In her address to the opening convocation last August, Joyce spoke eloquently about how FIT was anything but an island. There is much that my colleagues and I have learned about FIT that reinforces this sense of connectedness: 12 percent of your full-time students are from abroad; another 32 percent are from another state. When we say we are working with FIT, nobody asks, "Where is that?"--although more than a few assume FIT is a private institution. Increasingly, FIT's faculty are being drawn from institutions across the country, and FIT is extending its reach internationally through partnerships and joint ventures.

That said, we have also been struck by how often FIT thinks about itself as an island--or, as one of those whom we interviewed said, as "an enclave." Beyond a signature tie to the fashion industry, the words most often used to describe FIT include: unique, special, distinctive, unusual, different, and even insular. When people at FIT are asked, "How does your institution fit into the SUNY system?" there is often an awkward pause, followed by the answer, "Well, we really don't fit because we are so different. " Whole families belong to FIT, where both father and son or nephew and aunt or husband and wife either have served or are presently serving on the faculty--enough to make this sense of being connected a key element of the FIT story.

In many respects, its past is what makes FIT sometimes an island. For some, that past includes an exquisite sense of how FIT began, as well as what it has become. Indeed, for many with whom we spoke, it proved easier to talk about that past than to imagine how FIT might be different in the future. It is the past and the institution's heritage that allow members of the FIT community to describe the college in remarkably consistent terms. FIT is about work and jobs and skills, as well as the fashion industry worldwide. FIT fosters opportunity, both for individuals and the communities from which they come. FIT is a place of public responsibilities and obligations. Finally, FIT is about creativity and the special people, both old and young, who have the skills, training, and vision to make images and ideas tangible.

At the same time, there is a growing sense that FIT will need to change-- and change purposefully--in order to flourish. Everyone wants to keep, and where possible strengthen, FIT's fashion signature, although some want that signature extended to include related industries and endeavors, what one interviewee called the "life-style industries." There is a parallel sense that FIT needs to retain its commitment to recruiting faculty from among those with "real industry experience."--though here, too, there is a sense that academic credentials and academically relevant experiences will prove more important in the future than in the past. Change is already leading FIT to grow its baccalaureate enrollments and programs and to explore new opportunities for master's degrees and programs of executive education.

In most institutions, most of the time, strategic planning is about exploring alternate futures--changes in curriculum, program mix, organization, and governance. Major initiatives are expected to lead to significant changes in what people--students, faculty, and staff--do. People all across FIT talk readily of a future in which the college is broadly recognized as the premier institution supplying skilled designers and managers to both the fashion industry itself and the lifestyle related industries that the public associates with style and creativity. They talk of a FIT that needs to "go global," with an emphasis on the new technologies that are reshaping how the fashion and related industries design and produce their products as well as manage their businesses. But they also talk passionately about the importance of FIT remaining true to its historic mission of empowering individuals who otherwise would not have the chance to achieve their ambitions.

Pursing this future vision will require addressing a host of tough issues, including all of the following:

1. Student Mix
2. Curriculum and Program Mix
3. Faculty Mix
4. Student/Campus Life
5. Facilities and Campus Planning
6. Connections to the Fashion and Life-Style Industries

Given that challenge, the issues to be discussed at the first set of roundtables might be framed as follows:

1. Whom does FIT want to teach?
More than most institutions with whom we have worked, FIT can actually chose its future--there is sufficient demand for its programs to do just that. What the data tell us is that FIT is already changing--more out of state students, more students interested in a baccalaureate program, more students from middle-class economic backgrounds. The more FIT invests in its baccalaureate programs, the more its student profile is likely to shift in these directions.

A host of questions follow suit, beginning with: Should FIT become primarily a baccalaureate institution, perhaps even changing it status within SUNY? What would be lost--and what would be gained? Or, can FIT have it both ways--both building up its baccalaureate programs while preserving, even strengthening its AAS programs? If both the availability of good jobs and the interests of potential students point away from investments in terminal AAS programs, what would be the rationale for continuing to have those degrees as an integral part of FIT's mix of degrees and programs?

To this latter question two answers were suggested. First, offering two-year degrees leading to ready employment in the fashion and related industries is at the core of FIT's historic mission. FIT has been an institution committed to serving recent arrivals to the U.S., students who were the first in their families to seek a college education, students who simply couldn't afford to enroll in a four-year institution, and finally students who needed to go to work as soon as possible. We also heard a variant of this theme that was more in keeping with the current student profile--namely, that FIT needed to continue to serve motivated students who simply were not ready to make a four-year commitment. From this perspective, FIT is not really a community college in that its programs are designed for students who know what they want to do and, in the design areas, who have the discipline to develop a portfolio that can pass muster with the faculty.

Complicating this discussion is FIT's relationship with the City of New York, which contributes substantial sums to underwrite the cost of an FIT education. Though considerable effort has been invested in recruiting youngsters from New York City's public high schools, FIT, year by year, is less an institution dominated by NYC enrollments. At the moment, the increase in the number of students from the New York suburbs along with out-of-state enrollments is "happening on its own" as FIT's baccalaureate programs and low costs are becoming ever stronger magnets. Were FIT to make a major investment in the recruiting and marketing of new students, there is every likelihood that the out-of-state and suburban cast of the institution would become ever more pronounced.

Finally, there is the question as to whether, in market terms, FIT can have its cake and eat it too. Can FIT prove attractive both to students seeking a terminal AAS degree and to those seeking a baccalaureate or an advanced degree? Can FIT achieve a student profile that builds on the strengths of its baccalaureate programs while still preserving the environment of opportunity its associate's degrees have long provided students from New York City and Long Island?

