometimes it just isn’t appropriate or feasible. In the case of the change we’re currently discussing, it simply wasn’t efficient.

We have to write a paper. Okay. Are there problems with this?

Second argument:

The paper is a repeat of our first work term project

I don’t have any answers for this one. Maybe it will be. It seems similar. This wasn’t explained in-depth, though it was briefly addressed in a second communication from the department.

I think it’s necessary now to take a look at the second communication sent to us regarding this change. The following was a letter sent to us from the Chair of the Department to explain the situation in-depth.

Hello everyone:

I hope that each of you is having a productive learning experience in your work terms! The co-op office has told me that a number of you have expressed concerns about the change to the academic component of your current work term, and asked me if I might take a moment to put this into context for you.

As you are all aware, over the past year the department conducted a curriculum review that resulted in changes to course requirements for the BPR. These are appropriate and congruent to expectations of public relations practitioners, and will serve to further enhance the BPR degree. You all seemed to appreciate the changes and we’re happy that you’re happy.

Let’s stop here for a second. We were given a choice with the new program – we chose if we switched over or not. The freedom to do so made the switch easier for most or all students. And, the changes made do seem progressive, and we appreciate that.

Alongside that change, the integral academic component of the co-op experience was also examined with the Dean’s blessing. We were concerned about a number of issues.

First, over the past five years, students seem not to see the connection between what they are learning in the classroom and what they are learning on the job.

Sometimes this is the fault of the job, and not the classroom. Not every work term experience, sadly, provides students with the experience they need to bring anything back to the classroom. And yes, sometimes students just don’t work hard enough. Everyone has a choice in how they conduct themselves and in what level of work ethic they’ll have. Not everyone chooses to work hard. But most of us do. I truly believe this.

And sometimes, what we learn in the classroom, the material itself, may create the gap we’re seeing. Perhaps students should be consulted on this in future to try to close these gaps. We’re smart, and we’re the ones actually going through this program. Ask us. We’d be happy to work with you. Class evaluations just don’t seem to be doing the trick and it may be time for a new method to evaluate classes and class material.

Second, work term reports seem to have devolved into after-thoughts, rather than opportunities for on-going student learning through the work term – learning that could be brought back into the classroom to build on.

Third, the quality of the work term reports has been deteriorating to the point where students are actually failing work terms and being dismissed from the program in numbers that we have never seen before. Finally, work term grades are consequently being submitted long after the semester is actually over. All of these factors needed to be addressed.

There is nothing positive about either of the above paragraphs. If we put what was said plainly, the between-the-lines message (though perhaps this was not the author’s intent) is that all PR students are not applying themselves during the work term or afterward in the reflective learning process. It saddens me and I’m sure many other students in the program to hear that some of us just aren’t producing the high-quality academic material we are absolutely capable of.

But I believe many of us are. If you take a look at this website, I think the entire piece speaks for itself. Many of the students who contribute to Symmetry are passionate individuals, intelligent individuals who care about the work they do in their co-op and afterward in the classroom. Perhaps this is something the department believes as well, but it was not communicated at all in this letter, which made me feel, well, defeated.

I’m not asking for a pat on the back for the hard work I know many students in the program do, but I am asking that you acknowledge the good with the bad. That you acknowledge there is more “good” than “bad.” Let us know you have faith in us.

We have therefore made some major changes to the academic component of the work term because, make no mistake, this is an actual course whether you have seen it this way before or not.

The royal ‘you’ is used in this paragraph. We know we’re in a course. Believe me when I say that we feel the pressure of our academic and our professional lives, the combination thereof, with the addition of personal and social on top of it. We are not just students. We are students with goals, dreams, and ambition who take this course and the PR program very seriously.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve sat in a hallway with my classmates waiting for classes to begin and have seen the bags under their eyes, the steaming coffee held desperately in hands weary from typing papers and cover letters. The worry I hear in people’s voices when they’re late getting a co-op, or the joy when they get a call saying they do. This program is hard work, and we feel it intellectually, emotionally, and sometimes physically.

There have been times I’ve been so exhausted from my course work and all that goes with it that I wasn’t sure I could keep going. But I do. Because I believe in the strength of the program and the professors who dedicate their time to teaching us what we need to do to become better and to succeed.

