Valpo Strategic Plan

[crusadermoe]

Yes, Thank you ValpoPal! 

I am sick of people treating court decisions like policy decisions handed down on student loans or other policies from a "Republican/Conservative" court or a Democrat/Liberal" court.  The courts rule on process not on policy impact.

We need to teach more civics in school. That would mean fewer class hours focused on telling them that 4+4 can equal 9 if it feels that way to them or how to recognize a micro-aggression behind every tree.   

[David81]

Yes, Thank you ValpoPal! 

I am sick of people treating court decisions like policy decisions handed down on student loans or other policies from a "Republican/Conservative" court or a Democrat/Liberal" court.  The courts rule on process not on policy impact.

We need to teach more civics in school. That would mean fewer class hours focused on telling them that 4+4 can equal 9 if it feels that way to them or how to recognize a micro-aggression behind every tree.   

In response to Valpopal and Crusadermoe, it would be incorrect to classify the Dobbs decision as one of legal process or deferring to the states (the latter an argument used to defend the Confederacy in the Civil War), not when a constitutional right is at stake. Substantive constitutional law is usually about making policy choices, even when it's cloaked as a ruling on process. Text, subtext, and pretext have been used by judges of all political stripes, and this is no different. And we happen to have liberal justices, conservative justices, and variations in between. This happens to be a very conservative Supreme Court, as just about any student of judicial history -- regardless of their own political leanings -- will readily acknowledge. If it wasn't about partisanship, then you wouldn't have such fraught battles over confirming justices.

I agree wholeheartedly that we need more civics training and that our public dialogue would be enriched and informed by it. Indeed, I think there's a case to be made that any set of college distribution requirements should include a course about the basic functions and history of the U.S. government. I think back to some of the poli sci and history courses I took at VU as building that kind of knowledge base. If we had something like that, people would graduate knowing, for example, that the debate over abortion should not be confused with mere feelings or micro-aggressions or 4+4=9. Such instruction might also teach others that laws and protections probably shouldn't be enacted in response to feelings and micro-aggressions, without something a lot more substantive to justify that.

[valpopal]

In response to Valpopal and Crusadermoe, it would be incorrect to classify the Dobbs decision as one of legal process or deferring to the states (the latter an argument used to defend the Confederacy in the Civil War), not when a constitutional right is at stake. Substantive constitutional law is usually about making policy choices, even when it's cloaked as a ruling on process. Text, subtext, and pretext have been used by judges of all political stripes, and this is no different. And we happen to have liberal justices, conservative justices, and variations in between.

David: I have already agreed with you in past discussions that there are liberal courts and conservative courts, and the justices usually make decisions through the filters of their philosophies. Additionally, we must all live with judgments on controversial issues unless or until they are reversed. This was displayed in the 1972 and 1976 death penalty decisions by the court. However, I do not agree the Dobbs decision is without a constitutional foundation or that a constitutional right is at stake. Nor do I accept your attempt to diminish the 10th Amendment with a reference to a defense of the Confederacy, which was found lacking.

The Dobbs decision states: "The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion." The 10th Amendment clearly declares: "The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people." Properly, just like the death penalty, abortion is now a matter for each state to decide as its people wish through their representatives. Will states differ and will the social consequences be messy in some cases? Yes, but that is the result sometimes in a Democratic Republic, and I am fine with it, just as I am with numerous other laws that differ from state to state. 

[vu72]

the false premise that they do not want decisions about women's bodies determined by old white men. If the allusion is to the Supreme Court, recall that Roe v. Wade was made law by seven older men on the court, and only one was non-white.

Actually, I wasn't referencing the Supreme Court but rather State Legislatures where old white men dominate the discussion increasingly because of gerrymandered districts or otherwise a lack of female/people of color representation. Which isn't necessarily the Old White guy's fault, just facts.  So states like Ohio, where the legislatures is trying to raise the percentage of votes necessary to change the state constitution because they recognize that most voters (witness Kansas) prefer some level of legal abortion and are trying to stop it. A couple of examples are Indiana, where 24% of legislators are female while the state wide population is slightly more female. In a even more conservative state like Tennessee, it is even worse, where 16 of 100 legislators are female while again, the state wide population favors women.

As for the old white men statement, in 2015 the makeup of the Indiana legislators was 71% Baby Boomers or Silent generation.  Tennessee also had the same demographic breakdown.

There is just some form of panic showing up across the nation by those whose views may be different than current demographics.  My answer: put it to a state wide vote and leave the legislations out of it for obvious reasons stated above.

