Conferences

• To make friends in academia, to network, to be prepared for the job market and to understand the CSMP Program and its goals more.
• Networking, finding out more about member schools and advice based on mock interviews.
• I was looking forward to meeting the other fellows and spending time learning about making the transition to the faculty.
• Largely shaped by productive and frank conversations of last year - discussions about life for people of color on liberal arts campuses, networking and learning about academic professionalization.
• No response
• I was interested in comparing my CSMP experience with my colleagues. I also was excited about the networking opportunities this conference would offer.
• (expected) to meet other fellows and share our experiences.
• As my 2^nd CSMP conference, I expected to meet exceptional colleagues, mentors and administrators. I anticipated listening and participating in a variety of engaging and informative discussions surrounding issues central to my personal and professional life; the academy, diversity issues and liberal arts colleges.
• To learn the history of the CSMP program, to meet other fellows and become familiar with their work, ask questions about how to make the most of the CSMP appointment, especially specific questions about my next, academic step.
• I expected to learn more about career and planning.
• Meeting my fellow scholars and learning about their experiences. (also wanted to share my feelings and my research about the career placement process.
• No response
• My expectations were that I would meet other scholars and administrators in the CSMP; meet scholars with similar interests and goals; and especially meet other scholars of color- this was probably the most important part of the conference for me.
• To network (with other scholars and dean/provosts), to gain experience in interviewing, to build my confidence articulating ideas about my research.
• Wanted to meet other CSMP Scholars, find out about each others work and experiences at liberal arts colleges.
• To be able to meet other fellows, learn the interview skills and learn more about the CSMP Program.
• To network with other scholars of color in liberal arts colleges, to learn how to make the most of the CSMP year, particularly in regard to publications.
• No expectations. Just wanted to meet the other CSMP Scholars.
• Really didn't have any.
• A chance to mingle with and talk to scholars, and to talk with other administrators about CSMP, minority hiring, etc.
• To learn about the CSMP program, meet minority scholars and reps from other host institutions.
• Meet CSMP fellow, hear their work, and network with colleagues.
• My expectations were that I would share information about my CSMP experience with other fellows and learn more about their experiences as well.
• To reconnect with fellows and deans, to talk about jobs and fellowship and what it means to be a young faculty of color at a small (perhaps predominately white or somewhat geographically isolated) and to talk about this and coping strategies at our institutions.
• To be in a safe and supportive place to talk about the reality of our lives and jobs and to ask questions that we may not be able to ask or bring up at our home institutions.
• I was at the CSMP conference last year and found it very useful, so my expectations were high.
• A productive and supportive meeting with CSMP candidates.
• No response
• To be quite frank, I was not sure what I expected. I have attended Fellowship Conferences in the past and some were more successful than others. I did assume that there would have been (on my part) by the end of the conference, a deeper understanding of the Consortium and an opportunity to meet other participants.

Making the Most of the CSMP Fellowship Year

• Some of my advice was contradictory, but I especially liked and understood the directive to finish the dissertation. I personally am not concerned about isolation at least in terms of colleagues, but is was interesting to hear about the concerns and suggestions of others. Also, this session managed to stay light-hearted despite some very serious issues.
• I needed to hear, "write, write, write- no more research!!!!"
• This session was one of the most helpful in terms of being reminded of our primary responsibilities as pre and post doctoral fellows.
• It might be useful to hear from more alums than admin on this panel, perhaps just have more people on panel (4-5)
• Excellent suggestions made during the panel.
• This is a great panel to have to reinforce the objectives we should have for the fellowship year. And you must include a panelist that will simply remind us to "Write, Write,Write."
• The seminar was extremely helpful. I especially appreciated Victor Nelson Cisnero's talk stressing the need for fellows to finish.
• All panels: excellent format in terms of time allowed for discussion. Panelists who speak from experience. CSMP alumni on panels and Denison faculty of color. Much of the information discussed on this panel could be extremely useful at the beginning of the 1^st year. Along with a mentoring handbook for deans and department chairs. It would be valuable to have a "guide for CSMP fellows". Many of the questions and concerns during my 1^st month as a CSMP fellow could have been avoided and or addressed with such a handbook or guide.
• Consider separating pre-doctoral panel from the post-doctoral panel (collapsing this presentation /conversation may not be as efficient and or productive). Encourage CSMP host campuses to invite fellows from other campuses to visit representative departments (meaning brown bag, visiting lecture, featured speaker, or lecture series participant) Assuming proximity, e.g. Wellesley, Vassar and Mt. Holyoke, Grinnell, Macalester, Coe. In other words campuses that are close together geographically should consider connecting their fellows for the sake of - socialization and professionalism.
• Good
• Interesting to hear about the previous fellows and about Dr. Cisneros view on the expectations of the founders of the program.
• No response
• Useful information; especially for dissertation fellows. I didn't hear as much for post docs. Perhaps it would have been useful to have both a pre-and post-doctoral on the panel for two perspectives. The advice "write, write, write" however is pertinent in both cases.
• I learned about the experiences of other CSMP Scholars. I was surprised to learn that not all fellows are have a "good" experience. Although the Q & A session was lively - I thought most people were too critical of the program - the first person in the Q & A session set the tone... Good idea to have folks outline their experiences/what worked for them.
• Great and helpful tips for making the most of the fellowship you're in creating a balance between teaching and working.
• Really helpful, especially for pre-docs.
• The Q/A session after the panel was invigorating and useful, but I would have appreciated more of a focus on the step-by-step process of preparing publications, managing fellowship time, etc.
• The panelists said some interesting things. I feel like I got more from the questions from the audience though. Maybe questions can be collected from the scholars before the conference and the panelists could base their presentations on those questions.
• Good.
• A lot of good suggestions. This session should be repeated for next year's scholars.
• Good.
• This session gave good advice about the fellowship year, planning ahead and living in the moment.
• Divide the group into pre doctoral and post doctoral sessions.
• Excellent and useful.
• Great.
• No response
• I found the panel quiet helpful though I did wonder whether the information was as useful for post doctorate fellows
• This session was particularly helpful; it gave me some excellent ideas on what I should be doing next. It also inspired me to keep on track with my writing and finish the project (I have so many other things to work on!)

