VP of Enrollment out!

[crusadermoe]

Welll that makes a lot of sense.  I looked at profile and she checks a ton of VU boxes for that role. Good to hear.

[covufan]

Maybe now we can get that acceptance rate down from directional state u area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wh]

Maybe now we can get that acceptance rate down from directional state u area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rubber stamping every application, yet undergraduate enrollment nearly 1000 students fewer than 10 years ago. Sounds like the law school redux.

[covufan]

Maybe now we can get that acceptance rate down from directional state u area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rubber stamping every application, yet undergraduate enrollment nearly 1000 students fewer than 10 years ago. Sounds like the law school redux.

Don't need office of admission when 93 out of a 100 get accepted. We need serious help


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[David81]

Maybe now we can get that acceptance rate down from directional state u area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rubber stamping every application, yet undergraduate enrollment nearly 1000 students fewer than 10 years ago. Sounds like the law school redux.

Don't need office of admission when 93 out of a 100 get accepted. We need serious help


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even with that sky-high acceptance rate, US News categorizes VU as a "selective" college, presumably based on the test scores and GPAs of admitted or enrolled students.

That said, there's work to be done. An acceptance rate that high, with decent entering classes, doesn't suggest that the school is in a reputational free fall. But the admissions operation definitely needs to be stirring up a richer pool of applicants.

This is not a law school redux. That sad development was a terrible confluence of factors combined with self-inflicted wounds, a sort of perfect storm of awful that likely could've been avoided only by "taxing" the already strapped units of the university.

[vu72]

Maybe now we can get that acceptance rate down from directional state u area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rubber stamping every application, yet undergraduate enrollment nearly 1000 students fewer than 10 years ago. Sounds like the law school redux.

Don't need office of admission when 93 out of a 100 get accepted. We need serious help


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even with that sky-high acceptance rate, US News categorizes VU as a "selective" college, presumably based on the test scores and GPAs of admitted or enrolled students.

That said, there's work to be done. An acceptance rate that high, with decent entering classes, doesn't suggest that the school is in a reputational free fall. But the admissions operation definitely needs to be stirring up a richer pool of applicants.

This is not a law school redux. That sad development was a terrible confluence of factors combined with self-inflicted wounds, a sort of perfect storm of awful that likely could've been avoided only by "taxing" the already strapped units of the university.

I've always wondered about acceptance rates and how they differ for different schools.  A state school gets applications from every type of student and many are accepted because of residency requirements.  At Valpo, the acceptance rate may be high but isn't that because of the type of student applying?  A "C" student (obviously I'm guessing here) probably wouldn't bother applying assuming that he or she couldn't get in or out for that matter. Does that make sense?

[David81]

Maybe now we can get that acceptance rate down from directional state u area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rubber stamping every application, yet undergraduate enrollment nearly 1000 students fewer than 10 years ago. Sounds like the law school redux.

Don't need office of admission when 93 out of a 100 get accepted. We need serious help


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even with that sky-high acceptance rate, US News categorizes VU as a "selective" college, presumably based on the test scores and GPAs of admitted or enrolled students.

That said, there's work to be done. An acceptance rate that high, with decent entering classes, doesn't suggest that the school is in a reputational free fall. But the admissions operation definitely needs to be stirring up a richer pool of applicants.

This is not a law school redux. That sad development was a terrible confluence of factors combined with self-inflicted wounds, a sort of perfect storm of awful that likely could've been avoided only by "taxing" the already strapped units of the university.

I've always wondered about acceptance rates and how they differ for different schools.  A state school gets applications from every type of student and many are accepted because of residency requirements.  At Valpo, the acceptance rate may be high but isn't that because of the type of student applying?  A "C" student (obviously I'm guessing here) probably wouldn't bother applying assuming that he or she couldn't get in or out for that matter. Does that make sense?

Yes, there's sometimes a bit of self-removal from a school's applicant pool due to perceptions that it's not worth applying because one's numbers aren't competitive.

VU can still attract a critical mass of applicants with very solid academic credentials. But the 93% acceptance rate tells me that the recruiting efforts aren't sufficient. Something about the content and extent of the marketing isn't getting through to many students for whom Valpo is a desirable choice. (For all of our genuine laments here about program closures, layoffs, and tough choices about limited resources, VU continues to offer a quality education. Furthermore, these types of cuts are occurring in waves at many peer institutions.)

