@vu84v2 doesn't the transfer program required a 2.5 gpa at a minimum. While classes at these schools could be easier, I assume gpa requirements are put in place to keep some semblance of a standard for higher education. Right now the school just needs butts in seats and to stop getting caught up in legal battles in an attempt to better the institution
VUIndiana makes some excellent comments - especially being allergic to "getting butts in seats" (though we should all embrace "getting qualified butts in seats"). So, I will offer a few additional comments:
-From our experience at my university (specifically in my College), we have seen widely varying quality and readiness across community colleges. I know of one where we have had well-prepared and motivated incoming students and another where we had to stop automatically accepting students because many were not sufficiently prepared. I have no idea on the quality of students coming out of CCC, but a 2.5-3.0 gpa may or may not be indicative of readiness.
-When I said added support was needed, I was not referring to being "mom" (though I guess some of that is needed in today's world). I was referring to academic readiness, specifically quantitative skills and writing. It is a worthwhile effort (to the university and society) to provide such support to students looking to raise their socioeconomic status, but it cannot be accomplished by relying on existing faculty and staff. It requires not only time and attention, but unique expertise.
Excellently written VUIndiana. I agree with just about everything here. Bottom line is you are a professor and know how the show is run. I'm not well versed in the behind the scenes aspects of these deals or how staff is affected. The only metric I have to go off of is enrollment numbers now and how those enrollment numbers could see improvement via these partnerships. From an outside standpoint, all you see are these lawsuits in the news, and the decline of enrollment numbers. Ultimately these partnerships may be low risk with a potential high reward, but there is still some semblance of a gamble involved when it comes to academic integrity of the institution. My only thought is, is Padillas vision for this school going in a drastically different direction than years past? And are these decisions aiming to change the core identity of the institution? To me it seems like this is the case and that Padilla is trying to effectively build a new institution from the ashes of the old.
I have no doubt of the good intentions of Pres. Padilla and others at Valpo regarding partnering with CCC and other similar entities. Further, I hope that it is successful. However, the challenge for many programs like this is that these students from community/junior colleges lack the skills necessary to meet the academic requirements of a university like Valpo. Thus, to be successful, a university like Valpo that implements this type of program needs to invest in support services, alternative (but not less difficult) curriculum plans, etc. My fear is that despite the best of intentions, Valpo may be trying to do this with little or no additional/specialized staff.
Yuppers, I agree with this and what others are saying about the GPA minimum being too low.
It's possible to find a lot of good, promising students coming out of 2-year schools. Kids who could easily go to 4-year schools but can't afford it or wish to save money. Diamonds in the rough who blossom in the 2-year school and do very well. I'm sure that CCC has tons of success stories like that.
But unless the grading standards suddenly got very tough in these institutions, a 2.5 gpa -- presumptively granting admission to VU -- is very mediocre (unless they're taking courses in engineering or similar subjects).
That said, I see some possible historic roots in the pipelines that VU is trying to create, and they go back to the Kinsey & Brown, pre-Lutheran days of VU as the Poor Man's Harvard. There's at least a hint of that in these efforts.
"We would lose three great teachers" Wow! Maybe if we close we would lose hundreds of great teachers.
This from the Marymount story:
Marymount pulled $16.5 million from its endowment in the 2023 fiscal year to help finance investments that school officials said are needed to right its finances. With some of the funds, it upgraded dorms with new flooring, paint, windows and furniture in a bid to convince more students to enroll.
“An endowment that just sits there, what’s the point?” Barry Harte, vice president for finance and operations at Marymount, said in an interview. “An endowment is there to give stability and help the university grow.”
If you change "endowment" to "three art pieces", you have the Valpo situation. We could say, "art pieces are there to give stability (education) to help the university grow.
It is working for Marymount, it can and must work for Valpo if we are remain a top level institution rather than one having to "dip" into our endowment--which, in Marymount's case would seem to be a very last ditch effort.
With all due respect to Brauer and his contributions to the university, this statement - we would lose three great teachers - shows the irrationality of arguments against the art sale. The art does not have infinite value and I would argue that a substantial majority of students in the last 60 years never knew of the existence of these paintings. The university ultimately may not be able to sell the art because a group of people found legal grounds to prevent the sale...that agreements somehow exist in perpetuity. But if the university's financial struggles get worse (which I sincerely hope does not happen), I, for one, will hold these people personally responsible as they prioritized something not part of the university mission over the university's ability to meet its mission.