The Culture of Liberal Arts Colleges

• I'm not entirely convinced that such a thing exists in a way that can be discussed - so far it seems like the colleges in the consortium are very different and indeed pride themselves on uniqueness. Maybe a focus on the differences would help people to formulate their desires in a place of employment - it was very useful to hear about good interview questions to ask. i.e. within the consortium, not just liberal arts vs. research university, which is a pretty clear comparison already.
• Excellent - presentations were great - appreciated the anecdotal, personal quality.
• This ended up being more information than I anticipated. I have a taste of how things work at my institution, but it was helpful to get a sense of the general culture at these kinds of institutions (and faculty experiences making transition at these places).
• This discussion seems to bring up some of the most important and pressing concerns - I feel as though there is always more to talk about here - this year's made me think it might be very useful to have breakout sessions addressing even narrower concerns, like what it means to be a woman of color at a LA school, queer at a LA School, single/married, w/10 children - I would love to see sessions like this.
• It is a great thing that there is attention paid to this issue. Many people who are with the CSMP program don't have liberal arts experience.
• The panel was good. I believe the balance between teaching and research could have been discussed a bit more, particularly for those of us torn between liberal arts and research one schools.
• The "Culture" talk was very helpful. I especially appreciated the frankness of the presenters.
• As many scholars are not familiar with the liberal arts colleges this is an important panel to incorporate into the program of the conference. It allows a space for fellows to utilize the expertise of the deans at the conference to ask questions that the fellows may not feel comfortable asking at their host institution.
• Consider an INDEPENDENT panel on teaching (just teaching, please) not full session alone, consider companion panel on grant writing and/or mentoring and not full sessions alone, ask host, CSMP campuses to send job vacancies and letters inviting CSMP's at the Conference to apply for current and coming vacant positions at those colleges.
• Good discussion. I think the underlying theme of culture shock (small rural living) could have been addressed more constructively. Perhaps explaining the wonderful difference that one could make in such places. Etc.
• I enjoyed the discussion that followed the presentations.
• No response
• Very useful and interesting. Because I went to a liberal arts college as an undergrad, I knew many things that the panelists spoke about- but it is always interesting to hear other's perspectives. I especially liked the comments as to the time commitment a liberal arts faculty makes.
• A little less focused than the first session, but was also helpful. I would have liked to see someone on the panel to talk about the culture of LA colleges as it relates to the job market.
• As I came from a liberal arts college background, I was already aware of the culture the type of institution. But it was informative none the less.
• Helpful, though I expected more discussion on classroom culture in LA colleges as well as that of the town where college is located. These certainly vary but members of the panel would have learned from this experience in small sub-urban American towns.
• Helpful to know that others are having similar experiences. I appreciated the excitement that the panelists showed for liberal arts colleges.
• Wouldn't most scholars already have first-hand experience with the culture of liberal arts colleges by this point in the school year (halfway through the fall semester)? An idea: Maybe have various small groups devote to different problems/topics and give the scholars the choice of which group to go to. (The problems/Topics would be developed based on questions from the scholars-see above.)
• I thought the speaker (Jen/linguistics) was really good. I'm not sure how helpful or to the point the last speaker was. I think this is a difference between international people and native people's experiences as people of color.
• This session wasn't a lot different that the previous - A little more focus on the liberal arts would have been nice.
• Very Good.
• Good discussion of the liberal arts college culture with good information about specific interactions with students in the liberal arts environment. It might be helpful to have instructions about the panel that reflect the Liberal Arts context, broad institutional challenges/opportunities, departmental context and comments on students and classroom dynamics. All these issues would be useful to explore. Toni King did a good job of synthesizing the points made.
• Good info. Note that every campus has its own idiosyncratic problems and issues.
• Very helpful - maybe to include representatives for different kinds of colleges, urban, suburban and rural plus various parts of the country.
• Great - this panel was a huge improvement on last year. I appreciated the effort to include more people of color and participants from different areas of the colleges.
• Session provided a good glimpse into individual experiences at 3 liberal arts colleges. An anthropological study of liberal arts colleges (presentation or reading) would have provided a broader context for the individual experiences.
• Having attended a liberal arts college as an undergraduate, the information provided by the panel was not surprising.
• Excellent session. Not coming from a liberal arts background with my own education, it was very beneficial to hear what other colleagues had to say (outside of my current institution of course).