[valpopal]

the false premise that they do not want decisions about women's bodies determined by old white men. If the allusion is to the Supreme Court, recall that Roe v. Wade was made law by seven older men on the court, and only one was non-white.

Actually, I wasn't referencing the Supreme Court but rather State Legislatures where old white men dominate the discussion increasingly because of gerrymandered districts or otherwise a lack of female/people of color representation. Which isn't necessarily the Old White guy's fault, just facts.  So states like Ohio, where the legislatures is trying to raise the percentage of votes necessary to change the state constitution because they recognize that most voters (witness Kansas) prefer some level of legal abortion and are trying to stop it. A couple of examples are Indiana, where 24% of legislators are female while the state wide population is slightly more female. In a even more conservative state like Tennessee, it is even worse, where 16 of 100 legislators are female while again, the state wide population favors women.

As for the old white men statement, in 2015 the makeup of the Indiana legislators was 71% Baby Boomers or Silent generation.  Tennessee also had the same demographic breakdown.

There is just some form of panic showing up across the nation by those whose views may be different than current demographics.  My answer: put it to a state wide vote and leave the legislations out of it for obvious reasons stated above.

72: I addressed the state legislatures in the part of my message you cut. I mentioned that the decision-making is now determined by state legislatures, as it should be, whose members reflect the views of the constituencies who elected them. The last I looked the majority of voters are female; therefore, decisions on this issue, like other topics, could be considered in the hands of those women who choose the legislators at the ballot box. Often, state-wide votes are counter to the concept of a Democratic Republic, the wise system in which we live.

[historyman]

In response to Valpopal and Crusadermoe, it would be incorrect to classify the Dobbs decision as one of legal process or deferring to the states (the latter an argument used to defend the Confederacy in the Civil War), not when a constitutional right is at stake. Substantive constitutional law is usually about making policy choices, even when it's cloaked as a ruling on process. Text, subtext, and pretext have been used by judges of all political stripes, and this is no different. And we happen to have liberal justices, conservative justices, and variations in between. This happens to be a very conservative Supreme Court, as just about any student of judicial history -- regardless of their own political leanings -- will readily acknowledge. If it wasn't about partisanship, then you wouldn't have such fraught battles over confirming justices.

This Supreme Court has definitely been "unusual" to quote someone. And "unusual" was a guarded response.

[valpo95]

Although the contributions of this message board offer some good reviews/critiques of current issues, these most recent topics have little to do with Valpo and VU's strategic plan. Can we get this back on topic?

[crusader05]

Working with donors can be really frustrating because you both want some leeway with what they're asking for but you also don't want something to become a random pot of money that can be pulled in too many directions if you really want it to accomplish a specific thing.

One thing I've heard is that the difficulty comes when donors start to get weird about specific things that make events harder to do or programs harder to success uch as you must have x specific type of scholar or  you must only hold events in x type of places. So I think minute details are bad but targeted funds can be good too if done right.

I'd say the Helge Center is actually a good example of it being done right. It has helped spawn a lot of good academic presentations and is the home of what the more coveted internship/fellowship programs on campus as well as just creating a space for students to be and create on their own (something I think is a good thing for smaller campuses in particular).  I think that the way we go is one that the Helge Center models. Lutheran but also just faith based leadership and calling. The chapel remains the home of many different organizations some very related to the church such as Praise Band and some that allow students to serve others, such as SALT which is one of the strongest student groups on campus.

[crusader05]

I do think one issue Valpo is experiencing is that the older and more established and well-off donors are from an era where the faith based aspect of the university was strong. So they are giving back to the university based on what they valued about their time. We are reaching a point where hopefully some later generations might step up to start funding other areas. I know they have recently received funding for things like Mental Health and other supports on campus but you need more.

Several years ago the Alumni Engagement office did focus groups with alums from my area and talked about needing to cultivate our generations. The issue that popped up was both the beginning of the student loan issues and maybe some generational frustration with the university that had taken a pretty draconian hand around alcohol enforcement and other things that had left a bad taste in people's mouths.

[crusadermoe]

Yes, thank you Valpo95 for steering the thread back to Valpo's future and away from the roles of SCOTUS! Haha. 

I don't recall specific big gifts, but it seems like many of them came for the purpose of anchoring Valpo in its founding purpose. I think that was probably intentional to avoid mission creep.  It that priority holds the stated historical mission stated by Presidents Dau and Kretzmann, is that a bad thing? If the founding mission of the university is under question then let's have that honest conversation. I wonder when Harvard had that conversation? 