I hate to put it so crassly, but this high acceptance rate is much more likely a failure at drumming up applications and selling the school than a sign that the sky is falling. That said, the big demographic decline in traditional college-age students is coming, so VU had better gets its admissions/recruiting act together promptly.

[VULB#62]

I can only chime in from a narrow, personal experience perspective.  I strongly support the notion that growing and optimizing enrollment requires "crafting the applicant pool."  What do I mean by that?

First, I think we all can agree on some basic stuff. Valpo is a respected institution of higher learning in the midwest. In addition to a strong liberal arts foundation, its specialty schools like nursing, engineering, the sciences etc. have great reps. Its applicants come basically from middle class families.  It is considered selective by outside organizations.  Yet the admission rate hovers in the high 80s to the low 90s. And despite this, total enrollment seems to be trending downward.

I was fortunate enough to have two kids who graduated from selective New England liberal arts colleges, Colby College in Maine and Middlebury College in Vermont. In some respects these colleges have similarities to Valpo like being in non-urban settings, beautiful campuses, strong academics, focus on teaching. They also are different in some ways that are critical to enrollment. [Please note that the following numbers come from a variety of sources and may not always be 100% accurate.  They are meant to only portray general characteristics]

VALPO
Total Enrollment: 2944
Applicants: 5,491
Acceptances: 4,714 (93%)
Enrolled (yield): 647 (14%)

MIDDLEBURY
Total Enrollment: 2858
Applicants: 11,908
Acceptances: 1870 (13%)
Enrolled (yield): 712 (38%)

COLBY
Total Enrollment: 2262
Applicants: 15,800
Acceptances: 1,270 (8.9%)
Enrolled (yield): 565 (44%)

Notice the large applicant pools that drive the selection process at the NE schools. And keep in mind 1)  Valpo can, within a 3 hour drive radius, draw from a multi-million population base in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin that is greater than that of New England and 2) that studies of schools like Colby and Midd conclude that the family origin of the applicant pool is overwhelming middle class just like Valpo.

Both of these schools have a prestigious rep in New England, yet, it does not appear that many kids "self remove" themselves from the application process because they think they can't get in.   This is, I believe, because these, along with other similar selective schools, put a lot into crafting an image of their schools that promotes "going for it" to potential applicants.  They recruit aggressively. Their alumni networks are incredible, proactive, and are fiercely proud of alma mater. Their admission departments know their target demographic and focus. And they are not afraid to spend significant funds to communicate with HS juniors and seniors.

However, the mental messages I seem to be getting here are that maybe the admissions department is operating on more of a shoestring budget.  It certainly hasn't projected a stable organizational image of late. If there is any place that the university needs to invest heavily, it is admissions and recruitment. Here is definitely where you need to spend money to make money (i.e,  increasing the yield and growing enrollment).

[David81]

I can only chime in from a narrow, personal experience perspective.  I strongly support the notion that growing and optimizing enrollment requires "crafting the applicant pool."  What do I mean by that?

First, I think we all can agree on some basic stuff. Valpo is a respected institution of higher learning in the midwest. In addition to a strong liberal arts foundation, its specialty schools like nursing, engineering, the sciences etc. have great reps. Its applicants come basically from middle class families.  It is considered selective by outside organizations.  Yet the admission rate hovers in the high 80s to the low 90s. And despite this, total enrollment seems to be trending downward.

I was fortunate enough to have two kids who graduated from selective New England liberal arts colleges, Colby College in Maine and Middlebury College in Vermont. In some respects these colleges have similarities to Valpo like being in non-urban settings, beautiful campuses, strong academics, focus on teaching. They also are different in some ways that are critical to enrollment. [Please note that the following numbers come from a variety of sources and may not always be 100% accurate.  They are meant to only portray general characteristics]

VALPO
Total Enrollment: 2944
Applicants: 5,491
Acceptances: 4,714 (93%)
Enrolled (yield): 647 (14%)

MIDDLEBURY
Total Enrollment: 2858
Applicants: 11,908
Acceptances: 1870 (13%)
Enrolled (yield): 712 (38%)

COLBY
Total Enrollment: 2262
Applicants: 15,800
Acceptances: 1,270 (8.9%)
Enrolled (yield): 565 (44%)

Notice the large applicant pools that drive the selection process at the NE schools. And keep in mind 1)  Valpo can, within a 3 hour drive radius, draw from a multi-million population base in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin that is greater than that of New England and 2) that studies of schools like Colby and Midd conclude that the family origin of the applicant pool is overwhelming middle class just like Valpo.