One change that you will not see this term is that there will be a faculty member assigned from the beginning of the term and that faculty member will consult with students throughout the term and assign and mark ongoing work term assignments. (I realize that for most of you this is your last work term so this will not be a change that you will experience). Being an actual course means that the ‘assignment’ is like any ‘assignment’ that might be required of you by any professor in any given term in any given class. The professor decides how you will be evaluated.

We look forward to the ‘assignments’, and hope that they are appropriately designed to help us grow as professionals.

We are, however, sensitive to the fact that your class is the first to experience this change and that is why we have made this compromise: rather than you completing the on-going assignments throughout the term that will be the hallmark of the upcoming changed assignments, we are requiring of you only that you write a brief reflective report.

Since you can begin to do this immediately, it will in reality take up very little time, and will be finished in early December so that you can have one less thing to worry about during your Christmas holidays and at the beginning of a new semester in January. Indeed, I’m looking forward to seeing them, since I’ll likely be marking at least some of them.

The time consumption of this assignment was never really an issue. Personally, I enjoy writing the reports (or I at least enjoyed the first one I created) because it allowed me to write. I really like writing.

The presentations would have taken up an equal amount of time or more and we were looking forward to doing them.

The student-to-student presentations that you experienced prior to your own first work terms are not lost in all of this – the co-op office has graciously offered to coordinate these if you would like to volunteer to do them in January, but it will be your choice.

I have already volunteered, and I encourage others to do so. I think we all recall that the seminars were especially inspiring.

Change is always hard, as you’re only too aware, and change can be difficult, but is often necessary. Anything that does not change stagnates, and stagnation of the BPR curriculum is something that we have never permitted in the past and will not in the future. We care too much about your opportunities in the future and where your careers might take you. The department approved these changes via the same process as other curriculum changes are made.

Change is always difficult, and is usually met with some resistance because of this. Often it is necessary. But change is not always good. Change is not an inherently positive thing. In this case, it’s not even necessarily the change, but the process through which it was presented to students. Change can result in stagnation if that change is regressive in character – we’re relying on you to avoid this. We look forward to seeing how this change works out.

I hope that you will all take all of that wonderful energy that has gone into being concerned about the change and channel it into the best work term report you have ever written. And I hope that you’ll see the value of having it completed before your Christmas holidays!

We have lots of energy, it’s true. We are type-A personalities, after all.

Being concerned about our education and how we are viewed as students and as customers of the university should not be dismissed in such a way. The very fact we are concerned about the design behind our education should indicate to you that we are passionate about it. Channeling our energy into being concerned about our futures is an entirely legitimate course of action. We hope you will see it as such in future.

Best wishes for the rest of the work term…I look forward to seeing the reports.

Patricia Parsons APR, FCPRS

Professor & Chairman

Department of Communication Studies

Thank-you to everyone who has read through this, and we look forward to any discussion around this issue.

Sincerely,

Kelly Lynch, Editor-in-Chief & the Symmetry Team

http://www.facebook.com/asterling Adam Sterling

Thank you for creating this space, Kelly. I’m sure our fellow students will appreciate the opportunity to communicate their concerns and hopefully work with the administration to keep similar kerfuffles from happening again.

I agree with pretty much everything you said. Although I hope it wasn’t her intention, I do feel as though the second letter sent to students had a condescending and paternalistic tone. Professors and students should work as partners. There is certainly an inherent power imbalance, but the best professors try to minimize that to whatever degree possible. The least effective professors use that imbalance to their advantage.

You are quite right that the students – or at least many of them – in this program work hard and are passionate about their professional and academic development. Unfortunately, the letter seemed to really discount that hard work and, considering that it’s coming from the desk of the department chair, that really disappoints me.

I think you’ve also brought up an excellent point – Symmetry’s continued success is the best evidence out there of students’ involvement and investment in the work they’re doing. If students weren’t already engaged in continued reflection on public relations practice and theory, this would simply be an empty website. It’s not – it’s a powerful testament to our passion for what we’re doing.

Speaking specifically to the change in assignment… I, too, don’t really care that I have to write a paper. The deadline isn’t ideal, but I’ll make it work. What bothers me is that the change for our particular class seems arbitrary…

I don’t see how this change is meant to address assignments being an afterthought. For those of us in distance courses, I think it actually increases the assignment’s chances of not receiving its due attention.

I don’t see how it’s any more likely to engage students in continued reflection. This is not the ongoing assignments that future students will receive. This is a single paper due near the end of our term.