It seem like donors deserve that conversation. Again, to ask again after asking perhaps a dozen times before, "How does the mission of the university differentiate its posture on the religious aspect of our mission from hundreds of liberal arts colleges or from the theological departments of true "universities?"

[David81]

Okay, a little more in the footprint of Strategic Plan, it seems to me that the real question for universities in all these cultural/political discussions is how donations for centers, institutes, etc. tend to work in terms of shaping the space for student support and civic discussion.

In my anecdotal observation, it seems less about a top-down vision, and more about big donors deciding to give towards something or other.

• For instance, at one of my alma maters, some retiring administrator had donated a gazillion dollars to found an LGBTQ resource center at what was otherwise a kind of middle-of-the-road religious school,  because they had a child of their own who identified as queer in some way.
  
  But at a different alma mater, I remember my undergrad uni had a very right-leaning debate center/program that was funded by some rich Republican donors.
  
  At Valpo (though I don't actually know the state of a Muslim worship space/center and am out of the loop on any developments), I thought I'd heard a couple of years back that it was a possibility in the works because of a Muslim parent of a recent Muslim VU student who was going to donate big $$$$ to have some kind of Muslim space since they thought VU could do better to support Muslim students.
  
  Or even already existing at Valpo, most the fundraising already is already quite sector and religiously specific, with Lutheran families like the Helge's donating for Helge Center. I have even heard some lamenting among staff that the uni historically cultivated so much Church ministry-specific endowment, since it left the uni in a weird uneven place where the Chapel and its programs are always flush with religiously-earmarked endowment funds, while the rest of the uni can't run basic operating expenses (staff and faculty payroll, dorm maintenance, professional develoment funds, COLA, etc).... though I don't know the numbers to say whether its really that skewed, or just a narrative that gets told about why the uni struggles to keep up with basic university functions despite a supposedly decent endowment

But that brings me to the larger question. Do universities just kind of haphazardly host different kinds of intellectual or relational spaces based on whatever rich donors happened to want to give towards? I'd think this impulse to take the money and its implications gets even stronger when a school is generally cash-strapped. Or does Valpo have some other body or operating mechanism for discerning what centers or institutes to host?

Like, at what point could Valpo step in and tell the Lutheran donors they need to give a little more generically and quit tying up everything in the Chapel so that the rest of the university can take care of nuts-and-bolts kind of basics? Or turn down donations earmarked for students of other religions based on institutional identity reasons? Or politically, at what point could Valpo say 'no, we don't want a X Left-wing Institute or Y Right-wing Institute or X Religious Resource Center, even thought you (parent/alumn) are willing to donate big money for it' becuase the uni has a responsibility to cultivate some kind of open dialogue space?

These questions of managing donors' social, religious, and political preferences are very, very challenging for just about any university, regardless of whatever its own institutional "lean" might be.

Rather than even attempt to define hard line rules or standards, I favor a more subjective analysis that examines how this potential gift complements or fits into the school's overall mission and programming. To take an obvious example, if someone wants to establish, say, a center for the study of Lutheran history, that's great. But if the express purpose of the center is to develop a historical critique of Catholicism, well, it's time to negotiate with the potential donor to see if they can be swayed. In any event, establishing that strong initial understanding and sense of respective boundaries can make all the difference.

From my own experience as a faculty member establishing a program funded by a big donor, my own sense is that it's best if the donor's role is advisory and ceremonial, and not supervisory or possessing veto power at the granular level. Of course, if it's not an endowment gift, but rather ongoing funding, then the donor can walk away at some point if they wish.

The experience I had was a positive one, with a donor that had very high performance expectations but left it to us to prove we were worthy of the support. And when the donor saw that we were using their money well, it led to more trust and eventually an endowment gift. It was, I might add, the kind of program that could've easily been undermined by political differences: a summer fellowship program to support law students interested in public service, with the donor being a prominent Republican family and real estate developer, and me, the liberal Democrat, as the initial program director. My approach was to engage them in a spirit of complete openness, to be scrupulously fair in my decisions, and to continually request their input and take it seriously. We worked well together.

[vu84v2]

I believe that I previously posted on this,  but I am repeating some points because it further addresses valpo22's question and adds to the insightful discussion.

