Viewpoints Reactions to Michael Fairbanks OnTheFrontier Chairman and Fletcher Adjunct Professor Michael Fairbanks spoke at the Fletcher School on Oct. 14 about career advancement and the strengths and weaknesses of our institution. Always a provocative speaker, Fairbanks generated much discussion in the wake of his presentation. The Ledger solicited commentary from students. Is Fletcher culture too tranquil? Are students really 'evaluphobes'? Is the school too politically correct? What would you change? Here are their thoughts:      Professor Fairbanks' remarks are valuable in that they provoke us to think about the nature of the school, our responsibility to engage in honest dialogue with our peers and our need to be self-critical.  I am not certain, however, that Prof. Fairbanks' has spent sufficient time with a wide enough variety of  Fletcher students to come to such an inflexible judgment.  My experience to date with Fletcher students has included many discussions with engaged, dedicated persons with conviction and intellectual honesty.  Of course there are exceptions, and no doubt each individual should strive for greater honesty and self-criticism -however, my reaction to the speech was ambivalent and here's why: When I contemplated taking Prof. Fairbanks' class last semester students told me that an underlying theme in his lectures was Fletcher's shortcomings.  Those students had attended Prof. Fairbanks' first course ever at Fletcher.  Did he come in with some preconceived notion about who we are?  Is this provocative 'formula' a 'closed loop' argument that we cannot criticize for fear of being labeled 'evaluphobes?'  Perhaps it doesn't really matter because we all have room for improvement in this area.  Let us be more critical about our thinking, our actions and...of blanket statements made by charismatic speakers purporting to hold the panacea to all our ills.   --Mimi Netzer (MALD ?04)   Not only do I think Michael Fairbanks is right about Fletcher's tranquility but after taking his class I understand how much more productive -- and interesting -- it is to learn in a competitive environment. Of all the teachers I have had so far here only him and Laurent Jacque have succeeded in making me spend a whole night studying for a test (never did that before, maybe I will never do it again). Michael Fairbanks should teach our professors how to create a more competitive environment in their classes here at Club Med- ford ... I mean Fletcher.   --Rafael Marti (MALD ?04)   I wouldn't say that Fletcher is necessarily too tranquil a place, but it CAN BE a very politically correct place where we don't talk about certain issues for fear of offending others or their views.   As far as being 'evaluphobes,' I think that it can be said that people in general fear criticism.  What I have seen here is what I call 'grade-grubbing,' that is refuting grades/scores with professors in order to get a higher mark.  I am completely against grade inflation or negotiating a higher grade, and I think that there is some dignity in taking the mark one receives, learning from it, and doing things differently or better next time.  Granted, it is nice to see good marks on a report card, but are we doing it for the sake of a transcript instead of the pursuit of knowledge, which is our real reason for being here?   --Everett Peachey (MALD ?05)   When "evaluating" or "analyzing" a situation or problem, I think there's a difference b/w being critical versus judgmental. To critically evaluate a situation does not necessarily require one to be judgmental.  Being judgmental is an analysis based upon one's own perceptions of things, with the self at the center; while being critical or evaluative of a situation requires the ability to analyze from varying perspectives.   So I find Prof. Fairbanks remarks rather inaccurate in that we are not ?too tranquil? or ?evaluphobes,? but that we can critically analyze circumstances without interjecting our own bias. --Susan Shin (MALD ?04)   Michael Fairbanks' talk really crystallized a lot of the suspicions that many of has had about this institution and ourselves. While we have all come to Fletcher from different backgrounds and with different expectations, I think all of us hoped to use this fertile environment to explore new territory, probe our own opinions and conceptions, and engage in an open debate about the problems that face our current world. Fairbanks simply stated that we are, for the most part, not doing this. Why? According to him, much of it has to do with our own fears about being evaluated, the choke-hold of politically correct norms, and a lack of conviction and initiative. In short, Fletcher and its participants (the whole lot) are stifled. While I agree with most of Fairbanks' assessments, I'm not sure he recognized where many of these stifling norms originate. Much of the blame, I think, can be laid at the doorsteps of the institution itself. That is, while Fletcher is packed with brilliant scholars and a talented staff, I think it the approach to teaching and learning here leaves much to be desired (I admit right now that I am a