Valpo Strategic Plan

[David81]

One thing I want to highlight is just how some of this stagnation and warning signs probably happened when times "were good".  It's easy to assume the most recent leadership is the reason for all the problems but often they are reacting either poorly or well to foundational cracks that come to light. Much like the law school's reputation was already showing significant signs of being bad in in the early 2000s. 

crusader05, I included just part of your last comment because I think the law school was a special situation, with its idiosyncratic challenges. VU Law actually enjoyed some of its best years during the 1990s and leading up to the Great Recession. But the years following the meltdown were horrible for legal education, and applications nationally dropped like a rock. When this occurred, there wasn't much wiggle room at Valpo in terms of reducing enrollment and trying to attract students who could succeed in law school and pass the bar exam.

A lot of people blamed the previous Administration for the closing of the law school. But had the law school remained open, the rest of the University may well have been heavily taxed to keep the doors open. This would've included providing very deep tuition discounts to attract smaller entering classes of high-quality students who otherwise would've opted for a higher ranking law school. By the time things got really bad around 2014-16, the school was in the midst of a rapidly worsening, imperfect storm of huge dimensions.

I know that sounds dramatic, but as a law professor at a regional school that had its own challenges during the post-meltdown years (Suffolk in Boston), a lot of us were experiencing these uncertainties during that time.

[David81]

In considering VU's overall reputation, I think it's useful to note that when the US News rankings expanded to include a wider swath of schools in the late 1980s, Valpo debuted as one of the highest ranked regional private universities in the Midwestern category. As I recall, schools like Creighton, Drake, and DePaul were also among the top-ranked schools in that category.

As a snapshot of institutional reputation, this ranking covered a period of transitional change for VU. Robert Schnabel was the President during that time. He was something of a bridge between the old and new style chief executives of the University, in that he came from a Lutheran theological background but engaged in the kind of fundraising that would lead the school into the modern era of development activity.

Anyway, my underlying point is that some 35 years ago, VU was surprisingly well-regarded for a school whose faculty were overworked and underpaid, whose physical plant was pretty woeful, and whose overall look-and-feel evoked its post-war past more than its 21st century future. Unsure of its place in the American higher education landscape, the school did suffer from something of an institutional inferiority/identity complex, which -- perhaps ironically -- the US News rankings did help to remedy.

I'm not quite sure how these observations relate to present-day VU, other than to illustrate the staying power of institutional reputation and to suggest the importance of connecting institutional legacy to institutional future.

[David81]

the staying power of institutional reputation and to suggest the importance of connecting institutional legacy to institutional future.

For sure! As I was saying above, there is still momentum from the older reputation of strength in the liberal arts & engineering as well as newer reputation in nursing & business. All of that is good and hopefully still connectible to the benefit of all. But I imagine it's going to be key to fix the financial priorities; I didn't follow the uni self-studies much once slated for layoff, but there was some chart sent out that showed not only were faculty salaries way under peer institutions', but also (more troubling in my humble opinion) the ratio or percentage of institutional dollars invested in programs/instruction for *students* was way beneath that of peer institutions... and there were a lot of 'peer' institutions on that list which I'd never heard of. Everybody was sort of like 'what the heck, so where is all the money going.' All these investment issues are connected in terms of ultimate student experience, and if these sort of financial fundamentals were already kind of off when you were a Torch journalist in the 80s, then my sense is that the graph got more awry from 1990s-2020.

At the VU of my student days, the question was less "so where is all the money going" and more "how can we get more money."

Comparatively low tuition + not much fundraising = the old school academic model of genteel poverty. Hence, there was faculty unhappiness over workloads and salaries, but not as much questioning and resentment fostered when you know there's much more money around yet less transparency about where it's going.

From a student standpoint, it meant a university experience with fewer bells + whistles and sparse, even dilapidating facilities, but much lower student loan debt on average. I didn't fully appreciate the latter at the time, but that understanding would come soon, when my student loan total from 3 years of law school at NYU (even with a healthy amount of grant money) was roughly 10x that from 4 years of Valpo undergrad (even with only modest grant money + a life-changing study abroad experience).