There are hugely wealthy donors (individuals and organizations) that look to make seven or (or even eight) figure donations to advance their specific agendas. They seek universities who are struggling financially. The Koch Brothers and George Soros are notorious for this. They offer a large donation in exchange for developing a program which advances their social, political, etc. agenda. They specifically demand curriculum that advances their views and structure the payments over time so that they are only made if programs are taught the way that they demand (i.e. never endowment, but seed funding and then annual payments over years to get to the complete donation). In some cases, they want the right to approve who is hired to teach the program. While I am not aware that Valpo has ever had such an offer, I know of universities who have accepted such donations with these types of terms and universities who have rejected such donations with these types of terms.

Beyond teaching, I am aware of one case in which the major donor also required academic research be pursued that advanced/supported their agenda.

In my view, a university should be very flexible who they accept donations from, but very critical of the terms. A donation to start a focused theology program or an entrepreneurship program, for instance, would be fine from almost anyone. But any terms on curriculum, hiring, etc. must be agreed to by the university administration AND the faculty within the applicable college. Universities cannot let donors try to 'recraft' the university towards their worldview (regardless of their worldview). This is one of the many ways in which universities advance the mission of teaching how to think...not what to think.

[David81]

I believe that I previously posted on this,  but I am repeating some points because it further addresses valpo22's question and adds to the insightful discussion.

There are hugely wealthy donors (individuals and organizations) that look to make seven or (or even eight) figure donations to advance their specific agendas. They seek universities who are struggling financially. The Koch Brothers and George Soros are notorious for this. They offer a large donation in exchange for developing a program which advances their social, political, etc. agenda. They specifically demand curriculum that advances their views and structure the payments over time so that they are only made if programs are taught the way that they demand (i.e. never endowment, but seed funding and then annual payments over years to get to the complete donation). In some cases, they want the right to approve who is hired to teach the program. While I am not aware that Valpo has ever had such an offer, I know of universities who have accepted such donations with these types of terms and universities who have rejected such donations with these types of terms.

Beyond teaching, I am aware of one case in which the major donor also required academic research be pursued that advanced/supported their agenda.

In my view, a university should be very flexible who they accept donations from, but very critical of the terms. A donation to start a focused theology program or an entrepreneurship program, for instance, would be fine from almost anyone. But any terms on curriculum, hiring, etc. must be agreed to by the university administration AND the faculty within the applicable college. Universities cannot let donors try to 'recraft' the university towards their worldview (regardless of their worldview). This is one of the many ways in which universities advance the mission of teaching how to think...not what to think.

When the donor has an agenda AND has program/hiring veto, directive, or approval power, it's a recipe for a blow-up unless the donor's agenda and the university's agenda are in very close sync. Even in such cases, any results of funded research in this context are instantly suspect.

I'm OK with initial seed funding followed by an endowment decision, so long as it doesn't include on-the-ground veto, directive, or approval power, as that "tryout" puts the university on notice that it has to demonstrate wise and responsible use of that funding.

[wh]

I believe that I previously posted on this,  but I am repeating some points because it further addresses valpo22's question and adds to the insightful discussion.

There are hugely wealthy donors (individuals and organizations) that look to make seven or (or even eight) figure donations to advance their specific agendas. They seek universities who are struggling financially. The Koch Brothers and George Soros are notorious for this. They offer a large donation in exchange for developing a program which advances their social, political, etc. agenda. They specifically demand curriculum that advances their views and structure the payments over time so that they are only made if programs are taught the way that they demand (i.e. never endowment, but seed funding and then annual payments over years to get to the complete donation). In some cases, they want the right to approve who is hired to teach the program. While I am not aware that Valpo has ever had such an offer, I know of universities who have accepted such donations with these types of terms and universities who have rejected such donations with these types of terms.

Beyond teaching, I am aware of one case in which the major donor also required academic research be pursued that advanced/supported their agenda.

In my view, a university should be very flexible who they accept donations from, but very critical of the terms. A donation to start a focused theology program or an entrepreneurship program, for instance, would be fine from almost anyone. But any terms on curriculum, hiring, etc. must be agreed to by the university administration AND the faculty within the applicable college. Universities cannot let donors try to 'recraft' the university towards their worldview (regardless of their worldview). This is one of the many ways in which universities advance the mission of teaching how to think...not what to think.

When the donor has an agenda AND has program/hiring veto, directive, or approval power, it's a recipe for a blow-up unless the donor's agenda and the university's agenda are in very close sync. Even in such cases, any results of funded research in this context are instantly suspect.

I'm OK with initial seed funding followed by an endowment decision, so long as it doesn't include on-the-ground veto, directive, or approval power, as that "tryout" puts the university on notice that it has to demonstrate wise and responsible use of that funding.