Both of these schools have a prestigious rep in New England, yet, it does not appear that many kids "self remove" themselves from the application process because they think they can't get in.   This is, I believe, because these, along with other similar selective schools, put a lot into crafting an image of their schools that promotes "going for it" to potential applicants.  They recruit aggressively. Their alumni networks are incredible, proactive, and are fiercely proud of alma mater. Their admission departments know their target demographic and focus. And they are not afraid to spend significant funds to communicate with HS juniors and seniors.

However, the mental messages I seem to be getting here are that maybe the admissions department is operating on more of a shoestring budget.  It certainly hasn't projected a stable organizational image of late. If there is any place that the university needs to invest heavily, it is admissions and recruitment. Here is definitely where you need to spend money to make money (i.e, increased enrollment).

Colby and Middlebury are very different animals. They are wealthy, elite private colleges. I will submit that every year, there are thousands of young folks who look at their numbers and self-remove. Rather, what their application numbers reflect is the deluge of applications from kids with scary strong credentials who are all playing the elite college admissions lottery game, hoping to get in at least one, but really really really hoping to have choices and maybe an acceptance from a "dream school." The kids who are applying to Colby and Middlebury are also applying to Bowdoin, Amherst, Smith, Williams, etc., probably some of the Ivies, and if geographically flexible places like Oberlin and Grinnell. Soooo much of this game is rankings driven to a point of obsession.

I'm repeating myself from other comments, but Valpo's role is different. Unlike the elite places that sometimes are mere finishing schools for a certain stratum of applicant, what VU can offer are opportunities for kids with strong, if not elite, qualifications to attend a school that can help them truly grow. Somehow the admissions & recruiting effort has to tap more deeply into that vein.

[VULB#62]

Being in New England, David, I was waiting for you to call me on my comparison. 

To me it is a question of degree. I used the exaggerated comparison to drive home a more basic point. Yes, there are differences that come into play when you directly compare the Colbys and Midds to Valpo (the Harvard of the midwest, right  ) one for one. My point is, for the school that Valpo proports to be,  its numbers seem to be way out of kilter in my opinion.  Why can't Valpo proportionally tailor and apply the same recruitment strategies and the admission investment plans as my straw colleges to increase the applicant pool size, improve selectivity, and increase the yield population?

So lets compare closer to home — the school down south.

BUTLER
Enrollment: 4776
Applicants (2019): 14,896 (not far off from my straws and nearly 3x Valpo's)
Accepted: 11,916 (80%)
Enrolled (yield): 1125 (8.6%)

We don't need 14,000 applicants, but 8-10,000 would be nice. Certainly having an acceptance rate of 80% would be more desirable, and a bit more selective, than 93%. I'll take Valpo's current yield of 14% over Butler's 8.6%, but having 6,400-8000 acceptances (even giving us a 10% yield) would mean 640-800 enrollees, and they'd theoretically be more qualified enrollees.

This geographically and culturally closer comparison, further confirms to me that we must be doing something wrong or at least are inadequately doing what we should be doing. But then, I think we kinda agree on that, right?

[valpotx]

Interesting, I didn't know that my sister's alma mater was that selective (Middlebury College).  She also played Volleyball there, and was a Cheerleader.

[talksalot]

Interesting, I didn't know that my sister's alma mater was that selective (Middlebury College).  She also played Volleyball there, and was a Cheerleader.

My dad (Midd'52)  built the campus radio station there, my grandfather was Dean of faculty in the 40s, 50s and 60s.  Fond panther memories

[VULB#62]

Midd is #11  among National Liberal Arts colleges in the latest US News college ratings.  Colby is 26th.

Interesting that the three major US military academies are in that mix as well. Navy #6, Army #9 and AF #18. 

[David81]

Being in New England, David, I was waiting for you to call me on my comparison. 