The Research Roundtables

• So much fun and so interesting. I'm not sure that any "field" commonalities emerged, but since hearing about other people's interesting ideas is a key attraction of an academic job. (Really enjoyed this session). Maybe the guidelines could be a little clearer beforehand so presenters know how little/much to prepare. I also have to say that our moderator was very prepared and professional in handling our diverse projects and facilitating group discussion.
• Should allow more time - although we each had enough time for our presentations there wasn't enough time for discussion feedback - I'd allow 1 hour for each person - 20 minutes to present, 10 minutes for immediate reactions and then additional ½ for open discussion of the papers.
• Nicely structured - I was placed with exactly who I should have been. Hearing their research and methodology, etc, was immensely helpful, as was the feedback given by the facilitator and audience members. It would be helpful, to have a clearer idea ahead of time about the format of this session (power point, etc.) well before the start of the conference.
• No response
• Very stimulating. It was exciting to hear the research interests of other fellows.
• I was misled! I thought roundtable meant us sitting down and discussing our role more informally. Instead we all ended up doing power point presentations (I just happened to have a recent talk prepared). I believe there is a place for more formal presentation at this conference, so perhaps it should be named "research Presentations." I got great questions from the convenor, my fellow panelists and other deans who attend my session.
• Very useful. The organizers did a good job of organizing roundtables around common themes.
• Good opportunity but perhaps the facilitators should construct a format for how the session will be conducted a few weeks before the session, so we know what to expect. Also, perhaps create the different sessions around fellow's interest for example: sessions for practicing technical and formal talks, presentations, sessions for informal, general brainstorming and sharing of ideas.
• Need more time, ask the CSMP scholars to submit their presentation so copies can be available (more effective feedback), ask person to send or come with purpose they have in mind of feed back. WONDERFUL!!!! For example: need suggestions for improvement, or maybe they need suggestion for the primary source, or maybe they need help with the research agenda.
• Awesome. I learned a lot about interesting projects and gained further inspiration for my own work.
• Fantastic research projects. Very important to learn about each others work.
• I found my roundtable quite useful for practicing how to explain the relevance of my project, and for helping others consider new directions for their work. We had a mix of formal and informal presentations. I thought that the informal, more conversational ones worked better in the roundtable format. For example, one person in my session discussed what prompted him to undertake his research, what his questions were and what he considered the importance of his project.
• I felt this was very useful and interesting. Many of the fellows at my Research Roundtable are interested in the same things as I, and it is always interesting to hear how others approach the issue/problem from varying perspectives. And, as a scholar, it is always exciting to hear other's work/research. The varying stages of completion at our roundtable was great as well. There were post-doc benefited from hearing about how the post-doc are taking those next steps past the dissertation.
• Excellent!!! I learned on awful lot from this experience. 1.) How to synthesize ideas/make strong connections. 2.) How to chair a roundtable discussion.
• Very illuminating- it was wonderful to be able to share with other scholars my work and to hear about the fascinating work by my colleagues.
• Good. I learned about what others are doing, which helps in intellectual networking and possible collaborative work.
• My roundtable was much more useful than I had anticipated. We were able to find common ground among disparate papers.
• I found it really useful to present my work in progress to other scholars. I got useful criticism. And it was interesting to see what the other scholars were up to. I liked being the one literary person in the philosophy roundtable- made it an interdisciplinary affair.
• Fun and helpful.
• These were wonderful. I was able to moderate a session and learned a lot about areas unfamiliar to me. The only problem was that people couldn't move from one group to another, audiences were small.
• I moderated. Was good opportunity to learn more at the research of some of the fellows. After the presentations we talked about strategies for publishing and next steps. I think that was very valuable.
• Strong opportunities to hear the work of young scholars and see them engage with each other.
• Great!
• (N/A) I did hear that some fellows would have liked to hear research presentations outside their field. On the other hand, at last year's conference we felt (or some felt) that too much of the day was (partially irrelevant?) research and not enough interactive Q & A panels. In that way, this was corrective and I thought very useful to limit the amount of time spent on presentations (although the presentations themselves were fascinating)
• Did not attend.
• The history roundtable had four exciting and excellent presentations. Discussion of the presentation was helpful to the presenters and very supportive and encouraging. The conversation continued for another hour beyond the actual session. Four excellent historians.
• No response
• My research roundtable was very small, yet it allowed me to meet another historian working on a similar idea but in another area. We exchanged information and have been able to share information with each other on work that is out there.