What a Cadillac problem that would be right now.

[wh]

American universities have been bastions of liberalism for decades. There may have been a time when they were close enough to center that a conservative with deep pockets could influence change, but liberal ideology has shifted too far left in recent years to bridge what has become a chasm between "the 2 Americas." Instead, donor money is pouring in to build up conservative bastions such as Liberty and Grand Canyon, two of the fastest growing universities in the United States.

[crusadermoe]

Agree.

You can put at the forefront Hillsdale which teaches U.S. Constitutional history and takes no government loans, even student loans.  You can get really great history lessons free from Victor David Hanson and other giants in the teaching of U.S. history. Check him out.

It seems like some of the elite schools keep a token conservative like Hanson.  Let's make a list of schools where the constitution is celebrated and is a focal point of history instruction.  Maybe I am missing some places and that that question doesn't draw crickets.

[vu84v2]

American universities have been bastions of liberalism for decades. There may have been a time when they were close enough to center that a conservative with deep pockets could influence change, but liberal ideology has shifted too far left in recent years to bridge what has become a chasm between "the 2 Americas." Instead, donor money is pouring in to build up conservative bastions such as Liberty and Grand Canyon, two of the fastest growing universities in the United States.

In regards to the donation issue being a 'Cadillac problem', I guess you would be fine with Valpo accepting a large donation from George Soros in which Valpo agrees to teach courses emphasizing his economic principles. However, I certainly would not be in favor of such a deal.

Grand Canyon is a fraudulent university run by fraudulent people. Beyond the clearly fraudulent financial dealings of its senior executives (which I have discussed in prior postings), almost all of their classes are taught by instructors - not tenured and tenure-track professors and not full time clinical professors with years of professional experience. Their colleges seek accreditation from the bodies with the lowest standards. Imagine going to university for four years to study a field like accounting and then no mid- or large-tier accounting firms or no established firms will hire you because your degree has little credibility...that is the Grand Canyon experience.

For Hillsdale and Liberty, they seem very effective at preparing people to live in a bubble...an imaginary homogenous world where everyone has the same worldview. However, we will always live in a world with people of many beliefs, backgrounds, ideologies.

[wh]

Underestimate Liberty at your own peril. 95,000 total students - undergrad and graduate, 50% acceptance rate, 21% minority enrollment, medical school, law school, commercial aviation school, private air strip & planes, shooting range/lessons on "2nd Amendment Av," concealed carry, fully stocked private lake, mountainside bike trails, ice hockey arena, football stadium, ranked among best college dorms in America, simulated ski slopes and toboggan runs, etc., etc.

[vu84v2]

Underestimate Liberty at your own peril. 95,000 total students - undergrad and graduate, 50% acceptance rate, 21% minority enrollment, medical school, law school, commercial aviation school, private air strip & planes, shooting range/lessons on "2nd Amendment Av," concealed carry, fully stocked private lake, mountainside bike trails, ice hockey arena, football stadium, ranked among best college dorms in America, simulated ski slopes and toboggan runs, etc., etc.

I was not underestimating Liberty in my comments, though the quality of their programs varies widely. For instance, their engineering school is highly accredited with seemingly strong faculty (PhDs from very good engineering schools), but their business school is accredited like Grand Canyon and has a very weak group of faculty (very little depth in any area, heavy reliance on people with very general experience - which makes the quality of upper level classes very questionable).

My issue with Liberty (and Hillsdale, as well as BYU) is that they demand adherence to their ideology. Here is an excerpt from Liberty's Student Honor Code:

Every student is expected to respect Liberty's Statement of Doctrine and Purpose and should avoid any activity, on or
off campus, which would contradict the university's mission or purpose, compromise the testimony or reputation of
the university, or disrupt Liberty's Christian learning environment. All members of the Liberty University community
are asked to affirm the following: "We have a responsibility to uphold the moral and ethical standards of Liberty University and personally
confront those who do not."

It then goes on to detail a long list of potential violations of things its administration has deemed immoral and a point system for incurred violations that is tied to fines and further punitive action.

You can call this a lot of things, but you certainly cannot call it freedom, nor can you say that it prepares people to enter a world with a wide range of beliefs and background.

[VULB#62]

.  Let's make a list of schools where the constitution is celebrated and is a focal point of history instruction.  Maybe I am missing some places and that that question doesn't draw crickets.

