Valpo Strategic Plan

[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.

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.

On working professionals: Yes! At my law school, we typically hire adjunct faculty who are regarded as very accomplished in their practice fields, as well as respected judges. Many are dedicated teachers who bring a lot to their classes.

On hiring more administrators: Yes, I tend to distinguish between those providing direct student services or key program support/coordination vs. those assistant-to-the-assistant types and endless #s of folks with "dean" in their titles that are bloating up central administrations.

[vu84v2]

David81 - every school is different. At the university where I teach (especially the college in which I teach), the people with "Dean" in their title are very likely to be heavily engaged in supporting students or critical operations...or they are heavily engaged in raising money. Instead, it is excessive people in administration with "Vice President" or "Director" in their title with responsibility for some broad and often ill-defined initiative that creates the bloating. Many are good people, but their job needs to be much more closely connected to the primary mission - to educate.

[David81]

David81 - every school is different. At the university where I teach (especially the college in which I teach), the people with "Dean" in their title are very likely to be heavily engaged in supporting students or critical operations...or they are heavily engaged in raising money. Instead, it is excessive people in administration with "Vice President" or "Director" in their title with responsibility for some broad and often ill-defined initiative that creates the bloating. Many are good people, but their job needs to be much more closely connected to the primary mission - to educate.

Oh yes, I forgot to add the Vice President titles too. And sub-Provosts.

One of the trickle down problems with admin bloat is that it creates more meetings that can suck up valuable time.

And the irony is that support staff and faculty are doing more admin work.

[crusader05]

I do think the tendency to "create a new position" for a problem or area people want to move into is a problem in academic for sure. Often that person than creates committees which suck up time in meetings or starts assigning extra work to others which makes them resentful.

Instead, it might be better to look at people already working, in the right places, with the right knowledge/passion and offer them a little bit more money to retool their job or take on the responsibility.

I have also seen that creating new departments creates new budget lines and creates new offices/resources that people become territorial over which leads to power struggles and fighting over keeping each individual pie slice the same size

[vu84v2]

I do think the tendency to "create a new position" for a problem or area people want to move into is a problem in academic for sure. Often that person than creates committees which suck up time in meetings or starts assigning extra work to others which makes them resentful.

Instead, it might be better to look at people already working, in the right places, with the right knowledge/passion and offer them a little bit more money to retool their job or take on the responsibility.

I have also seen that creating new departments creates new budget lines and creates new offices/resources that people become territorial over which leads to power struggles and fighting over keeping each individual pie slice the same size

crusader05 - All true (at least from my perspective). One cause of this is that universities (and like organizations) tend not to prioritize because they want to appease all of their stakeholders and/or advance the personal priorities of the senior leaders. Thus, instead of creating a new position(s) for one problem (which might be appropriate), universities create lots of positions. This is a major reason why I was concerned about Valpo's new strategic plan and am concerned about the "prioritized" list that still has 12 areas.

[crusadermoe]

Yes, non-profits fall victim to this all of the time.  There is no central agreed criteria for measuring their work that unifies them like  company profit does.  Instead they do a lot of arguing and conceptualizing about priorities and basically agree to a "both and" strategy. Multiply the "both ands" down into units and it really muddies fast.

Compounding that intrinsic challenge is the fact that education is an incredibly hard product to quantify.  What was the value added when a very bright kid graduates with excellent grades?  Was the success pre-determined?  How can you measure longitudinally what a kid projects to achieve vs. what was actually achieved academically and give credit/blame to the university?   

It's no wonder that many middle and high paid staff people at universities are able to just punch in and out from 8 to 5 every day without any real concern for measurable gain or loss. 

[Valpo2003]

Valpo issues are very similar to the state of the country
Too many old white conservative men running the place-
Fortunately with more minorities being hired to run things (at least in Valpo) we can embrace this generation and what they stand for...