The Practice Job Interview

• Thank You! This was so helpful - my professional organization provides a lot of information about interviews, but this mock interview showed me how differently small liberal arts college would interview (thus I wasn't as prepared as I should have been, but now I will be for the real ones!) Denison faculty were exceptionally warm and I am really grateful for their time and effort (they actually READ my writing sample, AMAZING).
• Shouldn't schedule the roundtables and the interviews back-to-back was hard to run from one to the other without a break, to have to be "on" like that for the whole afternoon? It was a great experience but everyone was so encouraging that I thought I might have benefited from a Devil's Advocate giving me a harder time.
• Again, one of the best sessions. I thought the experience was great. The interviewers had thoroughly reviewed my materials, which was really appreciated and allowed them to ask critical, pertinent questions about my work and provide an overall experience very similar to what I might expect in and actual interview. I also thought their comments about what I did well and what I could improve upon was right on target and will prove useful as I enter the job market this Fall.
• No response
• No response
• Did not participate: This is a great option to have
• Useful. The feedback was constructive. Although, I felt that a real job interviewers probably wouldn't be as nice.
• This was an extremely useful opportunity and exercise. I feel this should continue to be offered (as an optional component of the program). The Denison faculty member (somewhat) related to my field was an excellent contribution to the 2 deans on my 'panel'! All of them had valuable feedback that will directly and immediately impact my current job search.
• Had a lot of enthusiasm and anticipated a fruitful experience-not so, sadly, sole difficulty: the "lead" interviewer was awkwardly rushed, distracted, and unhelpful despite being in my academic field - the only redemptive factors were the strategies not the actual feedback.
• N/A
• N/A
• Fabulous! I'd participated in mock job interviews before, but never one targeted for the types of interviews that department in liberal arts colleges conduct. All three of my interviewers provided valuable tips, and holding it at the end of the day mimicked the circumstances that interviewees often face.
• No response
• Great! Good specific feedback from committee
• Very helpful, though could have been a little longer. The request for materials required for the activity should have been made sooner from than a few days before the conference.
• Most helpful among all the sessions. Interviewers were candid in the comments.
• No response
• Very useful. Excellent feedback. Great practice talking about my research and teaching. Keep doing this in future conferences.
• Really good.
• I enjoyed doing this and I think it was helpful for the scholars.
• Didn't participate.
• It would have been helpful to have been recruited earlier so that I could have received the materials two weeks before and had time to read them. Having said that, I enjoyed participating and giving feedback on the sessions.
• N/A
• I thought this was an excellent addition to the conference - it gave some specific professionalizing experience to fellows.
• I was an interviewer and found the process useful for my own interview style. I talked to my interviewees later and they said that they really appreciated the opportunity to practice in a safe space and to hear the constructive criticism afterwards.
• I did not attend, but I did hear from several students, that the mock interviews were very helpful and provided them with good advice and suggestions.
• I found this extremely useful! My only suggestion would be to not schedule the interviews directly after the roundtable. While I'm sure the schedule simulates the rigors of the actual interview process not everyone would agree.
• This was perhaps the best professional development I've received/experienced thus far. My three interviewers were very frank with their comments and gave solid feedback on where I should focus for future interviews.

Panel on Next Steps in Your Academic Career

• Good Practical Information
• No response
• Very helpful, especially the nuts and bolts kind of advice that was offered.
• No response
• Extremely exciting. Very helpful regarding how to plan one's job search!
• No response
• No response
• No response
• Another valuable contribution to the program. The multiple perspectives on this panel were exceptionally effective. Great combo of recent CSMP fellows, "older" CSMP fellows and college deans.
• If possible, consider hand-outs with general information that capture broad themes.
• Great, informative and clear
• Excellent tips for preparing applications and presenting ourselves to potential employers on the Liberal Art Work.
• I learned the most new information from this panel. All three panelists raised issues about the job search and about the academic career that I'd never considered.
• Good practical advice for pre-docs.
• No response
• Dr. Willie's words were inspiring!
• No response
• I wish components of this panel came earlier in the conference; several of us had to leave early.
• An idea: start with questions and have the panelists speak at the end? That way they can address the immediate concerns of the scholars.
• Really great. The 3 perspectives were very good.
• No response
• Good. Sarah Willie is wonderful.
• Strong panel, Sejal, Jim and Sarah did a good job.
• Good overall look at what comes next.
• Very useful.
• Great.
• Excellent panel! Discussion of road to tenure and promotion would have been more helpful. Ms. Willie was excellent talking more broadly about the path to an academic career.
• No response
• This was also an incredible addition to my professional development, its especially difficult (at least for me) to move from graduate student to academic professional and getting advice or making that transition is rare. Comments from CSMP alum, Sejal Shah, were especially valuable.

How do you assess the value of meeting other CSMP scholars in this setting?