For those of us who didn't grow up in wealthy households, VU's modest physical plant was more or less accepted, with more grousing about how the surrounding Valparaiso area was pretty sleepy. 😂 We had to, as they say, make our own fun — which some did in excess at frat parties during the "Animal House" era of Greek life. 😳🤪 At the same time, those low-paid professors were providing a very high-quality classroom education. A hardworking student could get an excellent undergraduate education at VU of that day.

That high-quality education remains available at VU, with much nicer facilities and plenty more bells + whistles, but at a much, much higher cost. It is more than personal nostalgia that causes me to regard this trade-off with dismay. The current higher Ed price tag helps to drive the short-term ROI values and pressures many young people to factor in student loan payments when considering what to study and what to do for a living.

[vu72]

While surfing the YouTube channel recently, I cam across a haunting video of St. Joe's college.  It is a drone flying over a deserted campus.  Sad, to be sure, while also reminding me that Valpo could have the same fate without the hard choices made by the administration coupled with the financial sacrifices of faculty and staff as well as the combined effort of over 25000 alumni and friends who have committed over 300 million to the endowment. Long live Valpo!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXlR3lsAEjU

[78crusader]

Not much talk on this thread about the plan to offer a two-year degree, which seems to be a community college gimmick that won't help our academic reputation any. 

Paul

[vu72]

Not much talk on this thread about the plan to offer a two-year degree, which seems to be a community college gimmick that won't help our academic reputation any. 

Paul

Or perhaps Valpo is just catching up to some of its peers. Here is information on Associate degree programs at Butler, Drake and Loyola.

https://www.butler.edu/arts-sciences/general-associate/

https://www.drake.edu/bright/

https://www.luc.edu/arrupe/academics/degrees/

[valpotx]

You can tell that someone is still maintaining the landscape at St. Joe's, and the fountain is still operating, which is odd.  I/we played on their baseball field several times, and I met some quality guys from St. Joe's on my last 2 college summer teams in NW Indiana.  It was sad to see it close.  They had a pretty staunch baseball program, but obviously the rest of the university wasn't as stable.

[David81]

I didn't mean 'where is all the money going' in a raw numbers sense of Valpo having gobs of money, since obviously it didn't in the 80s and doesn't now either.
I just meant it in the percentage sense of Valpo spending less of its budget in the area of instruction relative to peer institutions, many of whom have even less money.

Though VU does have more money, relatively speaking, than it did back then. Not huge amounts, but definitely more.

Rankings-driven pressures, though, are causing many U.S. universities -- VU included -- to spend a lot of that money on fancier facilities and other accoutrements. I call it the collegiate Edifice Complex.

Go to elite schools like Oxford or Cambridge in the U.K. and one finds some pretty run down buildings and facilities still in frequent use. Go to many a private regional university in the U.S. and one finds some very fancy buildings and facilities, designed to lure in students who are expecting much nicer, more comfortable surroundings than did previous generations.

That's not a knock on today's generation of students -- they've been raised to expect this, even if it's adding to their tuition sticker shock and putting some in deep debt. But VU and similar competitors have to find some way to keep up with the Joneses, and guess who ends up paying for it?

[David81]

Not much talk on this thread about the plan to offer a two-year degree, which seems to be a community college gimmick that won't help our academic reputation any. 

Paul

Or perhaps Valpo is just catching up to some of its peers. Here is information on Associate degree programs at Butler, Drake and Loyola.

https://www.butler.edu/arts-sciences/general-associate/

https://www.drake.edu/bright/

https://www.luc.edu/arrupe/academics/degrees/

Yup!!! One of the latest bandwagons for private regional schools. Those that aren't doing it are finding other ways to reach out to graduates of two-year colleges.

If the four-year colleges didn't cost so much, this would be less of an issue.

[VU2022]

The sentiment that Valpo basically wasted money on buildings and that current students need all the bells and whistles to come to valpo compared to previous generations is pretty weird to me. IMO most of the construction was absolutely necessary to continue as an institution- let's walk through it:
-Harre Union: you have to have a central place with facilities that can support events and prospective students. Additionally by having a large dining hall centrally it eliminates the need for other large dining halls all around campus

Library - main place students hang out to study/use the computers. Students do need a decent place to study and gather to do work

ASB building -makes sense to consolidate the arts and humanities into one roof to save money and because the colleges building were on thier last legs -the recent fire in the psych building has made this clear, and dickmeyer is visibly on its last legs too.

