Over the past few classes, we have been revising Geneseo’s academic probation letter, keeping in mind the findings presented the in article The Power of Realistic Expectations by Ian Chipman and Rob Urstein. We have been searching for ways to craft the letter so as to strike a balance between convening the seriousness of academic probation, and reassuring the student placed on probation that he or she is not a lost cause. It seems that as a class, the consensus is that the most effective way to stress the latter is to provide suggestions of resources that the student can take advantage of, and to reaffirm the college’s commitment to the student’s success. Once we split up into groups to actually begin rewriting the letter, my group were able to make a new letter that I believe did indeed find a good balance. Now, I understand that we will be presenting Dr. Easton a revised letter for her to consider. That made me wonder, however, what exactly is the process by which the academic probation letter is changed? Does it have to be approved solely by Dr. Easton, as her name is on the letter? Or is there a committee that reviews it? The answer could have implications for the letter, as what Dr. Easton thinks should be changed about the letter may not be the same as what someone else or a group believes should be changed. Another question that I had developed was: in the past, had there been any student input into the content of the letter? If not, then I would have to say that the project we are working on in class is an important step in the foundation of real academic partnerships at Geneseo.