• Very stimulating
• Very valuable to connect with a peer group that faces many of the same challenges, can talk openly with, get advice and support from - hope to keep in touch with many of the people I met.
• I can't convey the value of this experience - the other fellows have really energized and motivated me. Consider: 1.) A summer writing institute of some kind with all fellows for more directed help on the writing process (with fellows in your field) 2.) Structured geographic mini-conferences (for me, Carleton, St. Olaf and Macalester and possibly Luther, Grinnell, & Coe) - there are others on the east coast that have the same geographic proximity, Let's take advantage of that with mini-conferences and informal meetings. 3.) Virtual network of scholars (e-mail list serv.)
• Immeasurable - the general consensus is that fellows want to stay in touch, create a support community. Help each other out professionally after the conference.
• Meeting other fellows was rather refreshing. It contextualized my experience at my home institution.
• There was great value in meeting the other CSMP scholars in a professional setting that also gave us a great deal of informal time to connect with one another. It was quite powerful to see so many people of color in positions of power of deans. It was also great to meet the other scholars of color who are pre and post doctoral fellows.
• Extremely important. Most of us are somewhat isolated in our institutions. So it was good to be able to interact and network with others in similar situations.
• This is perhaps one of the greatest assets of the conference. Meeting with other scholars that you can identify with not only professionally but personally (in terms of identity) is extremely valuable. The connections made at the conference have already (and I believe will also continue to) make a positive impact upon my professional and personal success. The consortium provides an excellent network for fellows and alums to utilize for a variety of resources.
• The fruits of the academic - centered panel was quite valid - so dynamic, informed and relevant -- what a splendidly engaging forum. Abilities to stay connected, ex. A CSMP list serve.
• It was great to meet hardworking scholars of color who care about changing the landscape of academe.
• No response
• Valuable. In particular, I met scholars at nearby institutions, and we are planning on meeting periodically. I also benefited from meeting other scholars in my discipline at the research roundtable.
• I think it is very important for minority faculty to make connections and network. The academic world is small, and the opportunities for interdisciplinary research are varied.
• Very high—I took from those with positive experience.
• So great to meet the other scholars and find out about their works and diverse experiences-a wonderful opportunity to make new friends as well as potential collaborations.
• Good.
• It is invaluable to know that other fellows are out there, facing similar challenges, having similar experiences. Meeting them personally will facilitate future exchange through e-mail, etc.
• Very useable. Found out there were two other scholars in my city, and four others in the Minneapolis area. This conference is a great use of CCMP resources.
• Good.
• Extremely valuable - this is really important for making connections.
• Very valuable as a school committed to diversity in our hiring pool. Networking opportunities were good.
• This conference is very significant to the scholars, their mentors and the program advisors, mentors, deans, etc.
• This is a great idea but is it possible for some of the schools in similar regions to do a regional conference or get together. This will help some fellows develop the academic and social communities that they need and want.
• Excellent - forging and maintaining connections for this year, hopefully subsequent year. For us as scholars to get a sense of the deans' perspective was also invaluable.
• One of the most valuable parts of the CSMP year.
• No response
• No response
• Since I missed the first day of introductions (because of scheduling) it was slow going with meeting people. I wish I had more time to talk to people individually.

How do you assess the value of meeting with both CSMP scholars and deans?

• No response
• Got good advice and encouragement, sense that some people would keep me in mind for future job openings at their institutions. But, interactions were inconsistent - some of the Dean's didn't seem interested in talking to me at all, while others were very engaged.
• This is critical - Both for personal and professional development and encouragement.
• It is useful and good, although I'd like to hear more from deans about what they are doing to support/sustain CSMP - I'd appreciate addressing the administrative side of CSMP as a project rather than sustain a kind of administrator - fellows' hierarchy.
• Meeting with deans was excellent. There is an informal opportunity to network and meet with potential employers. They at least can be candid about the search committee process.
• It is great to have the deans and scholars together in both informal and formal settings during this conference.
• No response
• The dean's presence and participation at the conference is an extremely unique feature of the conference. Their dedicated effort to speak with fellows about their experiences and to share their inside knowledge of liberal arts campuses (in an intimate and personal environment) is a mutually beneficial relationship. Through these discussions, the voices and experiences may be the impact for educating faculty about diversity issues at liberal art colleges.
• Open dialog - sharing suggestions, strategically driven suggestions, LISTENING to limits, demands, frustrations, and needs of administrators (seeing the other side of "the desk")
• I felt a high level of support and appreciation.
• I enjoyed tremendously having seasoned scholars of color presenting and arguing in my favor. It was a new experience for me. Explanations based on the challenges and advantages of being who we are were provided by deans were really meaningful.
• I appreciated meeting with the deans, in particular, because they had very frank conversations with me personally, as well as in the overall group, about hiring, the tenure process and interview strategies.
• Deans were in general very supportive. I had good conversations with several people and they gave me good career advice/perspective. I think it is really important to include former CSMP scholars that are further along in their careers/(now chairs or deans) so that beginning tenure track professors can see that type of accomplishment as a model to follow. Role models are so important as minority scholars.
• Very High!!
• The deans provide insight, to the process of hiring new faculty, as well as providing info to institutions culture.
• Good.
• Also extremely important to hear their commitment to diversity on campus and to learn about individual colleges.
• I think it was good to have deans around. It was useful to have the administrative perspective on the program.
• Meeting previous CSMP scholars was really good. I also enjoyed meeting the deans. It was interesting to me how the deans and the fellows were somewhat separate. I wonder if this was a way to incorporate and integrate a bit more.
• No response
• As a new "dean" it was helpful to learn from other Deans about how the program works on their campus
• Again, quite valuable.
• This allows networking that might not happen otherwise. It also allows fellows looking forward in their careers to perhaps find mentors to model their careers after.
• Both were important and value. Connections with colleagues (same level) and administrators. A few deans said your work sounds interesting - maybe we can bring you to our campus for a talk - so good possible professional contacts.
• Great, but is didn't seem like some of the problems identified in previous years had been addressed by the deans, so I'm not sure what the purpose is in having the 2 groups together.
• No response
• No response
• This is very important - in fact, I found that the discussion between administrators and fellows (past and present) was superb. While many of these issues are difficult, a continuous dialogue needs to take place - where/when do we get to do this in academia? (unfortunately...)