Chemistry -building was necessary for the chemistry equipment needed to support all the new health sciences students taking chemistry and biology. Additionally, it expanded the universities ability to do science research, which has basically become a prerequisite for certain jobs and internships (including my grad school admission!)

Gellersen additions: see above for chemistry, additionally an entirely new engineering discipline, bioengineering, is being offered and it needs space and equipment to be respectable.

Kallay Christopher - this is the only one that I think the university could have perhaps not built. That money would have been much more useful elsewhere (nursing building or ARC/alumni/lank renovation?

Beacon - lankanau is clearly on its last legs, and would be impractical to renovate due to being connected to scheele, need to get out ahead of any issues here.

Brandt renovation -see above

Any of the other "luxuries" either make life a lot more comfortable or are relative cost effective 

[David81]

The sentiment that Valpo basically wasted money on buildings and that current students need all the bells and whistles to come to valpo compared to previous generations is pretty weird to me. IMO most of the construction was absolutely necessary to continue as an institution- let's walk through it:
-Harre Union: you have to have a central place with facilities that can support events and prospective students. Additionally by having a large dining hall centrally it eliminates the need for other large dining halls all around campus

Library - main place students hang out to study/use the computers. Students do need a decent place to study and gather to do work

ASB building -makes sense to consolidate the arts and humanities into one roof to save money and because the colleges building were on thier last legs -the recent fire in the psych building has made this clear, and dickmeyer is visibly on its last legs too.

Chemistry -building was necessary for the chemistry equipment needed to support all the new health sciences students taking chemistry and biology. Additionally, it expanded the universities ability to do science research, which has basically become a prerequisite for certain jobs and internships (including my grad school admission!)

Gellersen additions: see above for chemistry, additionally an entirely new engineering discipline, bioengineering, is being offered and it needs space and equipment to be respectable.

Kallay Christopher - this is the only one that I think the university could have perhaps not built. That money would have been much more useful elsewhere (nursing building or ARC/alumni/lank renovation?

Beacon - lankanau is clearly on its last legs, and would be impractical to renovate due to being connected to scheele, need to get out ahead of any issues here.

Brandt renovation -see above

Any of the other "luxuries" either make life a lot more comfortable or are relative cost effective 

VU2022, I think you might've misconstrued what some of us said, or perhaps what I said. 🤓 I'm going to try and clarify some of the points that I've made.

I noted in my comments that back in my day, it was glaringly obvious that VU's physical plant was in need of repair and replacement. Basically, much of the place was falling apart, a testament to deferred maintenance and a lack of fundraising. There was a lot of talk about the need for new buildings, but it was somewhat fanciful thinking at the time, because there was very little money available to pay for such dreams. In any event, believe me, no one who saw what that campus looked like a generation or two ago would question the need to address its physical infrastructure.

Various fundraising campaigns have helped to pay for some of the costs of these newer buildings and facilities ("newer" in this context meaning within the past 20 or so years), as well as the major renovations. But no doubt the University has incurred substantial debt to cover the full costs of all that construction. How does a university with a modest endowment and annual fund pay for that debt? A lot of it gets passed into tuition, room, and board. And here is one major factor in the skyrocketing of student debt. It's not just VU -- in fact, VU is more affordable than many other private universities. But there's no free lunch here for the students when it comes to enjoying these facilities. They are paying rent.

Now, I will gently take issue with facilities that you might deem "necessary" or "decent." I spent some time on campus a few years ago and was quite taken by many of these new spaces. As an alumnus from the days of very plain facilities and some wholly ramshackle buildings, I was envious of the spaces that today's VU students had to study, meet, and generally enjoy. Until, that is, I considered the comparative student debt. When one puts on that lens, then suddenly you start pricing out the comparative costs of the interiors and the furnishings. That's when you grasp that stocking a room with, say, $250 chairs instead of $125 chairs, starts to add up, especially when decisions of similar scale are being made.