2. What needs to be taught and how?
In contemplating the kinds of curricular changes that lie just over the horizon, we asked most of those whom we interviewed, "What will the fashion and lifestyle industries require--in terms of specific skills, design and management creativity, and the ability to embrace new technologies?" FIT prides itself on its ability to train its students for real jobs with real futures. The measure of FIT's success remains the ability of its graduates to get good jobs and build successful careers. Not surprisingly, then, no one to whom we talked wanted to lessen the emphasis that the FIT curriculum has historically placed on industry expertise and experience.

Within this broad consensus, however, there were eddies of concern and occasional discontent. There was a sense that the FIT curriculum was becoming overloaded. That too often faculty had incorporated new material without discarding anything else--with the net result that the time students spend in class and labs and in completing their required projects and assignments. The problem of overloading was at times compounded by the uncertainty regarding what ought to be covered in the first two years and what only the students who had matriculated in a bachelor's program needed to know. Some went so far as to suggest that some of FIT's most successful advanced students were openly questioning whether they were really learning much that was new in their last semesters.

A second compounding curricular element was the increasing importance of digital technologies in both the design and manufacture of fashion and related products. Whole departments and programs must now determine how much of FIT's traditional curriculum is being rendered moot by the new technologies. From where will the funds come to acquire the new equipment on which students need to be trained? How much must be spent to retrain and retool key members of the FIT faculty whose experiences and expertise are rooted in the older technologies? Does the growing importance of digital technologies mean that FIT graduates, particularly in the bachelor's programs, need more science or more math?

Globalization is the third element making FIT's curricular choices more complex and probably more difficult. If, for example, more design and management jobs are going to places like China and Europe, does FIT need to place greater emphasis on acquiring a foreign language? On spending a semester or more abroad? On learning more about the economic underpinnings of globalization?

3. How will the composition of the faculty change?
Changes in the mix of students and programs--the two dominant concerns that surfaced in our interviews - lead naturally to a set of dependent questions beginning with, "Where should FIT look for new faculty members?" We sensed that a conversation is beginning as to whether FIT needs to have more full-time faculty, though not necessarily fewer part-time faculty. In the future, as in the past, should FIT recruit a preponderance of its full-time faculty from among its part-time instructors? Some believe it is now time for FIT to signal that it is interested in both experience and advanced academic preparation. Should a demonstrated capacity for research become more of a criterion for appointment? In which fields, areas, and specialties should FIT concentrate its research interests and investments? If research and professionalism are to become more important, how can FIT ensure that creativity continues to play a central role in attracting key faculty to the college?

4. How will campus life change?
Should FIT strive to provide a more campus-centered set of activities, particularly for its full-time and residential students? Can or should FIT build a stronger sense of collegiate spirit as a way of encouraging students to remain connected to FIT after graduation? What must FIT do to create a collegiate community of "belongers?"

5. How will the campus change physically?
Beyond the new facilities anticipated in the recently completed master plan, what additional buildings or spaces will be required for FIT to achieve its ambitions? What would it take to make FIT a "destination campus?" Does FIT require a larger footprint--and, if the answer to that question is "yes," how and where can the necessary expansion take place? Does FIT need to expand its mix of classrooms and labs to include larger lecture halls and more flexible laboratory space?

6. How good are FIT's connections to a changing industry?
FIT has grown and prospered because it was "of the industry." Its faculty knew what the industry wanted because they had spent an important part of their own careers there. Until recently, that industry was just down the block or across town. Now all that is changing. The industry's manufacturing has been dispersed. Its design functions are already less concentrated in New York. The industry's financial and headquarter functions may be the next to become more scattered. A number of people with whom we talked worried about whether FIT's connections with this more global set of enterprises would be as robust as its connections when the fashion industry was New York-centered. What must FIT do proactively to build partnerships with the new Asian manufacturing centers? With the design centers in Europe? With a dispersed set of fashion headquarters? What are the major shifts in the nature, location, and organization of the fashion industry that FIT needs to track? How well is FIT plugged into those changes? Does FIT talk enough to the employers of its graduates in general and to those outside of New York in particular? Is FIT sufficiently well organized to respond quickly and purposefully to changes in the fashion industry? What must the college do to ensure that the fashion industry sees FIT as a major source of ideas and people?

Midway through this first round of interviews, I was asked by one interviewee whether there was a common set of topics that emerged from this aspect of the planning process. I allowed that over the years we had evolved such a list, but added that with each engagement we try to be certain that we are listening to the specific needs of each campus. In the case of FIT, however, I already knew that a quite different list would emerge from the interviews.

Let me make the same point in another way. Almost all planning processes at some point come to focus on what I have called the student mix. In most cases, however, these discussions are pro forma. Most institutions cannot change their student mix in any dramatic way. The exceptions are struggling liberal arts colleges. Since they have too few students already, they need to plan for a more robust and, in that sense, changed student mix. FIT can--and needs to––ask the student mix question from a position of strength rather than weakness. To repeat an observation made earlier, FIT has sufficient market demand that it can actually choose to change its mix of students. How FIT addresses the remaining topics depends on how it answers the first question: "Over the next decade and beyond, where should our students come from, what should they study (and for how long), and for what kinds of jobs should we be preparing them?"

When we meet on October 19, I suggest we begin by reviewing each of the six topic areas identified in this memo, asking, "What is missing? What really doesn't belong?" We would then turn to the question of planning strategy--where, when, and why does the planning process need to be explicit about the kind of changes being contemplated.

Let me close with an image that came to mind as I reviewed my interview notes. The sense I had was that FIT was anchored to its past--and that it could not move forward without first weighing anchor. It is an image that has at its core a sense of "pent-up energy." The question before the house, I think, is: "How can FIT best release that energy without putting the college or its future at risk?"