Please Comment on the Logistics (schedule, transportation, hotels, food, etc.)

• Fantastic. Only suggestion - print e-mail addresses along with the bios.
• Very good, only criticism - room for socializing on Friday didn't have any place to sit - not good. But I really appreciated having all the social time and having a place where everyone could gather together.
• The shuttle on Friday was little hectic, but that was perhaps unavoidable. Also, the rooming arrangements were a little unclear (Buxton vs. Granville). These are really small matters, though. Overall I was really impressed with how well thought out the conference was as well as how smoothly everything went overall. Also, the food was really great. Mmm, Mmm, Yummy!
• E-mail, ID's - excellent! Conference website - excellent! All of the logistical things - schedule, transportation, hotels worked fines - all went smoothly.
• All of this was very good.
• Things ran like clockwork! Great Job! I did have a "ghostly" time at my hotel though.
• No complaints.
• Excellent, fabulous, wonderful! Everyone was extremely helpful, friendly and accommodating. The schedule was successfully designed to balance formal and informal programming/interactions. The open sessions, receptions on Friday and Saturday night are necessary for fellows and deans to discuss additional concerns and ideas. It was good that everything was done together and that snacks and drinks were provided for socializing. (even though we were at 2 different inns.) My only complaint: the travel agent would not allow me to book an earlier flight and said that I would have to make additional calls to approve an earlier flight. Yet I discovered that everyone else had earlier flights and I was the only one on the 6:35 p.m. flight!
• Airport shuttle was considerate and organized, behind the scenes: these people need awards, man Mary Philipps was so responsive, communicative and professional (I just trusted literally that a real person was in charge - not a process or assignment) Cindy (I wished we had gone to her farm, really. Her farm is a snapshot of this region and the Denison extended community - good info about this area.)
• Nice
• No response
• Everything ran smoothly. Mary Philipps and the other organizer did a fantastic job. The Granville Inn was lovely.
• Transportation in the mornings for the Inns to Burton Morgan might have been provided (some of us underestimated the time it would take to hike up the hill!)
• Great - I would allow fellows to tour the town/cities that are nearby. I never got to visit Columbus and it was soooo close!
• Better and more timely communications by e-mail or otherwise. Some important e-mails I didn't receive, while others I received very late. Especially with regards to materials required for the mock interviews. I didn't receive the request until several days before the conference-which means, not enough advance notice.
• Excellent.
• All was smooth - great job!
• Great job! Thanks to the Denison folks.
• Good.
• Very well organized - no complaints.
• Very good, excellent food and venues, Granville Inn was very nice and charming. Denison personnel were very good hosts.
• Logistics were helpful and the opportunities for networking were great.
• All very good.
• Everything has been great except that I had to wait at the airport for an hour. Had I known that, I would have gotten food earlier. But: not a big deal - overall, everything ran smoothly and comfortably - and I know how much coordination a conference involves.
• Good, but it might have been better to have everyone in the same hotel. The travel and transportation was exceptionally well coordinated. The food in this town is awful! Also, lunch on Saturday should have been more substantial - I heard a number of people were hungry later.
• Outstanding organization, facilities, and hospitality! Thank you very much. This will be a hard act to follow.
• No response.
• Again, I wish I had more time for meeting people individually, but I'm not sure how you can work around that (add an extra day? Decrease activities on another?)

What were the weakest features?