I've taught for over 25 years at a university in Boston whose financial profile and area reputation is generally similar to VU's. When we put up a new building for the law school I teach at some 22 years ago, certain decisions were made about the interior and its furnishings -- choices about bells & whistles. It made for a building that still has visitors saying, "wow, you've got a great building." True, it's a lovely building. And guess what? As an educator, I can't honestly represent that the expensive chairs and fancy wooden interiors of many of our classrooms make a darn bit of difference in the quality of instruction. Nevertheless, despite a fundraising campaign for that new building, we are still paying it off. Or, I should say, our current students are still paying it off.

So, I will reiterate my comments that more recent generations of prospective students have come to expect fancier (=more expensive) collegiate surroundings than their predecessors. I am not generation-bashing by making this observation. They have been conditioned to expect such surroundings. In the U.S., especially, universities are competing not only in terms of academic quality, but also the look & feel of their physical plants. A university that looks pretty shabby in terms of its overall facilities will have to overcome that negative impression, not easy to do with a group of young folks on a quick campus tour. Nevertheless, for the vast majority of private universities that cannot afford to pay for new facilities free and clear, buildings designed to appeal to prospective students are a big reason behind burgeoning student debt.

[crusader05]

I'd push back on Kally Christopher just because prior to that our meteorology program was in the basement of Mueller and needed expansion. It is also a very coveted program and has produced some very notable alumni and has a strong record of keeping it's graduates engaged in the program. Especially within Broadcast. Putting it with Schnabel helped combine those resources more seamlessly

[vu72]

I noted in my comments that back in my day, it was glaringly obvious that VU's physical plant was in need of repair and replacement. Basically, much of the place was falling apart, a testament to deferred maintenance and a lack of fundraising. There was a lot of talk about the need for new buildings, but it was somewhat fanciful thinking at the time, because there was very little money available to pay for such dreams. In any event, believe me, no one who saw what that campus looked like a generation or two ago would question the need to address its physical infrastructure.

I go back a few years before you arrived on campus, and true, if you had to study business like I did, in DeMotte Hall, it was indeed "glaringly obvious" that certain facilities needed to  be replaced. But I will note that these things run in cycles to wit, let's take a look back to presumably when you started at Valpo, in 1977. The Business school (Urschel Hall) was brand new while you were on campus, being dedicated in 1979! Now it is 43 years old!! In 1977 Alumni Hall was 11 years old, Lankenau was 13 years old and Brandt was 15 years old. At present, Valpo's newest dorm, Beacon, is already 8 years old.  As for the library of your and my day, Moellering, in 1977 it was 18 years old, being opened in 1959.  The Christopher Center, today's modern library is also 18 years old! As for Science, Neils Science Center was opened in 1967, so was only 10 years old when you started at Valpo.  And so the cycle of facility life goes on!

[David81]

I noted in my comments that back in my day, it was glaringly obvious that VU's physical plant was in need of repair and replacement. Basically, much of the place was falling apart, a testament to deferred maintenance and a lack of fundraising. There was a lot of talk about the need for new buildings, but it was somewhat fanciful thinking at the time, because there was very little money available to pay for such dreams. In any event, believe me, no one who saw what that campus looked like a generation or two ago would question the need to address its physical infrastructure.

I go back a few years before you arrived on campus, and true, if you had to study business like I did, in DeMotte Hall, it was indeed "glaringly obvious" that certain facilities needed to  be replaced. But I will note that these things run in cycles to wit, let's take a look back to presumably when you started at Valpo, in 1977. The Business school (Urschel Hall) was brand new while you were on campus, being dedicated in 1979! Now it is 43 years old!! In 1977 Alumni Hall was 11 years old, Lankenau was 13 years old and Brandt was 15 years old. At present, Valpo's newest dorm, Beacon, is already 8 years old.  As for the library of your and my day, Moellering, in 1977 it was 18 years old, being opened in 1959.  The Christopher Center, today's modern library is also 18 years old! As for Science, Neils Science Center was opened in 1967, so was only 10 years old when you started at Valpo.  And so the cycle of facility life goes on!

vu72, you're right, many of the dorms were relatively new. They were (and presumably remain) serviceable, pretty much what dorm life was all about during that time. But other buildings of more recent vintage at the time were probably obsolete from the day they were built, harkening back to a day when money was very, very tight. Moellering Library was an example, cramped for space and housing a mediocre book collection during a time when volume counts meant much more. The original Wesemann Hall, built in the early 60s, had quickly become inadequate for the Law School, to the point where it was one of the reasons why the school's accreditation was in danger during the late 70s/early 80s.