And I certainly don’t see how this can address quality concerns – from my perspective, the only thing that truly drives quality is motivation. And the letter that I received yesterday certainly has done nothing for my motivation.
- Laura Kennedy
  
  Adam, I completely agree with your statement regarding the fact that changing the project to a paper is no more likely to influence constant reflection and effort on the final project throughout the duration of the term than the seminar would.
  
  Like you said, it is about motivation, and I think the seminar was something many of us were looking forward to.
  
  Although it is something I would have liked to do, like many other students, I am extremely busy and, unfortunately, can’t see myself having time to volunteer to do the seminar ontop of the report.
Laura Kennedy

Overall, I’ve accepted that a change has been made and that it isn’t likely to revert back. However, that’s not to say that I wasn’t a bit concerned with the change itself and the way it was communicated with us.

While I certainly can see the co-op office’s/department’s side to this and why they feel the change might be necessary, one of my main concerns was that many of the reasons given in Patricia’s e-mail were not mentioned to us when the change was initially communiacted by the co-op office.

The second aspect that I would be interested in discussing would be the option to choose between doing the seminar or the report for our evalution of this term. I feel that this would be a nice happy-medium and I don’t really see many issues with this. I feel that if the quality of our work has gone down, as they’ve mentioned, and that many people are failing their assignments, it is based on that individuals lack of effort in general and that it is likely this would be the same whether they were to do a seminar or a writtem report.

I’ve expressed my feelings to the co-op office who said they would pass along my e-mail to Patricia.

As Ive mentioned, I’ve accepted the fact that a change has taken place and that perhaps we need to move on. That being said, I would still be interested in hearing their response and whether they have any further information they could provide to address my concerns and make this transition a little easier on all of us.

Laura Kennedy
- http://www.symmetrypublicrelations.com/ Kelly Lynch
  
  Laura,
  
  I think the prospect of a choice is an interesting one. Perhaps we’ll see a response from the department.
A. Fraser

Kelly,

I applaud you for writing such a professional article on behalf of the students, and it takes a lot of strength to speak up and to act as a common voice for the student population. To be able to address the recent changes to the co-op work term assignment/project requirements in such a calm, collected manner proves that you truly understand the importance of communication and how to do it properly. Within the article, you were well-spoken, informed, and you managed to keep a positive, non-confrontational tone throughout.

The reason I think it is so important to shine a light on you for writing this, is because the comment sections within Symmetry could have very easily turned into a battlefield if someone didn’t take the time to address the issue from both sides of the ‘argument’. You did fight for the student body, but you also defended the integrity of the PR program and the faculty here at the Mount. Yes, I do believe that the institution (at times) should learn to communicate more effectively with its stakeholders, but in the end – they are just looking out for us and are making changes to the program with our best interest in mind.

Even though I am now based in Toronto, and am no longer an ‘official’ member of the Mount community, I am proud to be a Mount student (and soon-to-be graduate next Spring) and I have nothing but positive things to say about the PR program at MSVU. I am where I am today because of the Mount, working as a Communications Specialist at an IT Solutions company in Toronto. I have confidence in my ability as a communicator, and I feel I can take on and accomplish any task that is assigned to me.

In conclusion: I truly believe, despite how we may feel about the recent changes to the work term project, that we should take the changes that have been presented to us and do our best to adjust to them. Sure, the timing may have been off and the tone used to communicate the changes may not have been as positive as we could have hoped, but I like to believe that changes are always made with students in mind. The fact that we also still have the option to coordinate and participate in PD sessions on a volunteer basis is fantastic, and I believe that everyone who is able to do so, should take part!

Once again – Fabulous article, Kelly! Symmetry is another reason why I am proud to be a Mount student.
(Which reminds me – Whenever I get some time to do so, I need to contribute more writing!)

Cheers,

Andrew Fraser
4th Year Bachelor of Public Relations Student (Graduating: Spring 2013)
- http://www.symmetrypublicrelations.com/ Kelly Lynch
  
  Andrew,
  
  Thank-you. An eloquent response.
Ashly Bickford

First off – Kelly, great article. Thank you for taking this on and opening up a forum for us to speak calmly and effectively on this issue.

I must say that at first, I was pretty rattled by the change. Not because I don’t think change is sometimes good and necessary, but because, as others have said, the timing. It seemed so abrupt, I had to read the email a few times to understand the change was happening for our term and not a heads up that it would be changing for the following year. Which might have been another option, so that students knew well enough ahead of time to adjust and have it in mind at the beginning of their term.

