1. Lessons Learned

3.  Transformations campaign  Develop strategic plan  External review team proposes internal residential program  2003 - construct new station  2007 – add housing  2007 - launch fall semester  2008 - add summer semester  2009 - add spring semester

4.  Hands-on field science  Sustainability education  Immersion into the location (Sense of Place approach)  Learning community

5.  Residential semester  Branch campus model  students all live and take classes on site  14 beds  1 resident director  Environmental science / biology focus  Emphasis on field work  Integrated coursework  Block schedule  Faculty visit once per week ▪ (1 hr round trip)  Students take all the same classes  Integrated Research Experience

6.  Would students want to do this?  Can you get sustainable enrollment?  Would students feel isolated from campus?  Is the group size to small?  Will students get enough faculty contact with the block schedule?  Would this compete with study abroad ?  Will this become the lake party house?

8.  Applied at the end of each semester  Does not replace course evaluations  Not anonymous  Surveys topics  Academic program  Residential life  Research experience  Sustainability attitude  Learning community  Facilities Please select a number from the scale below that corresponds most to your attitude toward the following statements about your RFS experience. (1) Strongly disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly agree (N) No opinion

10. I preferred living at the station to living on main campus. Average response score = 4.2 (1) Strongly disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly agree (N) No opinion

11.  Block Schedule (1) Strongly disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5) Strongly agree (N) No opinion

12.  Would this compete with study abroad ?  In the last 4 years, 30% of students attending the residential semesters also spent at least one semester abroad.

13.  When non-field based courses were offered in the curriculum, students tended to report lower satisfaction with those courses

14.  Sustainability

15.  Course Integration

16.  Did you spend more time on collaborative academic work (more than 3 persons) than a typical semester on campus (non-class time group study and project work) ?  If yes above, did the collaborative work improve your academic performance?  77% of respondents indicated yes  On average, how many hours a week did you spend on academics? (include project time, study time, class time)  Average response =30 hours  The RD factor

17.  Be patient

18.  Build it and they will come?

19.  Be patient  Build it and they will come  Keep the planning a few years in advance  Students need lead time

20.  Be patient  Build it and they will come does not necessarily work  Keep the planning a few years in advance  Students need lead time  Market aggressively

21.  Be patient  Build it and they will come does not necessarily work  Keep the planning a few years in advance  Students need lead time  Market aggressively  Have a Departmental Home

22.  Be patient  Build it and they will come does not necessarily work  Keep the planning a few years in advance  Students need lead time  Market aggressively  Have a Departmental Home  Each student group is different

23.  Be patient  Build it and they will come does not necessarily work  Keep the planning a few years in advance  Students need lead time  Market aggressively  Have a Departmental Home  Each student group is different  Be flexible –

24.  Integrated Research  Communication / guidance from off campus and non-faculty mentors  Standards for assessment of research projects  Independent projects vs. pre-established projects  Distribution of work load  Project-based overdose

26.  Difficult to determine  Assumptions  Count tuition(after discount), lab fees and room as revenue  Food service not included  Ignore indirect costs  Ignore indirect benefits  Requires 16 students to break even