• No response
• Should be clearer about what the research roundtables are for, should consist of- informal discussion, formal discussion - we got no direction in advance so some people came with papers, some just described their dissertations, etc. The people also didn't come with a formal presentation seemed surprised that others did - etc.
• Knowing exactly where you were staying; when/where you were presenting/interviewing and how they would work as well as what I should submit or do to prepare (ahead of time). Again, I was impressed by how much this had been thought about, so overall it was fine.
• It would have been great to have had an easily accessible, comfortable and relatively private (as opposed to hotel dining room) space for late evening discussions.
• No response
• No response
• No response
• No response
• Not enough time between the panels and other events: I barely had time to go to the ladies room plus check my voicemail (I have to stay in touch with home) and/or return a quick phone call.
• No response
• No response
• I was somewhat disappointed to learn that fellows requested a list serve for fellows last year and that their suggestions went unheeded. I hope that CSMP is able to act.
• I'm not sure what I would consider a weak feature. Certainly all conferences have a stamina component-sessions and panels that require one to hold up over many hours. I would suggest that Research Roundtable and Mock interviews not be held one after another. Although I did not have an interview, after my roundtable I was worn out-and I can only imagine that people who had both must have been exhausted by the end of the day.
• No response
• No response
• No response
• No response
• Panels could be more responsive to scholar concerns-base them more directly on scholar questions.
• I think some of the political questions addressing the politics of fellowships like this could be addressed. I do want to know if these fellowships are seriously taken to make more permanent relationships with institutions and people of color, so that people of color are not simply color but make institutional difference.
• No response
• No response
• One breakfast together might have been fun but not required.
• Could the next conference materials provide information on the history of CSMP?
• Maybe include handouts on academia, job search, sample cover letter (example of an effective on) sample cv. Possible chance to have your cv and letter evaluated by a dean or faculty member and get that feedback.
• The fact that previous concerns have gone unaddressed (particularly the issue of the list-serve)
• No response
• No response
• How can we follow-up on things that came up? I felt that one of the most important conversations happened as people had to leave (on Sunday) and while this happened organically, I think that having that type of dialogue earlier would have been very significant, no just for fellow, but deans, etc.. Perhaps one of the things that can be worked on is having some form of follow-up to the conference - maybe smaller groups? I'm not sure, but it seems that fellows wanted to be able to discuss things with each other (as well as administrators) and nothing was in place for this. (I'm not sure if the list-serve is serving this purpose: as of now I do not think so.)

What were the strongest features?

• No response
• Culture of institution, next step in career panels, mock interviews, opportunities to speak one-on-one in small groups of both other fellows and deans.
• I didn't feel like any of my time was wasted. All the sessions were really helpful and I appreciated the “structured” time for informal discussions. So valuable.
• Logistical organization and enthusiasm of fellows.
• No response
• I believe it was great that people did not stick to "their own" but really attempted to get to know everyone in the informal settings. The panels were very appropriate to the needs of fellows. I felt really comfortable showcasing my professional and personal strengths in this setting.
• There was ample time to actually fellowship with other scholars. A lot was accomplished, but it never felt like work.
• Interaction between fellows, interaction between fellows and deans, interactive panels diversity of panelists in terms of ethnicity, academic position with experience and age.
• Incorporation of CSMP alumni and Denison faculty of color on Panels. Open question and answer at end of conference. Well-organized conference all-around, the hosts did a fabulous job in planning and execution (extremely flexible!). I am impressed by how much consideration was given to last year's observation and discussions in the planning of this year's conference.
• The people at Denison, the food, the balance, the facilitation of conference - superb!!!
• Discussions/Q & A.
• No response
• No response
• I think practical advice is the most important feature of a conference of this type. If I was a pre-doc I would have benefited from this. The last panel was especially strong in this type of presentation.
• The opportunity to talk to other scholars/deans/alumni and the dinner/cocktails.
• The bringing of CSMP scholars together
• Mock interview was perhaps the strongest and most effective session for me.
• I appreciated the "after conference" time built into the program.
• Meeting other scholars, practice job interview, research roundtables, socializing during meals and meeting deans.
• The guidance for fellows at this point in their career.
• No response
• Mixture of perspectives on panels.
• Networking of panels. The roundtables were superb.
• No response
• Mock interviews, panels, time built in to socialize informally and meet each other and talk, so that the conference was not all passive with presentations
• Mock interviews, fellow fellowship. I think that some very good choices were made in selecting the alumni who returned this year. The connection between the "success stories" and the fellows wasn't there last year and is an important part of the mentoring aspect of the program.
• No response
• No response
• The Mock Interviews

How could it be improved?

• No response
• Peoples' contact info (at least e-mail addresses should be included in packet.)
• Get details out to fellow ahead of time: presentations, interviews and shuttle information.
• Sessions on women of color, queers of color (obviously not mutually exclusions) maybe parents or many children in a LA college environment.
• No response
• A smaller Q & A seminar would be helpful so one could ask more personal/specific questions to a Dean or other CSMP scholars that may not be appropriate in the larger sessions or one-on-one over a glass of wine.
• No response
• Invite more Asian Americans and Latino's as panelists to participate in the conference.
• Invite Denison (host) faculty who speak on panels and conduct interviews to some of the social receptions and or meals.
• Do what you say you will do from one conference to the next and highlight (in writing) on your website and at conference for new and returning - Toot your horn, Yes!
• I would have enjoyed hearing about other people's research outside my field.
• No response
• No response
• No response
• A tour of the city/town.
• Make available before and after the conference contact information (e-mail addresses at least) for scholars. In addition, we should think about having a listserve of some kind, where scholars can combine and connect and share info after the conference.
• No response
• Address different concerns of post-doc and pre-doc fellows, nuts and bolts of application/interview process (perhaps these can be addressed in smaller, regional gatherings)
• Nap time in the afternoon, maybe a few minutes could be spent on CSMP selection process and something for scholars interested in a second scholarship year?
• No response
• No response
• "Workshop" on submitting publication materials - use Deans in discipline groups to help with strategies, writing cover letters, responding to reviews. Workshop on preparing application materials. Use department chairs at host institution to help here if disciplinary expertise isn't represented among the deans. Both would involve having the scholars bring drafts of their materials.
• Send out materials, schedules etc at least 3 weeks in advance. Have CSMP list include discipline of the scholar and ask schools for list of job openings to facilitate post-doctoral and tenure track searches.
• No response
• Meet a second time (perhaps regional conferences, so that's financially feasible).
• No response
• No response
• No response
• No response

In your view, should annual meetings of the CSMP scholars be continued?

