Well unless she was recruited upward by a better university of better job, her departure summarizes the viability of selling Valpo to students. Schur was an alumna with great passion for the school. And she brought a familiarity with the priority on HSI. How will that be replaced by a better fit for the job?
She was being asked to sell a $45,000 truck full of ice to eskimos who can buy the same trunk full from dozens of other truckers at $20,000. If she was let by "mutual decision" then Padilla is looking for a 5th person who can make that sale more often than her.
Interesting news - The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center has revised its Fall report after realizing a methodological error, to say that Fall 2024 enrollments were actually higher (not lower) nation-wide. Sheesh:
(I remember we had a lot of chatter about this when it seemed that at least part of VU's steep enrollment downturn this Fall could be explained or excused by the FAFSA fiasco and contextualized by depressed enrollments on a national scale... But that seems not to have been the case after all, whereas unfortunately VU's particular enrollment drop was real.)
@realist77 Your $47,000 ice truck metaphor is pretty harsh, but I agree Sifuentes Schur had a tough task. With VU shooting itself in the foot so much with all the bad VU publicity and other headwinds, I would struggle to identify what she could have done differently these past <2 yrs- tho who knows? At any rate, its hard to see how MORE TURNOVER is going to help...
My assumption is that enrollments across public schools would cause that trend VUIndiana. Heard of a lot of kids who had to turn down private school offers over financial concerns. Heck. 2 football players just had to turn down offers over financial concerns. I know there is push to become a HSI, but with administration changes in Washington, and a focus on education reform. How long does the HSI program last theoretically? Or rather, how long does the HSI program continue to receive the amount of funding it currently gets.
Rez - I know that I am repeating a prior post, but some private schools were able to successfully work around the FAFSA problems by telling prospective students what they expected their financial aid to be. The students, if they attended the university, would then get the greater of the estimate or the actual - with the university making up the difference if their estimate was high. If you think about it, the costs are pretty minimal doing this. My understanding is that only 10-20% of private universities did this, but that (at least for my university) it was very successful.
More turnover in enrollment: Jill Sifuentes Schur is leaving as the Vice President of Enrollment and Marketing. A new national search will begin soon.
Not a reassuring sign about the senior leadership situation...someone who returned to her alma mater is now leaving after 2 years on the job.
Regarding faculty doing more for recruitment...When Padilla came to VU he mentioned more than once that we need a "all hands on deck" approach to save this place and it made sense. Problem is, when you absolutely fail to take minimum care of the human factor and destroy whatever morsel of morale was left, those "hands on deck" will be too weak to provide much "rowing power".
The only thing that still amazes me is how bad this leadership is at people relation. Our people that is...Every single time when faculty, mildly and politely would raise some valid objections the immediate reaction was on the line of: "I'm not gonna tell you what you want to hear", " I disagree (without providing counterarguments)", "I don't HAVE to tell you what I will do (so expect surprises)" , "I can eliminate entire departments if I want to (read the fine print in the handbook next time)" etc... And these types of answers were for fundamental BASIC questions such as: can you show how this or that brings or save money, does not hurt more than it helps, can you do this instead of that, etc...
I completely understand that the crisis may require the most draconian measures imaginable. Yet I still in my naivety expect a leader to be able to have a different relationship with the subalterns. I see none of that here. Meanwhile, while the tone during behind the doors meetings is such as above, we regularly get campus wide emails with words like these:
" Celebration: Let’s continue highlighting and sharing our successes—so they can be celebrated more broadly. Most importantly, let’s keep finding time to be in community together."
With successes like these, who needs failures?
I had hoped that President Padilla's experience as a university general counsel -- a position that gives one a pretty good view of how things can go wrong at a university, including institutional culture -- might inform how he relates to faculty in a positive way. After all, if you want team players on your faculty, then you need to treat your faculty like fully-fledged members of the team. Instead, it appears that his general counsel experience gave him a more top-down perspective on how university leadership should relate to other stakeholders.
Presidents can weather no-confidence votes when they've got plenty of other tangible successes to show for themselves, especially major fundraising gifts. But the latter has not manifested under his leadership, at least not yet. (Hence, you sell off the treasures of the art museum to pay for residence hall reno work.) While it's premature and incorrect to label his presidency a failure, it's getting harder to see how it can end as a success.
@david81 - no sure what the art sale has to do with your viewpoint. Leadership and faculty are certainly polarized, and the collaboration is poor. Also, any decision one makes will piss some faction off.
@david81 - no sure what the art sale has to do with your viewpoint. Leadership and faculty are certainly polarized, and the collaboration is poor. Also, any decision one makes will piss some faction off.
It’s far from true that “any decision will piss some faction off,” unless one is acting and leading in a zero-sum resources mode. Effective fundraising, for example, is typically a win across the board, because even if a gift is for a specific purpose, it enlarges the pot to be distributed.
But surveying your campus for sellable assets is not fundraising. It’s a sort of desperate option when fundraising is not an available option, and is perceived as such.
Furthermore, the art sale was not only polarizing as a raw decision, but also poorly handled in terms of stakeholder relations. The latter was an “own goal” by university leadership and no doubt fueled the NC vote. None of these actions are interpreted in isolation by most faculty.