[vu84v2]

Valpo2003 - I am all for increasing diversity in leadership - not only age, race, gender, etc., but also diversity of thought. But I will also caution you that there are hard truths that any leadership must prioritize. Budgets must balance and thus revenues need to cover costs....and leaders (whether they accept it or not) are accountable. Otherwise, the organization dies. Young leaders who understand this and recognize that this creates tradeoffs that might be uncomfortable are far more likely to succeed....those who don't fail.

[David81]

Valpo issues are very similar to the state of the country
Too many old white conservative men running the place-
Fortunately with more minorities being hired to run things (at least in Valpo) we can embrace this generation and what they stand for...

Valpo2003, speaking as a 1981 VU grad who happens to be Asian American, I have long seen how diversity issues have been challenging for the University. Those issues were very much present when I was a student there, and following graduation, this led to a long period during which I was not an active alumnus.

VU has made real progress on this front. When I spent several weeks on campus back in 2016, the University looked and felt more eclectic and diverse. It was a much more interesting (albeit much more expensive) place to be. And yet, for those seeking a more traditional (or conservative, if you will) campus experience, that aspect of VU remained present as well.

My own social and political outlook is more liberal than VU's center, yet I deeply value and appreciate the education I received there and the lifelong friendships it provided. In pleading my case for the University to be a more diverse place than it was in my day, I do not expect it to turn itself upside down to fit my worldview. Rather, I think VU benefits by keeping its traditional core, while maintaining genuinely welcoming spaces for those of all backgrounds. It's yet another aspect of a very challenging balancing act that, if done right, can make VU a terrific destination for students who seek both a comfort zone and a healthy "discomfort zone" in terms of engaging different ideas, perspectives, and people.

So, yes, on general principle, I support greater diversity in the University's leadership. I also think that the "old white conservative men" to whom you refer (and saw many of back in the day!) merit a continued seat at the table as well. It's about striving to get the mix or the blend right, even if it's impossible to get it right for everyone. At a time when polarization is defining too much of our civic and cultural life, universities can be among the places that try to soften those hard edges and search for common ground and understanding. VU can be one of those places if it opts for that path. And it can do so while continuing to embrace its more traditional, Lutheran heritage.

If you'd like to do a time travel tour to my student days and my journey "back" to Valpo, I invite you to read a 2017 essay I penned for The Cresset (VU's literary and current events journal), "Homecoming at Middle Age":

http://thecresset.org/2017/Michaelmas/Yamada_M17.html

[crusadermoe]

Wow, that is beautifully and wisely stated.  It's far more nuanced generous than my first impulse in response to the "younger and smarter" generation.

Thank you!

[vu72]

A fascinating read!  Thanks for posting it.

[soapyjeans]

He should know "liberals" aren't open to all ideas, just look at our current cancel culture.  Shouldn't of even mentioned any political ideology at all unless he's wanting only liberal students to apply 

[sfnmman]

Please try to keep the political labeling out of the discussion.

[David81]

After a very disappointing week for two of VU's marquee sports programs, MBB and football, I went back to the Strategic Plan and was reminded that it discusses athletics only in vague terms. Cutting & pasting from the Executive Summary (https://www.valpo.edu/uplift-valpo/files/2022/07/SP_Exec_Sum_Goals_approved_July2022.pdf):

Athletics
1. Through philanthropy and sponsorships, the University shall evaluate the
construction of a new athletic complex that incorporates Brown Field and the old hospital property.
2. By the end of the strategic plan, the University shall assess and implement board-approved changes to the mix of athletic programs. The proposal for such changes will consider the profitability and overall enrollment implications of adding or removing any individual program.

I hope that President Padilla's stated commitment to fielding competitive teams goes beyond improving facilities.