I wish Valpo would start building the dorms so they can move forward. Long term it is imperative to proactively meet the upcoming challenges of enrollment and potentially survival.
I must say that I am amused more and more when I read posts here about the proposed art sale. One post shares a good explanation for why another university dipped into its endowment, which is one-seventh of VU's, to fund university upgrades, but instead of recommending following that model, the poster somehow uses it to explain why Valpo should sell the artworks (and close the museum), illogically writing "It is working for Marymount, it can and must work for Valpo." Another justifies the sale with the twisted logic that many students "never knew of the existence of the these artworks." I assume he believes the same thinking holds for completely closing the museum. Using the process of that logic, I must acknowledge that I have been on campus more than 40 years, and like many of my students I have not once stepped inside the engineering building.
We are now nearly two years since Pres. Padilla hatched his ill-conceived and divisive plan, declaring selling the paintings was necessary and it was the only option, because he needed quick cash to immediately refurbish the dorms and it could not wait for other funding paths. Apparently, that wasn't true, since nothing has been done. If he was so confident he was right and the need was urgent, he could have borrowed from the endowment, as some suggested, for fast funding, with an intention of repaying the loan with interest to the university when the art was sold or a designated fund drive finished. We'd already have the upgrades; but instead we begin another school year with no renovation to the dorms, the artworks are gone, and the museum is closed. This is the classic definition of a lose-lose situation: all parties are worse off.
As I predicted at the time Padilla's plan was revealed, we have seen an extended series of negative articles nationwide, like this week's New York Times reporting, repeatedly damaging the university's reputation and prestige, impacting enrollment and donor contributions. This is Padilla's doing, yet one poster laughably blames those supporting the museum: "But if the university's financial struggles get worse (which I sincerely hope does not happen), I, for one, will hold these people personally responsible."
@valpopal - whether we agree or disagree about the art sale, Valparaiso University leadership throughout the decades has been consistently reactive in decision making. Effective leadership has to take facts and move forward in their actions with understanding that there will be factions that will be pissed off.
I'll just float the suggestion that VU is committing its second "own goal" mistake during the past five years by selling the art.
The first own goal was dropping the Crusaders nickname. I honestly don't think a lot of alums or students gave a big hoot either way about the decision. But those who opposed the change have been a vocal and in many cases part a strongly-loyal-to-VU faction. I'm surprised by the number of folks who can't get over it, but in the current social/political climate, decisions that have a social/political aspect should be considered carefully. As someone who was OK with the change but would've been fine with standing pat, I would say with the gift of hindsight that the cost-benefit consequences weighed in favor of not making the change.
This art sale has already been a divisive issue, and it will leave a deeper negative mark if completed. If President Padilla were to announce that VU has opted drop the sale and instead will to tap into undesignated endowment principal to pay for these dorm upgrades, it could help to smooth over a lot of bad feelings shared by a different strongly-loyal-to-VU faction. But I fear he and the trustees are too ego invested in this decision to opt for anything short of someone writing a check to cover the dorm upgrades.
And so, at a time when VU needs everyone on deck to help ensure the University's long-term viability, two significant factions will be carrying a sense of disappointment and even grievance going forward. Not a great situation.
valpopal - borrowing from the endowment sets a dangerous precedent and, more importantly, sends a signal of desperation to all involved. Further, the "borrow and then raise money to repay the endowment" idea, beyond being dangerous financial planning (this is where city and state governments get into trouble), delays raising funds for other needed infrastructure.
David81 - I understand your points about loyalty, but I think that there are different subgroups that would have very different perspectives. My guess is that a substantial majority of the major donors to the university are not against the art sale, and may have this perspective: I have donated a lot of money to the university and have been glad to have done so. I likely did not know that value of the art owned by Valpo (or even its existence), but am glad that they are using assets that are not central to the university mission to fund key investments. The university, then, is unable to sell the art because of internal dissent. Next, the university comes to me and asks me for a 6 or 7 figure donation for dorms and I ask myself, "why would I donate money for dorms when the university is not using its own resources? In essence, it seems like you are asking me to fund the art."