To me it is a question of degree. I used the exaggerated comparison to drive home a more basic point. Yes, there are differences that come into play when you directly compare the Colbys and Midds to Valpo (the Harvard of the midwest, right  ) one for one. My point is, for the school that Valpo proports to be,  its numbers seem to be way out of kilter in my opinion.  Why can't Valpo proportionally tailor and apply the same recruitment strategies and the admission investment plans as my straw colleges to increase the applicant pool size, improve selectivity, and increase the yield population?

So lets compare closer to home — the school down south.

BUTLER
Enrollment: 4776
Applicants (2019): 14,896 (not far off from my straws and nearly 3x Valpo's)
Accepted: 11,916 (80%)
Enrolled (yield): 1125 (8.6%)

We don't need 14,000 applicants, but 8-10,000 would be nice. Certainly having an acceptance rate of 80% would be more desirable, and a bit more selective, than 93%. I'll take Valpo's current yield of 14% over Butler's 8.6%, but having 6,400-8000 acceptances (even giving us a 10% yield) would mean 640-800 enrollees, and they'd theoretically be more qualified enrollees.

This geographically and culturally closer comparison, further confirms to me that we must be doing something wrong or at least are inadequately doing what we should be doing. But then, I think we kinda agree on that, right?

VULB#62, LOL, you are prodding me into an online flame war! 

But seriously, I agree 100% on your comparison to Butler...and let's toss in Drake (69%), Bradley(76%), Dayton (81%), etc., as well as the overall point that VU's admissions/recruitment operation has been underperforming.

Generating additional 1,000-1,500 applicants, for starters, should be eminently doable. Increasing the yield can be more challenging, because here is where all the side-by-side comparisons come in, especially financial aid.

I think that the current frustration and even alarm over the MBB program, however understandable, added to these enrollment challenges, has caused some -- again understandably -- to feel like the wheels are coming off. While VU is at an important point in its history -- things will likely get better or get worse, but probably not remain at status quo -- I believe that reversing the overall admissions and recruitment part is probably easier than turning around the basketball program.

[VULB#62]

David, the first like to your post is mine 🤪

And the investment is more efficient. The results will easily be evident in year one.

Basketball coach salary = $300+K per year -> competitive in maybe a couple of years.  Filled ARC if winning - after year 2 or 3. Enrollment increase- probably unaffected.

Put an additional $300 K annually into admissions -> Whoa!

BUT, I still want a new MBB coach !

[David81]

David, the firstl like to your post is mine 🤪

We've found ourselves in agreement more often than not on this board, and even our differences of opinion have been in good spirit and relatively minor!

Overall, I find that folks here make the effort to contribute to genuine discussion, as opposed to Twitter-like attempts to out-snark each other. I don't visit this site holding my breath in anticipation of what waves of insults folks might be tossing at each other simply because they may not agree on everything.

[VULB#62]

See my modified post below.

[valpo64]

If Valpo was in a market like Metro Indy I believe VU's numbers would be much more comparable to Butler's.

[David81]

...Anyways, part of the uphill battle for Valpo with the rates/prestige pressures in admissions is that high school students today are all sharing their results via messenger or social media. If you go on Reddit Applying to College (A2C) or ChanceMe or College Results or any of those places, they literally refer to batches of schools by T10, T20, T50, T100 (top ten, top twenty, etc) in their discussions about apps and results. They've completely internalized the ranking system : "I'm a T20 applicant." "I'm trying for T25, but fml my SAT is T50" etc.

Once again, it's the pernicious influence of the US News rankings.

Law school applications and enrollment decisions have been similarly afflicted. And sadly, you now have a generation of young faculty who have rankings on the brain. It's really sad to see grown adults, in positions of authority, buying into that worldview.

[valpo95]

Once again, it's the pernicious influence of the US News rankings.

We did not mind the US News rankings when Valpo was listed as #1 in the Midwest. Although I don't disagree with all of the comments, this discussion has too much focus on the rankings. If a university or program is doing the right things, the rankings have a way of working themselves out. All of the rankings are imperfect yet they are and should be one data point that allows comparisons between different programs.