I'm leaning on what a lot of close followers of the men's basketball program are posting here. This program is on a downward arc that could become semi-permanent if not addressed promptly. If this season doesn't show a surprising turnaround, then clearly we're heading back to that point before Homer Drew's teams started posting 20-win seasons:
https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/valparaiso/

The consensus about Coach Lottich is that he has character and integrity in abundance but has not been the kind of head coach the program needs. The record would support that assessment.

On the other hand, despite the bad loss to Drake, the football program is moving in the right direction. If it can keep Coach Fox for at least a few more years and retain the core of a talented roster, VU can win a league championship. That said, there also has to be a commitment to ongoing competitiveness. A big challenge is that VU's head football coaching job is not regarded as a destination position. Rather, it's more of a 4-5 season type of launching pad for an up-and-coming coach who wants to move up in the ranks. It's hard to build program continuity that way. If it can become a place where a good HC wants to remain for even 6-7 years, that would be great progress. Maybe Coach Fox is the guy who makes it that way.

[valpopal]

1. Through philanthropy and sponsorships, the University shall evaluate the
construction of a new athletic complex that incorporates Brown Field and the old hospital property.

Let's unpack this carefully worded strategic planning goal that permits lots of leeway. It suggests that university support is limited to outside funding, most likely specifically targeted to Athletics, that will be considered for not only the building stage of a new athletic complex, but also merely the evaluating process...and only that evaluation process shall be complete before the end of the strategic planning time span, roughly 2027-2028. Remember also, if and when any construction occurs, the university envisions a facility that would be used for Valpo athletics but also would serve as a center for community arts, entertainment, and commercial activities, such as concerts and conferences. Thus, the use of outside funds or sponsorships in partnership with local businesses and governments intended for such a community construction would also be welcomed if they can be found.


Additionally, this plan appears to eliminate the possibility of significant renovation to the current ARC, which the university sees as becoming a student wellness and recreation center, a transformation that will happen only after the new facility is built—perhaps at best by 2030, but maybe later. 

[vu84v2]

valpopal - Great points. One can look at this positively and believe that there is real activity going on with sponsors and donors, but the statement is so vague that it is meaningless (because most anything could be argued to be an evaluation).

[crusader05]

I have heard that the plans are to "have a plan" or at least an idea of what either an areana or revamp would cost by early next year.  One other thing I"ve heard is that right now costs of building are high that it could be that the cost of building makes it harder to raise the money.

I"d love a new arena but unless an extremely large donor  or family of donors, drops out of the sky i'd put my money on a reno of the main basketball arena and locker rooms.

[vu72]

Additionally, this plan appears to eliminate the possibility of significant renovation to the current ARC

but also merely the evaluating process...and only that evaluation process shall be complete before the end of the strategic planning time span, roughly 2027-2028.

President Padilla, in an interview with The Victory Bell, stated that  an architecture firm out of Columbus has been engaged to do "preliminary research to determine various cost options" so the Board can determine which option to pursue. He further indicated that renovating the ARC was a lost cause, describing it as having been "gorilla glued and duct taped". He further indicated that the architecture firm should be done with their work around the 1st of the year, with a presentation to the Board, again, hopefully, by Spring with a campaign getting underway no later than January, 2024, "hopefully sooner"

[David81]

valpopal, you prompted me to read the passage again, this time without a hopeful gloss, and I realized that it actually enables a contraction of commitment if the financial resources aren't available.

Of course, strategic plans are typically written like that. 😆

But seriously, a lot hinges on VU's next major round of fundraising.

[valpopal]

Additionally, this plan appears to eliminate the possibility of significant renovation to the current ARC

but also merely the evaluating process...and only that evaluation process shall be complete before the end of the strategic planning time span, roughly 2027-2028.