I know that when I received the email, I was into my sixth week at my job, already thinking about my future presentation, and the flip got switched without much explanation. I think the reason this was a particularly hard idea to come to terms with is because as PR professionals, we know to expect the unexpected and roll with things that come up at work, but the co-op program and BPR program as a whole has always been pretty structured and constant. From day one, we knew first co-op is work term report, second is portfolio, third is presentation – and most of us looked at the latter as the best one. I am not discounting the new project, because I think some people might need more structure throughout their co-op term and it seems to provide that, among other advancements such as easing loan problems.

The last thing I want to say is that I know so many of our peers who work tirelessly in school, on co-op, in their social lives and have second jobs, who aren’t ones to complain unless something doesn’t feel right. The people in this program are some of the most ambitious, intelligent and organized people I know and are anything but lazy (which I feel was slightly implied in the email whether it was intentional or not). We put in the extra hours, volunteer in our spare time, play sports, take full course loads and lead packed social lives because we love to be busy, we love to contribute. Are we stressed to the max at times? Yes. Do we sometimes wish we weren’t involved in so many things? Yes. Do we still manage to find time to watch Breaking Bad? Absolutely. We choose to have a million things going on because we love it. We give it our all. And to feel like we came across as whiny students looking to get out of doing more work or different work, baffles and offends my hard working spirit.

We’re pretty easy to get along with. We listen. We can understand both sides of an argument. I hope that is what is taken away from this, just a learning experience for everyone on how both sides could have communicated information and concerns better. I also hope that any offense taken on either side can be diffused with the honesty of the comments in this forum.
http://www.facebook.com/emie.lamoureux.9 Emie Lamoureux

Hey guys!

I’m going to keep what I’ve got to say short and sweet. I personally don’t mind writing the report, if that’s what the program requires from me to do I’ll do it without complaint.

My only concern is, I find this “final” assignment is going backwards a little. For our first co-op we had to write a report. It was our first time experiencing a work term, some of us going far to do so and I understand why the PR faculty/co-op office would want to review our learning experience.

Our second assignment was to create a portfolio, which I found incredibly valuable and practical. This will help us for the rest of our careers; understanding what to put in a portfolio, the organization, the layout, the variety, etc.

This is why I find the final assignment a little tedious to do and unpractical. I won’t be showing this “reflective” report to potential future employers.

As I said, I don’t mind the change, but it would’ve been really amazing and practical if it would’ve been a change to further enhance our chances at accomplishing our future goals, considering we are all graduating in a short amount of time, many of us in April!

I know that this is a course and that academic work is necessary, however this course is different than others. Co-ops are more practical, wouldn’t it make sense if for our assignments to be as well?

Maybe the decision is set, but for future students, my recommendation to the PR program at the Mount is to create a final assignment that will compliment students’ final co-ops.
Melanie Brister

While I agree with most of what my fellow classmates have said, I have restricted my thoughts due to the sake of repetition. I will simply state this in summary: the change to writing a report is meaningless to me; and I do feel that the letter, semantically, was written somewhat half-heartedly.

Here are the thoughts that I offer:

Kelly’s first argument is most sound here; that students were not consulted during the process of making these changes. Moreover, I feel that this is the crux of this overarching discussion. One question that I raise is: Was our co-op student representative involved in this decision-making process? If s/he was involved, then we can state that the department did attempt to be inclusive by involving diverse stakeholders. If such is not the case, then the department and co-op office need to consult not only the co-op student representative, but other students more largely for opinions and methods in which messages can be communicated effectively.

Although I don’t have a problem with this particular change in curriculum (though, do share opinions about previous changes) other students have demonstrated that this matter is of importance to them, evidently highlighting that the department has failed to achieve the foundational principles of what both the department and overall public relations industry upholds: “to achieve mutual understanding, realize organizational goals and serve the public interest”(1). Although this definition is reminiscent of the two-way symmetrical model, we have reiterated its near impossibility for we cannot even attempt to achieve its principles in an institution that endorses it as “excellence in public relations”(2). For the sake of the existence of the two-way symmetrical model, and for the fact that this institution endorses it through teaching, I would argue that the department needs to, as they say colloquially, ‘walk the talk’.

1.CPRS | About CPRS. (n.d.). The Canadian Public Relations Society, Inc.. Retrieved September 29, 2012, from http://www.cprs.ca/aboutus/mission.aspx
2. Grunig, J. E. (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.