In VU's case, the problems are much deeper than rankings - there are many things that are hitting on a secular low all at once. Some of these are not the fault of VU, though some are. For example, the demographic cliff of high school graduates in the Midwest in particular is well known, as is the decline or shift in mission of Lutheran high schools. Then, there was the COVID-19 disruption to all of higher education, none of which were VU's fault.

However, President Heckler proposed growing VU to 6,000 students in the face of these foreseeable demographic changes. Similarly, President Heckler and the VU administration completely and totally dropped the ball with the failure of VU's Law School. The dropping of the mascot was ham-fisted - it became a metaphor of woke politics that alienated many traditional supporters; even if it was the right decision, the announcement was awful as it did not acknowledge the best parts of the old mascot or those who cheered for the teams over decades. Then, there was an amateur launch of a new logo, followed by *two* mascots? Then, there are perhaps unavoidable staff and faculty cuts. Even now, he flagship basketball program suffers through seven years of mediocrity after decades of relatively high-level success. None of these issue are the fault of the rankings.

[David81]

Once again, it's the pernicious influence of the US News rankings.

We did not mind the US News rankings when Valpo was listed as #1 in the Midwest. Although I don't disagree with all of the comments, this discussion has too much focus on the rankings. If a university or program is doing the right things, the rankings have a way of working themselves out. All of the rankings are imperfect yet they are and should be one data point that allows comparisons between different programs.

In VU's case, the problems are much deeper than rankings - there are many things that are hitting on a secular low all at once. Some of these are not the fault of VU, though some are. For example, the demographic cliff of high school graduates in the Midwest in particular is well known, as is the decline or shift in mission of Lutheran high schools. Then, there was the COVID-19 disruption to all of higher education, none of which were VU's fault.

However, President Heckler proposed growing VU to 6,000 students in the face of these foreseeable demographic changes. Similarly, President Heckler and the VU administration completely and totally dropped the ball with the failure of VU's Law School. The dropping of the mascot was ham-fisted - it became a metaphor of woke politics that alienated many traditional supporters; even if it was the right decision, the announcement was awful as it did not acknowledge the best parts of the old mascot or those who cheered for the teams over decades. Then, there was an amateur launch of a new logo, followed by *two* mascots? Then, there are perhaps unavoidable staff and faculty cuts. Even now, he flagship basketball program suffers through seven years of mediocrity after decades of relatively high-level success. None of these issue are the fault of the rankings.

Oh, if only "doing the right things" = "rankings have a way of working themselves out." If you knew how much time, effort, and money many institutions devote to assessing major and minor decisions with an eye on the rankings, and basing decisions at least in part on that calculus, then you might feel differently. This includes expending resources to operations and programs that are more likely to impact the rankings, while giving short shrift to aspects of a university that are less likely to impact the rankings.

I do not defend these practices. I wish it was just like you said. But schools that don't look hard at how their decisions may impact their rankings do so at their peril.

I agree that the initial iterations of the US News rankings were good for VU, which during the 70s and early 80s, before US News appeared on the scene, suffered through a real identity crisis. VU's high placement with other quality, regional Midwestern universities provided VU a good sense of how it was perceived in the broader higher ed community.

Although I understand how the mascot issue caused a lot of discord among many on this board and elsewhere, when it comes to attracting applications from today's pool of potential students, the impacts on the applicant pool and students' perceptions of the MBB program are likely to have been minimal. In fact, given that Gen Z tends to be more like 60s classic Boomers than 70s and 80s late Boomers and early Gen Xers in its social outlook, I think many would greet the change as either mildly positive or a big whatever. Say what you want about the mascot change, but if you think this MBB team would be competing for post-season if they were still the Crusaders, then we have a very different understanding of the challenges within that program.

I'll respond to your point about the Law School below.

[David81]

Once again, it's the pernicious influence of the US News rankings.

Similarly, President Heckler and the VU administration completely and totally dropped the ball with the failure of VU's Law School.

I will respectfully disagree with you on the Law School, the closing of which I regard as being the saddest major development in VU's modern history. I'm repeating what I've written elsewhere on this site, but here's my read on the VU Law story, as a long-time legal academic: The truth is that VU Law had always punched above its weight with very modest resources. Way back in the late 70s, the VU Board came close to shuttering the Law School when an ABA reaccreditation report came back with highly negative findings about the finances and physical plant. The University opted to dig deep and raise money for the new Wesemann Hall, and during the 90s until the Great Recession, the Law School enjoyed a very successful run, thanks in part to an abundant application pool and a strong legal job market.