President Padilla, in an interview with The Victory Bell, stated that  an architecture firm out of Columbus has been engaged to do "preliminary research to determine various cost options" so the Board can determine which option to pursue. He further indicated that renovating the ARC was a lost cause, describing it as having been "gorilla glued and duct taped". He further indicated that the architecture firm should be done with their work around the 1st of the year, with a presentation to the Board, again, hopefully, by Spring with a campaign getting underway no later than January, 2024, "hopefully sooner"

Padilla's comments align with what I wrote. "Preliminary research" is just that, preliminary, a cost estimate for possible options. It is not a full evaluation, which shall be completed sometime by the end of the strategic planning time span. Also, I wrote that there would be no significant renovation of the ARC. Finally, even if the fundraising campaign begins in 2024, that does not sidetrack the stipulation in the strategic plan that funding for the new building must come from outside sources and specifically be earmarked for that purpose. General funds to the university will be used for other projects.


It also fits my optimistic case scenario of funding by 2027-2028 and construction in 2030, at best and if I wear rose-colored glasses. Finally, we must remember there are other building construction possibilities—nursing, business, etc.—that seem to have priority over Athletics. Moreover, the university has a number of important goals in strategic planning that relate to academics, enrollment, and faculty compensation. Of course all of this timetable could be shortened if some donor presents the university with a huge check for the sole purpose of a new Athletics facility, but that does not appear likely.   

[vu84v2]

Cycle time to build a new building for a university, best case, is four years from start. Two years to raise the money and two years to finish the design and build the building (most design work is done in Year 2 assuming strong progress on fundraising). This assumes that there are multiple major donors who have the ability to donate $3M to $10M and are ready to commit within the first six months. Thus, valpopal's timeline, along with the challenges from other valid priorities, is correct.

[crusader05]

The other unknown is the desire to also have a new nursing building and working to find perhaps a partner in the area to help fray the costs.  My guess is that there will be lots of plans and conversations and whichever one wins out is going to be based on cost/donor interest/other revenue streams.

[valpo tundra]

Frank Mrvan helped secure some 1 million dollars that the Nursing School will use to bridge the present facilities with the future ones. To attract new students and retain present ones, a new Nursing complex is a higher priority than a new Arc.

When I mentioned this back in August, this bridge funding was only for present facilities to buy time for a new building. They are hoping that to take maybe five years to start construction, absent a big donor. The bigger recent news is the decision to build the new facility on campus versus off campus anywhere in the region in partnership with a separate healthcare provider. For my part, I applaud this news.

[valpo95]

FWIW, the University of St. Thomas just announced a new basketball and hockey arena, at a total project cost of $175 million. They have a donor who committed a $75 million lead gift.

https://tommiesports.com/news/2023/1/17/Arena.aspx

Sure would be nice to have a donor or two like that for all of VU.

[VULB#62]

FWIW, the University of St. Thomas just announced a new basketball and hockey arena, at a total project cost of $175 million. They have a donor who committed a $75 million lead gift.

https://tommiesports.com/news/2023/1/17/Arena.aspx

Sure would be nice to have a donor or two like that for all of VU.

It's worth a lot, 95.

I hope my reply doesn't hijack this thread and send us off into the typical series of facility or coaching rants and gets the thread off it real purpose.  I merely would like to commend UST for how they have gone about building their brand and following through in an incredibly committed way to strategic goals and initiatives. Of course $75 million in a single gift helps a bit. But it's more than that.

When UST got tossed out of DIII, they committed to going straight up to D-I. They applied and heavily lobbied for a waiver and got it. They joined the Summit League in all league sports, and on top of that, actually added men's and women's D-I hockey — not inexpensive.  And, of course, they. joined the PFL in football.

All were big leaps. Most schools would've said we need to carefully ramp up and transition. Not the Tommies.

This is year two in D-I for all sports. They won the PFL and were nationally ranked. As of today,  they are in the middle of the pack in the Summit's MBB standings.  And then, for good measure to leverage the $75 million gift, they announced a $131 million fund drive for a new multi-use arena that could open as soon as 2025.  They don't even have a design yet. That characteristic of meeting challenges head-on and proactively deserves respect and a measure of admiration.