Yes, let's do that. Oh, wait.  Wouldn't that list include just about any college with a history department?  While not every college graduation requirement includes a course on constitutional law, most history departments across the board do offer a course or two where the constitution is a focal point of study. But I get the subtle dig in your comment — a constitution filtered through one set of lenses is to be celebrated. The same constitution viewed through another set is to be condemned.  That's not the way it's supposed to work.

[Just Sayin]

American universities have been bastions of liberalism for decades. There may have been a time when they were close enough to center that a conservative with deep pockets could influence change, but liberal ideology has shifted too far left in recent years to bridge what has become a chasm between "the 2 Americas." Instead, donor money is pouring in to build up conservative bastions such as Liberty and Grand Canyon, two of the fastest growing universities in the United States.

In regards to the donation issue being a 'Cadillac problem', I guess you would be fine with Valpo accepting a large donation from George Soros in which Valpo agrees to teach courses emphasizing his economic principles. However, I certainly would not be in favor of such a deal.

Grand Canyon is a fraudulent university run by fraudulent people. Beyond the clearly fraudulent financial dealings of its senior executives (which I have discussed in prior postings), almost all of their classes are taught by instructors - not tenured and tenure-track professors and not full time clinical professors with years of professional experience. Their colleges seek accreditation from the bodies with the lowest standards. Imagine going to university for four years to study a field like accounting and then no mid- or large-tier accounting firms or no established firms will hire you because your degree has little credibility...that is the Grand Canyon experience.

For Hillsdale and Liberty, they seem very effective at preparing people to live in a bubble...an imaginary homogenous world where everyone has the same worldview. However, we will always live in a world with people of many beliefs, backgrounds, ideologies.

[wh]

IMO Liberty University is no farther right than today's typical university is left - polar opposites on an ideological distribution curve.

As for Soros, what would he try to leverage that Marquette, for instance, hasn't already embraced free of charge?

[vu84v2]

Try reading Liberty's Student Honor Code before making that statement. There are some pretty extreme guidelines, especially for dress, entertainment, and sexuality/relationships. But I will readily admit that students choose to go to school there and live under such rules. I just abhor it because it fosters homogeneity and thus rejects open dialog and acceptance. This is direction that Valpo should never purse - and thankfully won't because the majority of its alumni will not permit it.

I am very confident that any of our (Marquette's) curriculum in macroeconomics, finance, real estate, etc. is far more pro-capitalist than people like George Soros would prefer. There are those within the university community who don't like that - and they are entitled to express their opinion in a community that welcomes debate from all sides - but they do not dictate the curriculum.

[vu84v2]

Enrollment is clearly important, but is not the only bottom line:

Graduation Rate within 8 years of starting (national median for 4-yr schools: 58%)
Grand Canyon: 42%
Liberty: 36%
Valparaiso: 71%

Median Earnings 10 yrs after starting (national median for 4-yr schools: $50.4K)
Grand Canyon: $38.3K
Liberty: $45.1K
Valparaiso: $60.8K

Interestingly, the average annual costs after discounts (Grand Canyon: $21.2K; Liberty: $28.6; Valpo: $25.8K) and the median total debt for a student after graduating (Grand Canyon: $22.1K; Liberty: $24.5K ; Valpo: $26.9K) for these three schools are fairly similar.  Obviously, you have many more students who have debt and did not get a degree at Liberty and Grand Canyon.

Frankly (and as I have stated in prior posts), an area where Valpo clearly needs to improve is marketing. Valpo's outcomes are good and the average annual cost (after discounts) is modestly competitive.

[wh]

Unlike Christian-affiliated universities that have embraced ever changing secular values, culture, and world views, Liberty has unapologetically stayed true to its biblical world view. And, they are being rewarded for it.

At a time when the student market is in severe decline nationally and 25% of universities are at risk of closing within 5 years, Liberty is growing by leaps and bounds.

Enrollment
Total enrollment exceeds 130,000
Over 27,000+ military students
Over 700 international students

Academic Programs
Over 700 unique programs of study (some available both residentially and online)
Over 350+ residential programs
Over 200 undergraduate
45 graduate with 100+ specializations
7 doctoral
Over 600 online programs
Over 150 undergraduate
Nearly 300 graduate
16 postgraduate
Over 100 doctoral
15 colleges and schools

To avoid falling victim to mission creep, they hire faculty and staff that hold the same values and and embrace Liberty's biblical world view. Their primary target market is Evangelical Christianity. Their messaging is crystal clear; no confusing mixture of seemingly random words and phrases (marketing speak) you find in "The About" section of most university websites.