first-year and am basing this analysis on limited information). A simple example is the reading load of most courses. What are professors trying to prove? How can we not become 'evaluphobes' if we are constantly under pressure to complete (and be responsible for) more material than is realistic. With the workload of four or five courses, students simply don't have the luxury to spend time in discussion and exploration on their own. It seems the professors would like to prescribe our paths for us, which is really antithetical to the liberal education tradition (but not a stranger to it), especially at the graduate level. Sure, as Fairbanks points out, grades are easy here and don't matter anyway, so make this experience your own. That's easy to say, but few of us can overcome our 'evaluphobia' if it is difficult or impossible to be adequately prepared to be evaluated by the criteria we encounter. Even if the professors do not actually expect students to process and digest all the material, the possibility that this might be the case must keep everyone on their toes. This overloading has a trickle down effect. The struggle to complete the work stimulates competition which spills over into the classroom, thus stifling open debate and discussion. The stress that results from the work overload makes students downright cranky and, well, pissed-off, which makes interaction outside of class strained. With no time for outside reading, students who were once among the most engaged and up-to-date about current events and issues on the world stage begin to lose their edge. The energy they previously invested in personal and professional exploration is expended on the demanding prescriptions of the professors. Moreover, most classes become an awkward attempt to synthesize and summarize the broad selection of readings, reducing time for discussion and dissection. Students must maintain rapt attention in a desperate attempt to decipher the true intentions of the reading list and what is expected of them. Study groups in which professors ostensibly expect students to discuss and explore the material often become little more than an exchange of summaries. We are often told that in the 'real world,' we will all have to deal with a cast amount of material and make decisions in a short time. The thing is, this isn't the real world, and it's not supposed to be. Fairbanks called this 'the beach,' and I think many of us wished that this were so. Most of us have worked and even succeeded in the real world, so I don't think that most of us came here to be tested on this account. We, no doubt, have spent and will spend years out there, struggling to stay on top of our responsibilities and the issues that confront us--should our graduate education be a reflection of that ethos? I think not. In my experience, I felt less stressed out managing a large development project in three former Soviet republics than I do managing the workload at the Fletcher school. If I am not alone in this assessment, of course we are stifled and worried. Of course we cannot set goals beyond ourselves, as Fairbanks would have us do. How can we enjoy 'the beach'--spread out and explore the world and the experiences of our peers and professors--if we are constantly under the impression that any activity aside from coursework may disable us from meeting the basic expectations of the institution? I do not mean to say that the sterility and crankiness is only the fault of the institution's structure and its proponents. Clearly, we all have responsibility for the Fletcher environment, and some enterprising students do all they can to spread their education beyond the classroom. They are the minority, however. I seems to me that many Fletcher students came here for precisely the open environment that Fairbanks outlined. There are so many talented and interesting people here that are more than just future contacts. We came, I think, to 'mix it up,' tread new ground, and 'solve' the world's problems from the back seat, recognizing that we will eventually need to get behind the wheel. If this is also the goal of the Fletcher structure, I think this institution is at cross purposes. Academic rigor is important, and we are all ready to be challenged, but inundating students with a sea of information and challenging them to stay afloat stifles creativity, fosters cold competition, and anesthetizes the environment. Leaders with a 'global perspective' cannot be churned out through a system; they must, it seems to me, create themselves by testing their interests and ideas with the support and guidance of the institution. In two years, I would hate to think that Fletcher was primarily a test of whether I could succeed at Fletcher. To follow Fairbanks' wise advice, we will need the cooperation of the entire institution to identify a common goal that goes beyond a sing-song orientation, hardcore academic rigor, and the promise of future payoff in contacts.   --Evan Tracz (MALD ?05)   The opinions expressed in this article are the author's own, and do not necessarily represent those of The Fletcher Ledger. Comments about this article?