If so, when and in what format?

• Very similar to how it is now!
• No response
• Twice a year, just like this would be great. Also, mini-conferences by geographic area and perhaps a summer writing institute. The contact with other fellows has been invaluable anything to extend or increase this would be great.
• This seems a good time of year.
• October is a good time of the year! I felt a little settled into my fellowship year, but I am also able to make changes to by behavior at my CSMP school as a result of the great advice I've gotten here.
• No response
• The annual meetings are amazingly informative, stimulating, productive and most of all necessary!!! for the success of the fellows and the deans. The annual meeting provides a space for extremely practical information to be exchanged that otherwise extremely difficult to obtain on one's own. The member institutions should make every effort possible to support the annual meeting and be sure to support CSMP fellows and a campus dean to attend.
• Build on feedback, do what you say you will do - promote your changes, don't apologize for change that takes time - just update the progress.
• Next year, same format.
• No response
• No response
• No response
• Similar format.
• No response
• I believe the current format is fine.
• No response
• This format seems to work well.
• No response
• Yearly - similar format.
• This format seemed effective.
• No response
• Same time of the year, same format
• Yes definitely, similar to this one. Maybe a second regional one at the beginning or middle of the 2^nd semester - or even the end of the 2^nd semester more on job search and next steps and checking in about goals and your writing. But whether or not there's a second meeting, this conference/meeting MUST continue, it adds so much value to the fellowship itself. I would have felt much more isolated at my home institution without the conference. This conference fostered and created and can help to continue a community of fellows. Very important. Actually, Vital. Crucial.
• Same format, but with time built into the program to address the issues brought up abut problems with the CSMP.
• October/November; same format as at Denison.
• I think some of the information would have been more valuable if I had encountered it earlier. I do not know whether it is possible to hold the conference before fellows arrive on their respective campus or earlier in the semester but that maybe helpful.
• The current format is fine, and the scheduling worked for me - but maybe in lieu of this large groups meeting - smaller groups can meet instead (Let's say by region, etc)…I'm not sure of what has taken place in the past or if something like this has already been done.

• Thank You!
• No response
• Your hard work in putting this conference together is highly visible and very much appreciated. Thanks again for your hospitality.
• There is a certain unintentional paternalism that seems to be organizing from the deans (mostly white men, it appears) address the fellows. It goes without saying that this enforces the kind of "Feisty Workers" culture of LA colleges that CSMP wants to diminish. This attitude figures the scholars of color and their experiences as a problem to be solved. A much better orientation would be, I think, to think of the "problem" as being the responsibility of both scholars and the institutions. CSMP should be a shared project and a professional association not a charity. Also, I would love to be on a panel or in a workshop to discuss being single on campus and being okay with that. It seems assumed that if one is single, one doesn't want to be, or one won't be or one oughtn't be.
• No response
• No response
• No response
• Panel on diversity "issues" on the small liberal arts campus. Ex: 2^nd year CSMP fellows, alumni and deans submit suggested topics based on the discussions of the previous years meeting or deans present information /experiences on how their institution addresses diversity on their campus (recruiting, hiring, maintaining, etc.). It is critical for the mentoring handbook be created and distributed to members institutions as a model for hosting a CSMP fellow. The fellows should create a Fellow's guide that's distributed to new fellows before they arrive on campus. E-mail lists for fellows, deans and a compiled list for all. The e-mail accounts created for fellows at Denison for the week-end was a kind and practical addition! (thoughtful). The dates of the conference worked well for me. (no later, maybe 1-2 weeks earlier if necessary)
• No response
• Great Time.
• No response
• No response
• No response
• We really need a listserve for the program. This conference has been very energizing!!
• No response
• A very useful conference. I wish I had attended an identical conference prior to going to the job market.
• No response
• No response
• No response
• I was surprised that the fellows I spoke to weren't aware of the electronic job listings. They knew about the chronicle web site but there are often general sites where higher ed jobs are advertised.
• No response
• No response
• Continue to invite former fellows (at least a few) at different places in their careers and attend to take part in the conference. For those that cannot come, have an e-mail list of current, former fellows and attending (not attending) deans who are willing to be informal mentors. Very helpful and cost-effective - and creates an ongoing community of CSMP fellows and alums. As we move around from institution to institution in our academic careers, this may be valuable to know people at other institutions who can give us the inside scoop on the institutional culture of that school/department.
• I filled out an evaluation last year about the conference and about the CSMP experience, but none of the fellows have seen any of our comments. I noticed that the numbers on the website have not been updated, and I found that kind of information to be useful (from 2002). Even if the fellows last year didn't make liberal arts schools choices, it's important that we have access to that data.
• No response
• I found the entire conference useful and enjoyable. Thank you.
• No response