@david81 - My feeling is that Padilla and the board were far from excited and giddy about selling the artwork to upgrade the dorms. The fundraising was not there - why it is lacking is a another discussion - and the dorms were way beyond outdated which distracted potential students. Thus a difficult decision had to be made that would piss a faction off.
That being said - the admin and faculty have different needs and have unique abilities to provide solutions (good and bad). If they cannot reach an identity and some level of agreement or collaboration, then university will go down.
@david81 - My feeling is that Padilla and the board were far from excited and giddy about selling the artwork to upgrade the dorms. The fundraising was not there - why it is lacking is a another discussion - and the dorms were way beyond outdated which distracted potential students. Thus a difficult decision had to be made that would piss a faction off.
That being said - the admin and faculty have different needs and have unique abilities to provide solutions (good and bad). If they cannot reach an identity and some level of agreement or collaboration, then university will go down.
I do agree with this statement, the admin is not blameless here. They failed to provide the faculty with an effective reasoning behind the sale. A simple "hey guys, our fundraising is pretty dry right now and dorms are something college students care about. We hate to say it, but we would like to sell the artwork and push a plan foreword to reignite our fundraising department" At least then you would still have oppositon, but that opposition would be less inclined to blast you on the internet about doing this under the radar and with shady tactics. Communication is important and from what has been said here, the communication between admin and faculty has been that of George von Trapp to his children in Sound of Music.
David81 or others likely made this point before. You can't fundraise for domitories. They are typically funded by loans because an income stream will cover that loan. Otherwise why do it. But Valpo debt is maxed out and they are still running huge deficits. Thus the desperate step of an art sale! Just ask Moodys or look up Ion Analytics November 2024 article pasted recently on this board.
In your personal life if you need a second mortgage multiple times, there is a point when the bank will say no because your equity is too low. And your rate will be higher because risk is higher. It's a spiral downward that can only be solved by a higher net income from enrollment income.
Donors will steer clear of this mess and just wait to invest when the patient stabilizes. Even building projects will seem pointless if the operational losses are ominous.
@Rez - agree with your statement. A lack of tact in their announcement to sell the art. The revenue the sale it brings on for much needed upgrades is not crumbs.
@david81 - My feeling is that Padilla and the board were far from excited and giddy about selling the artwork to upgrade the dorms. The fundraising was not there - why it is lacking is a another discussion - and the dorms were way beyond outdated which distracted potential students. Thus a difficult decision had to be made that would piss a faction off.
That being said - the admin and faculty have different needs and have unique abilities to provide solutions (good and bad). If they cannot reach an identity and some level of agreement or collaboration, then university will go down.
I didn't suggest that they were excited and giddy about selling the artwork. I do think they botched their handling of the decision, unnecessarily alienating long-time, loyal members of the VU community. And why fundraising is lacking is front and center part of the conversation, with the president and board primarily responsible. The previous president, who is not popular on this board, managed to lead a $250m+ fundraising campaign that successfully finished during the heart of the pandemic.
Those with $$$ means have thrived in the current economy. The Dow Jones has performed very strongly in the post-COVID lockdown period. It's very, very possible to raise money in the present philanthropic environment.
All things being equal, I want VU to have residence halls that are competitive with peer schools. But based on some of the claims from the administration, you'd think that the current facilities are like the quonset huts that awaited GIs returning to college after WWII. Not so. I want the kind of leadership that can sell Valpo to prospective students despite the so-so accommodations, just like Coach Powell is selling Valpo basketball to players who have doubts about playing in the ARC. If VU cannot sell its educational experience based on a deep belief in its inherent, distinctive qualities, then catching up to the Joneses on student housing won't make a huge difference.
I would add that who you piss off with a visible decision matters, and intensity of the opposition matters. The nickname/mascot decision is a perfect example.
David81 or others likely made this point before. You can't fundraise for domitories. They are typically funded by loans because an income stream will cover that loan. Otherwise why do it. But Valpo debt is maxed out and they are still running huge deficits. Thus the desperate step of an art sale! Just ask Moodys or look up Ion Analytics November 2024 article pasted recently on this board.
In your personal life if you need a second mortgage multiple times, there is a point when the bank will say no because your equity is too low. And your rate will be higher because risk is higher. It's a spiral downward that can only be solved by a higher net income from enrollment income.
Donors will steer clear of this mess and just wait to invest when the patient stabilizes. Even building projects will seem pointless if the operational losses are ominous.
@Realist77, I don't think I ever made that point about dormitories, or if I ever did, I surely misspoke, because I've seen plenty of schools raise money for residence halls, especially when there's a naming opportunity.
When I was at NYU law school during the 80s, the president at the time -- one John Brademas, one-time Democratic House Whip in the US House representing the South Bend (Notre Dame) district -- raised millions of dollars for much needed new residence halls. People will give money for edifices with their name on it.
I do agree with you that VU's debt situation has to be considered in deciding on going a borrowing route to finance new buildings.
Realistically, a lot of the blame fall on high turnover rates in key departments. Marketing and enrollment being arguably the most important department, and yet, is seeing some of the highest turnover rates. I wonder what is going on internally to cause these rates.
