Why did the Bridge scholarship change?

news@dailylobo.com
@ArdeeTheJourno

This semester, UNM decided to raise the GPA requirements for the Bridge to Success Scholarship, which now amounts to $1,500, from 2.5 to 3.0 with an ACT requirement of 23 for incoming freshmen in fall 2014. The University also created the Success Grant, which amounts to $1,000 and would require next year’s incoming freshmen to have a GPA of 2.5 and to fill out a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).

In a forum at the Student Union Building Wednesday, hundreds of upset members of the University community voiced their concerns and objections about these changes. UNM apologized to these people for not involving the public with the decision making process, but many said they rejected the University’s apology.

The Daily Lobo spoke with UNM President Robert Frank on Friday for an explanation of the decision making process behind the changes, what went wrong and why such changes were considered important to the University.

Daily Lobo: When did you start planning to make changes to the Bridge Scholarship?

Robert Frank: We’ve been looking at making changes to the Bridge Scholarship for several months, and as the Lottery (Scholarship) has changed, it also seemed to make sense that we would also change the Bridge because as the challenges with the Lottery change, we recognize that we should bring the Bridge along.

DL: Can you give me a gist of what the changes you originally planned were and how it actually turned out?

RF: What we originally planned to do was to increase the amount of the Bridge so that it would be a $1,500 scholarship to assist students until the Lottery kicks in on the second semester, with a 3.0 GPA and a 23 ACT. That was our target (for this school year).

But we realized that we are so far into this year. That’s now a 2014 target, and now we are going with the Success Grant, which is the same as the original Bridge to Success Scholarship. And all the only change now is that you have to fill out a FAFSA.

DL: So these changes are not going to affect the students who already received the Bridge this semester?

RF: For the students applying right now for the next year, all they have to do is one change: they have to fill out a FAFSA … Kids that are here now will see no change, because they are already doing it.

DL: What made you consider these changes on the Bridge?

RF: When this conversation started, all the legislative talk was higher standards to get the Lottery next year. And then the report came out last week. They did not come up with as strong recommendations as they were telling us they would. We still believe that at the end of the day, that they are going to say that to get the Lottery, you would have to have a higher level of academic performance. We still believe that’s going to happen.

So in our logic… the Bridge should lead somewhere. It’s certainly not a bridge to nowhere. The Bridge should be a bridge that goes to roughly the same GPA that you’re going to have to get to get the Lottery. That’s our logic on why this should be commensurate with what you’re going to have to perform at. We are trying to hit that target, and it’s a moving target because we’re not there yet. That’s what we’re trying to prepare students for.

DL: Who were involved in the decision making process?

RF: This was done the same way that we always do. All of our scholarships are done by our Provost’s Office. They hand out all our scholarships all the time. They make recommendations, they talk to me about it, but it’s done through the provost. (Associate Vice President) Terry Babbitt reports to Provost Chaouki Abdallah, who then reports to me. That’s the typical way of doing it.

DL: A lot of people have discussed their problems with the communication of the changes. What exactly went wrong with that?

RF: Our communication was bad. That’s what went wrong. We should’ve talked about this much earlier. We should have talked about this in the summer. We should’ve gone out and talked much more broadly to students that we were going to have a process that reflected higher standards for the Lottery so students would have known about this earlier. We waited too long. It wasn’t a broad enough conversation. It took people by surprise. When you take people by surprise, this is the kind of negative reaction you get … Simply put, too late, too narrow conversation. We just didn’t do a good job.

DL: You’ve talked about what you should’ve done, but what actually happened? Who were involved in the conversations and how did it go?

RF: The conversations happened within the Provost’s Office. They talked to me about it, then they started to implement it. And when it came out, a lot of people looked at it and were very surprised that this standard was going up. They reacted with shock and … it scared them. They became scared, and they became angry.

DL: UNM has already apologized the people who were enraged about this. Still, a lot of people are saying that they don’t accept UNM’s apology. What can you say about that?

RF: There’s not much I can say except for that we’ve suspended it for this immediate time. We’ll have a broader conversation. We’ve looked at this early on. All groups are equally affected by it. It doesn’t discriminate against any particular group. It affects Hispanics, Caucasians and all groups equally. We know it’s not a discriminatory policy … At the end of the day, the Lottery does not have enough money to pay. We’re all going to have to recognize that scholarships are probably going to have to change.

But it doesn’t make sense to us to give students a scholarship that isn’t going to lead them to the Lottery. To bring students to UNM and then they would acquire debt and not be able to proceed here, that doesn’t make sense to us.

Many people are acting as if this were 15 or 20 years ago when students didn’t accrue the kinds of debt that they accrue now to come to the University. We have to put the conversation in the context of today when students do acquire debt. We feel that it’s unconscionable to not put it in the context of what students are doing to get into this University. It takes a lot of financial responsibility to come here. If they’re going to come here and take out debt, they need to recognize that they have to be able to do the work. We want them to understand that.

DL: How will these changes benefit UNM in the long run? You were talking about attracting more academically excellent students.

RF: We would love that, having academically excellent students.

But we want students here who can succeed. This is about having students here who can do college-level work. We know that high school students who do that and come here succeed. It’s not about getting elite students. It’s about having students here who are ready. We also want students who understand the level of work it takes to succeed at the University … We tell students it’s different than high school, and some students don’t believe that.

It’s about this as being a big step from high school, and that is what we’re trying to get people to understand.

DL: What is UNM doing to increase transparency in these kinds of decision making processes?

RF: We’ve rolled back the process. We’re going to have a broader community dialogue. We’ve slowed it down. I don’t know what else we can do.