To be honest, after visiting Starr King, I could understand why I was being dissuaded by many from going there. It was a little too “out there” for me, and I worried that an MDiv from there would look bad to ministerial search committees. One ordained minister at the time asked why I would want to study with “the crazy people” at Starr King (his words).

I went to a non-UU school that offered me very generous scholarships. Today, four years after my ordination, I am almost completely out of debt from my seminary education. I had a well-rounded theological education from a respected seminary. I have no regrets about not attending a UU seminary!

It seems like part of her emphasis is upon not masking the conflict that leads to decisions and on allowing conflict to give rise to deep connection. Does anyone think that her presence will challenge the seminary?

I believe my two-word reply was a four-letter word beginning with F followed by that.

I have not regretted my decision.

• The major reason so many excellent candidates for our ministry did not opt to attend M/L in the mid-1990s was not because of any shortcomings of the program but the cost of attending the theological school. Time and again, potential students wrote back that they were enthusiastic about attending M/L but the financial aid was not significant enough. M/L is probably one of the most expensive seminaries to attend in the United States. The plan does not mention increasing financial aid to students, as far as I can see. When I was there the major issue that students asked the board of trustees to address was the high cost. This issue might have been resolved but I doubt it.
• The plan calls for increased revenues by increasing the number of students enrolled. The last plan for M/L called for increasing the number of students as well. When I was on the admissions committee I learned that the only way that the M/L could increase its enrollment in those days was to lower its standards for admission. Yet, if the seminary lowered its admissions standards, the students would fail because the University of Chicago Divinity School had no intention of lowering its standards and the M/L students admitted would probably not succeed in the intellectually rigorous environment at the U. of C. All M/L students were required to take more than a third of their courses at the U. of C. The attrition rate would result in lower morale and not improve M/L’s reputation.
• Increasing the budget by increasing the number of students is like church plans that assume that new members are good because they will help us pay our bills. Is there any greater reason for M/L to admit more students. Perhaps a statement like, “We believe that the theological school has a mission to form ministers for ministry to the UUA and the larger community.” No mention is made of why M/L wants more students. No real mention in this plan is given to the reason why students would flock to pay the high tuition at M/L. Marketing alone will not help M/L if the problems that have existed in the past persist.
• Increasing the student body size without a concurrent increase in faculty and staff will lead to larger classes and less attention to the ministerial formation of individual students. If the plan intends to promote excellence in ministry it will need to address this issue.

Meadville/Lombard was a stressful place for me to study for the ministry. In retrospect, my reasons for going there were sound. When I first entered the doors of the Curtis Room I had been a Unitarian Universalist for only two years. I felt that I needed the specifically Unitarian Universalist ministerial formation that only Meadville/Lombard could provide. Starr King had its appeal but I needed more structured study.

I still have high hopes for Meadville/Lombard. It does indeed have a noble history in our movement. I just do not believe that this plan will fulfill its goals.

The bad news is that this sounds like yet another manifestation of Meadville Lombard’s tendency to avoid conflict. They do not state their goals clearly. Instead, taking a stand can be avoided, thus avoiding conflict, with the use of the passive voice, and by using circuitous syntax, and unclear sentence structures.

I fear that the desire to increase enrollment might have more to do with the economics of scale at small theological schools. Consider the shrinking of Starr King, and the terrible struggles of Bangor Theological Seminary. If economics of scale are mostly at play, the planners may have miscalculated and failed to realize that liberal Protestant theological education is a shrinking pie, with M/L hungering for a bigger slice. A very difficult position to try and stake out.

I for one would have loved seeing some concrete plans regarding recruitment and funding of international UU students, and of capitalizing on M/L excellent reputation for studies in religious education. Which reminds me, when is the last time that M/L did anything outreach related, using their vaunted Fahs Center for Religious Education? It is a shame to simply sit on one of your treasured resources/facilities. But perhaps the Fahs Center is like Grandma’s “good good china” which we get to admire but never use.

Of course, the more apt 80s alternapop tune would be the Talking Head’s “Road to Nowhere“

Well, I am more optimistic, but it may be that sort of relentless optimism of, say, a Spongebob. I agree with you particularly on the writing. It strikes me as vaguely Gnostic in that to truly understand one must (perhaps) have already been intitiated into the mysteries of the M/L redevelopment plan. I also thought it was interesting that they managed to make my freshly-printed copy look like it had been photocopied multiple times and with a rather sketchy toner cartridge at that!

Still, I like it that they are thinking, at least, in their own way. It sure beats the alternative. Ah well, a higher grade for effort, a lower grade for execution…

In general, and from an editorial point of view, when the end result reads that way I think that it must have had:

a. a committee writing it piece by piece without an editor unifying the document;
b. a love festival occurring in Insert-Comments where writers praise one another in an attempt to be positive and supportive rather than fix what ’s wrong (Brilliant point! (so I’m not going to fix your typo, so it won’t hurt your feelings), Well-said (so I’m not going to rewrite it in the active voice); and
c. no content or copy editing of the final form because the writers think that words come from their mouths in final form (Another possibility? No time for copyediting).

What’s truly interesting to me is that I see most of this sort of end-result in professional development settings where adults are writing for other adults (and trying to impress other adults).

I hope that’s not too snarky though you did mention the zoetrope….