Many of the older buildings still in active and frequent use on the Old Campus side were literally fire and safety hazards. I spent a lot of time in Lembke Hall (where the poli sci dept was housed), and the floors felt like they were going to collapse at any time. Kroenke Hall, home to a lot of performing arts programs, wasn't much better. Let's not forget DeMotte Hall, another building on life support that housed faculty and classrooms. The building that was long home to the VU Police was, before that, where all the student publications and WVUR were stuffed, as well as the journalism classes. I'm sure I've forgotten others.

And, of course, there was Hilltop Gymnasium.

So yes, there is a cycle of facility life. But I'd submit that cycle was waaaaaay overextended during the 70s and early 80s. 😳🤪😊 Again, it reflected a VU era of genteel academic poverty, accompanied by very low tuition. But when the world of higher education started to upgrade its digs, Valpo had to start building & renovating.

[crusadermoe]

Good summary of the 70s and 80s I would guess.   

I stick by my point of too many fireplaces and comfy couches in a too large library.  It didn't need to rival the chapel even though it is a great look coming from Highway 30. 

The facilities arms race has become ridiculous as I discovered in my kids' college visits.  So c'est la vie.  Win or go home.

[David81]

OK, despite my whining about the dilapidated state of many VU buildings back when, I'm about to lapse into soggy nostalgia for an era that preceded my student days by many years: Those shaky old buildings linked us to an incarnation of VU that pre-dated the arrival of the Lutherans, when Valpo was known as the "Poor Man's Harvard."

Few of us appreciated that historic connection as we wondered why VU didn't simply raze those structures (that is, if a strong wind didn't do the job first) and build anew. But some of those buildings had real charm, even if they were so far gone that only a costly gut rehab could've saved them. They certainly had more architectural flair than most of the post-WWII buildings put up on New Campus.

[David81]

The 1960s and 70s architecture is ugly but good at community. The mid-century living room vibe worked at inviting people to sit and and talk, whereas a lot of the contemporary architecture is prettier and air-ier, but more vertical and cold so you feel kind of exposed if you sit in the lobby spaces. Christ College's common room (because it is the old mid-century stuff) is one of the few warm places on campus. But maybe facilities and architecture is besides the point. I don't think the fireplaces are the main thing moving the needle

MORE important

Valpo's retention is down to 77%
http://www.valpotorch.com/news/article_fea6a746-5104-11ed-9bbf-c7a750f52d1a.html

That retention rate drop is worrisome. Hopefully just a one-year outlier, but to be taken seriously regardless. A number in the mid-80s would be more reassuring on many levels.

[crusadermoe]

I wonder how the count of Assistant Deans and Directors type staff hires compares to the 1980s or even the 1990s.  Each job will find more to do and need an assistant position in Newton's 2nd law of bureaucracy.  Sometimes you go with your gut and save some money.  Maybe just manage by walking around and ask kids?   If you can't get them to take out their headphones hooked to their smartphones.

[David81]

I wonder how the count of Assistant Deans and Directors type staff hires compares to the 1980s or even the 1990s.  Each job will find more to do and need an assistant position in Newton's 2nd law of bureaucracy.  Sometimes you go with your gut and save some money.  Maybe just manage by walking around and ask kids?   If you can't get them to take out their headphones hooked to their smartphones.

The other spending bloat in higher ed is the hiring of lots and lots and lots more administrators. Deputy assistant to the associate dean kinda positions. This is a documented phenomenon.

Some understandably may ask about faculty salaries and payroll costs. At many universities outside the elite circle, raises for full-time faculty have generally flattened out (often falling well short of COL increases), and a good number of schools have cut back on their retirement contributions. Many schools have been reducing the number of full-time faculty and replacing them with much, much lower paid part-time faculty who are truly exploited.

