Admissions supposedly has data that shows that they actively lose students to peer institutions where they indicate residence halls are a large factor.
Why is admissions going after people who value a thing that is a “weakness” of the university? Why not target people who want the strengths of the school? Valpo is fishing in the wrong pond (but that’s been a problem for a number of years now)
BUT I think to totally shift and give up on the residential campus and let it go fully commuter would be a mistake. If we're talking off-campus frat houses or student rentals just off campus, that's one thing. But if students live at home with parents and it becomes mostly a regional commuter campus (which it already is trending towards), that really kills the 4-year college experience vibe for all, gives the impression that we are just a glorified community college, and is also a huge revenue loss in room & board (aka even worse operating deficit) which I suspect the uni cannot survive.
To clarify, I meant having students live off campus but nearby. I agree that Valpo can’t become a glorified commuter school.
Right, a quick internet search confirms my sense of the numbers, that in Valpo the average 1 bedroom apt goes for around $1250 a month, while a 2 bedroom is around $1400 a month, 3 bedroom $1800, etc.... While this is not terrible compared to elsewhere in the country, the costs to the individual after splitting rent are still going to end up higher than a shared dorm room,
The cheapest dorm room, a double in Alumni, is $4099/ semester or $ 8198/year. If you split an off campus apartment, it will be cheaper than the dorms.
MJ08 - Two points:
1. People who prioritize one or two things still assess the full set of features to determine if all are at (in their opinion) an acceptable level. From my understanding, the dorms are not at that level for many prospective students and the value propositions elsewhere at Valpo, some of which are very good, are not good enough to overcome this relative to other universities that they may consider.
2. It is unrealistic to have students just live off-campus. Reasons include that it likely has a positive effect on the university's annual operating budget and a need to be closer to first and second year students than the university would be if they lived off campus. On this latter point, students will build a much greater connection if they live on campus with others like themselves close at hand and the university can much more easily assess whether students are starting to have trouble.
Yes, it would be nice to have everyone live on campus. Valpo requires everyone to live in the dorms the first three years. Other schools only require your freshmen year.
I get that dorms can generate revenue for a university. But right now, Valpo is looking to take on $15 million in debt in order to create a potential revenue stream in the future that depends on students enrolling in the university. What’s the potential ROI on the dorms? And how long is that going to take?
What if Valpo only required freshmen and sophomores to live on campus and had them in Beacon, Guild-Memorial, and Wehrenberg? Those buildings are much better than Alumni and Brandt.
Valparaiso University’s art sale sparks Moody’s downgrade - a cautionary tale for tuition dependent institutions
May 1, 2025
Note: Valpo’s Moody rating is still above “junk bond”
What if Valpo only required freshmen and sophomores to live on campus and had them in Beacon, Guild-Memorial, and Wehrenberg? Those buildings are much better than Alumni and Brandt.
Because each of those buildings serves a different purpose and offers a different experience. Wherenberg is the only building that abides by the standard single or standard double layout. Even then they are still pretty dated
Hey WHvalpo, I was confused by the apparent junk label contradiction too.
But note that the "ainvest" article ("a cautionary tale...") headline cites a 2023 rating of Baa2. In our new 2025 bond issuance, Moody's rated the 2025 issuance Ba1, informally called "junk" or "non-investment grade" in rating ladders. It's another step downward in rating since 2023.
But whether "junk" is a fair term or not, perception is reality and it's highly visible now in the headlines used by Blomberg and Crain's Chicago Business. Ouch. You don't want the words junk and Valparaiso in the same headline.