But VU Law was never without its vulnerabilities. And it all came crashing down in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Law school application levels plummeted, the bottom fell out of the legal job market, and, smaller, lower-ranked, non-urban law schools like VU Law paid an especially heavy price. As is the case with most university-affiliated law schools, the VU Law administration and faculty were given much leeway in determining how to respond to this crisis, and they responded by considerably lowering the admissions standards, to the point where many graduates couldn't pass the bar exam and couldn't obtain gainful employment. This 2016 major New York Times feature on the challenges facing VU Law, as an example of how many regional law schools are struggling, told the story in stark terms: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/19/business/dealbook/an-expensive-law-degree-and-no-place-to-use-it.html.

It's likely that the only way to save VU Law would've been to raid the endowment and "tax" other University units to pay for super lucrative scholarships to attract stronger applicants from a sharply diminished pool and to cover the higher salaries paid to law faculty. (Though it's safe to assume that VU Law faculty were earning considerably less than peers at many other institutions, especially those in major urban areas.)

Among the 200 or so ABA-accredited law schools in the U.S., it's fair to say that at least 20 percent of them are more-or-less hanging on, some by a mere thread. VU Law may have been able to survive with the extraordinary measures I suggested above, but perhaps only to be in "hanging on" group for the foreseeable future.

Here, too, rankings mattered greatly. VU Law always struggled in them. As said rankings increasingly began to shape enrollment decisions for the lion's share of law school applicants, it greatly affected the school's application levels and eventual yield.

[vu72]

The Times coverage!

https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/education/valpo-university-names-alum-new-vp-of-enrollment/article_078aae1a-6e48-5be7-b41a-401ac83370c9.html

[valpo95]

81, apparently I touched a nerve. I do appreciate your passion.

To be clear, I'm not saying to entirely ignore the rankings. I do not discount the myriad challenges facing the VU law school over time, and the issues were facing many other law schools. 

Yet even in the case of the law school, the rankings did provide an important and diagnostic signal. As far as I know, one of the big issues facing VU's law school was the noticeable decline in the bar passage rate as well as placement statistics. When the law school became desperate for enrollment, they took less qualified students who subsequently had much more difficulty passing the bar and getting placed into top jobs. This directly impacted the rankings, and also led to a decline in the external assessments of the quality of the law school. Thus, the rankings were not the primary cause the decline of the law school, but they did (at least somewhat accurately) reflect the decisions of the leadership.

[David81]

81, apparently I touched a nerve. I do appreciate your passion.

To be clear, I'm not saying to entirely ignore the rankings. I do not discount the myriad challenges facing the VU law school over time, and the issues were facing many other law schools. 

Yet even in the case of the law school, the rankings did provide an important and diagnostic signal. As far as I know, one of the big issues facing VU's law school was the noticeable decline in the bar passage rate as well as placement statistics. When the law school became desperate for enrollment, they took less qualified students who subsequently had much more difficulty passing the bar and getting placed into top jobs. This directly impacted the rankings, and also led to a decline in the external assessments of the quality of the law school. Thus, the rankings were not the primary cause the decline of the law school, but they did (at least somewhat accurately) reflect the decisions of the leadership.

Valpo95, thank you for your comment. I'm sorry for coming on so hard about these rankings.

I applied to colleges and to law schools before the US News rankings entered the arena. Since then, I've seen how they've taken over perceptions of quality, accomplishment, and prestige in ways that have been very damaging to higher education and led applicants to make decisions that might well have landed them at schools that weren't a great match. And as an academic, I've seen how rankings shape students' perceptions of their self-worth -- in ways that cause some students to overrate themselves, while others underrate themselves.

So, yeah, I can be a bit passionate about this topic, as you so diplomatically observed. 🤪😳

I think Valpo, even with all of the challenges of recent years, continues to offer not only a quality classroom education, but also intangibles that aren't necessarily quantified in these rankings schemes. Somehow, someway, the admissions and recruiting process needs to find a better way to communicate those qualities and persuade applicants for whom this would be very good place to get an education and earn a degree to sign up.