[vu72]

part-time faculty who are truly exploited.

So are part-time faculty called "Adjunct"?  Valpo's Department of Music, as an example, has a bunch of "Adjunct Instructor" types.

[David81]

part-time faculty who are truly exploited.

So are part-time faculty called "Adjunct"?  Valpo's Department of Music, as an example, has a bunch of "Adjunct Instructor" types.

Yup, they are typically paid by the course and have little to no job security. Some have full-time jobs elsewhere, especially in the professions (which can include the performing arts), which can make an adjunct gig a sort of fun avocation. But many others must chain together multiple adjunct positions at different schools to make for a semi-living wage.

[vu72]

Fascinating discussion for us nonacademics.  I just took a look at the Business College faculty and found the following titles:  5 Assistant Professors; 6 Associate Professors; 4 Professors; 2 Lecturers; and 1 Visiting Assistant Professor.  So how many would seem to be full time faculty?

[vu84v2]

Fascinating discussion for us nonacademics.  I just took a look at the Business College faculty and found the following titles:  5 Assistant Professors; 6 Associate Professors; 4 Professors; 2 Lecturers; and 1 Visiting Assistant Professor.  So how many would seem to be full time faculty?

I can't say with certainty that the lecturers are full time, but everyone else that you listed is full time. An assistant professor is a tenure track professor who has not yet reached tenure. Associate professors are faculty who have tenure, while (full) professors are faculty who have a higher level of tenure.

[David81]

Fascinating discussion for us nonacademics.  I just took a look at the Business College faculty and found the following titles:  5 Assistant Professors; 6 Associate Professors; 4 Professors; 2 Lecturers; and 1 Visiting Assistant Professor.  So how many would seem to be full time faculty?

"Lecturer" usually refers to a full-time faculty member not on the tenure track. So the B-school is a faculty of full-timers.

This was always Valpo's selling pitch: You'll be taught mostly by full-time faculty, not graduate assistants or part-timers.

That said, it's very possible that a lot of the music department folks listed as adjuncts also have full-time jobs outside of the university that involve performing.

I also want to put in a good word for the many adjunct faculty in the arts & sciences who would, if they had the option, happily accept full-time positions. Many are quality teachers who work very hard for the paltry sums they receive. In recent decades, the overproduction of PhDs has created a huge buyer's market for academic employers. And many universities that rely heavily on adjunct faculty are the same ones who are loading up on full-time administrators. Bloated administrations with reduced full-time teaching staff have become a staple of modern higher ed.

[vu84v2]

Fascinating discussion for us nonacademics.  I just took a look at the Business College faculty and found the following titles:  5 Assistant Professors; 6 Associate Professors; 4 Professors; 2 Lecturers; and 1 Visiting Assistant Professor.  So how many would seem to be full time faculty?

"Lecturer" usually refers to a full-time faculty member not on the tenure track. So the B-school is a faculty of full-timers.

This was always Valpo's selling pitch: You'll be taught mostly by full-time faculty, not graduate assistants or part-timers.

That said, it's very possible that a lot of the music department folks listed as adjuncts also have full-time jobs outside of the university that involve performing.

I also want to put in a good word for the many adjunct faculty in the arts & sciences who would, if they had the option, happily accept full-time positions. Many are quality teachers who work very hard for the paltry sums they receive. In recent decades, the overproduction of PhDs has created a huge buyer's market for academic employers. And many universities that rely heavily on adjunct faculty are the same ones who are loading up on full-time administrators. Bloated administrations with reduced full-time teaching staff have become a staple of modern higher ed.

I will add to David81's good comments (though the argument for overproduction of PhDs depends heavily on the discipline). Some adjuncts teaching one or two classes are working professionals who want to "give back" by teaching a class or recently retired people who want to stay active and engaged by teaching one or two classes. These people can be excellent teachers who bring a strong practical perspective to the classroom.

In regards to bloated administration, David81's (and other's) comments certainly have a degree of truth - but be careful not to generalize too much. There are also administrators who are heavily engaged with achieving the primary mission of a university - to deliver high quality education. We do not want to scare those people away as they are critical to the operation's success...indeed they are often overworked because of other parts of administration being too bloated.