Research Results (Quantitative)
From April 9 to April 30, the survey was open for student responses. During this period, three reminder emails were sent out on April 16, April 23, and April 28. A total of 14 students responded to the survey, engaging with both the multiple-choice and open-ended questions. While four students chose to include their email addresses to be contacted for follow-up, none responded with availability after outreach.
The quantitative data revealed three key trends: uneven experience of support, strong interest in peer mentorship, and limited clarity around program enrollment.
What is your expected graduation year?
Seven members from the Class of 2025 and seven from the Class of 2026 responded to the survey, resulting in an even split.
Did you use your Meiklejohn stipend?
While a majority of respondents used their stipend, six did not—suggesting a possible disconnect between receiving the stipend and having the opportunity or need to use it.
Do you feel that you have been supported throughout your entire time at Amherst as a Meiklejohn member?
In alignment with my research goals, respondents indicated a clear lack of support for Meiklejohn Fellows after their first and sophomore years—or, in some cases, a general feeling of being unsupported or disconnected from the program altogether.
How would you rate your overall experience as a Meiklejohn member?
Only one respondent rated their experience with the program as ‘Excellent,’ while the vast majority indicated that they ‘had not engaged with the program meaningfully.’ Although eight other responses reflected varying degrees of experience, overall, eight respondents reported that they have not had a positive experience as members of the Meiklejohn Fellows Program.
Did you find the Meiklejohn application process accessible and straightforward?
This question is particularly interesting because the Class of 2025 was auto-enrolled in the Meiklejohn Fellows Program, whereas beginning with the Class of 2026, the Loeb Center introduced an application process for prospective members. Given the even split of respondents from both classes, it’s possible that some individuals were confused by this question or misunderstood what ‘auto-enrollment’ entailed. However, as I discussed with Emily Griffen, the Loeb Center has observed that requiring an application does lead to increased engagement with the program to some degree.
Did the application process discourage you or others you know from applying?
Again, due to potential confusion surrounding auto-enrollment, only five out of the seven respondents who could have answered this question did so. However, the responses speak positively to the application process—only one individual indicated that the application was a deterrent. This suggests that, overall, the application process is not a significant barrier to students joining the program.
Would you have benefited from a structured peer mentorship program (e.g., being paired with an older Meiklejohn member)?
Ten respondents stated they would have ‘definitely’ or ‘possibly’ benefited from a structured peer mentorship program, suggesting strong interest in such an initiative—and even potential agents of action who may be interested in helping to establish it.
Would you have been interested in mentoring younger Meiklejohn members if a formal mentorship program were established?
The data above indicates that a peer mentorship program is both viable and desired by students: six respondents said they would definitely be interested in serving as mentors, while five others indicated they would ‘maybe’ be interested in the opportunity.
What qualities would you want in a peer mentor? (Select all that apply)
This data suggests that, in a peer mentor, shared cultural background is not the most important factor. Instead, students value having a mentor with a similar major or academic interest, an approachable and friendly personality, and prior internship or research experience—qualities more likely to be found in an upperclassman. This indicates a desire for more specialized, peer-to-peer career development mentorship and guidance from someone who can offer relevant, experience-based support.
If the Meiklejohn Fellows Program offered career development opportunities specifically designed for FGLI students throughout your time at Amherst, would you have been interested in participating?
All 14 respondents expressed interest in having a specialized FGLI curriculum. Ten stated they would ‘definitely’ be interested, while the remaining four noted that their interest would ‘depend on the topic.’ This suggests that a tailored curriculum is highly desired among students, particularly when it addresses relevant and engaging themes.
How would you feel about a cohort model that brings together all Meiklejohn members from your class year for community-building and shared programming?
Half of the participants responded that they would be ‘very interested’ in a cohort-based model organized by class year for program participation. While responses indicate varying levels of interest, the fact that no one reported being completely uninterested suggests strong potential for buy-in. This points to the likelihood that, once the curriculum is fully developed and students see their questions being addressed in a community-specific, supportive environment, engagement among Meiklejohn Fellows Program members will increase.
Would you have been interested in serving on a student advisory board that co-facilitates the Meiklejohn Fellows Program alongside Loeb Center staff?
This board would help shape programming, provide student perspectives, and develop a career development curriculum for younger members.
While three individuals indicated they probably would not be interested in serving on a student advisory board for the program, 11 respondents said they would either definitely want to join or would consider joining depending on the time commitment.
Do you think the Meiklejohn Program should have a student leadership structure?
While two students responded that a student leadership structure should not be implemented, 12 others indicated that such a structure should either ‘definitely’ or ‘possibly’ be introduced. This suggests that with clearer communication about how the program could support FGLI students, those who are undecided—or even currently opposed—might be persuaded to support the idea.
You must be logged in to post a comment.