I happened across this Letter to the Editor in this morning's (Wed) NWI Times while looking at it online.
http://www.nwitimes.com/opinion/letters/valpo-u-president-turned-welcoming-speech-into-anti-trump-rant/article_65044557-0447-5080-9bd2-a5122f8538ea.html
I had the opportunity to listen to Valparaiso University President Mark Heckler's speech to all the new students.
He started his speech off in a pleasant manner and progressively turned his welcome speech into his own political rally against President Donald Trump. I have never heard Trump endorse the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis or any other white supremacist organizations.
I am a retired firefighter and upset he took the right as a university president and so-called pillar of our community to be able to direct his own personal feelings on new independent young adults.
Shame on him. I really don't believe he has that right from that position, whether I supported or did not support our current president. I believe the freedom of speech is still alive but should not be used by someone in his position welcoming new students to higher education.
Tom Steindler, Valparaiso
https://www.facebook.com/tom.steindler
Is President Heckler too anti-Trump?
This letter reflects similar views I have heard from others. I like Mark a lot, but he has one blind spot. When his public comments as the university president overtly include his personal liberal political positions, which are approved and applauded by the overwhelmingly liberal faculty or students in attendance, he risks alienating a percentage of other students and faculty, as well as many alumni and community members. The ironic and inadvertent consequence is that he adds to the atmosphere of polarization. Except for this one weakness, Mark is a great speaker.
I was there. He did mention the president once in reference to his comments on Charlottesville as he was talking about the importance of discourse. To call it an anti-trump rant would seem to infer that the president is beyond criticism in all ways and all times. He also talked about the importance of listening to new ideas and not shutting them out in reference to some issues on other campuses deplatforming conservative speakers. So if that was an anti-trump rant it was also an anti-liberal rant based on this editorial's standards
Full disclosure, I'm not a Trump supporter but also don't consider him an existential threat.
I've had limited interactions with Heckler, as well as semi-frequent conversations with university insiders (mentors still employed, board members in my social circle) who have dealt with him more often.
He always struck me as heavy on rhetoric, light on facts in the way he addresses difficult topics. The two best examples offhand being how he (mis)handled an incident with then-LCMS President Gerald Kieschnick in 2009-10(?) and how he communicated some of the school's recent debt issues to the board a couple of years back. Even his comments regarding the HL lawsuit smells of a similar brand of rhetoric.
Heckler seems like a shoot from the hip type, especially when he feels threatened. I don't know what he said, but the fact he felt the need to speak strongly doesn't surprise me at all. Trump is a threat to his worldview and he has responded in a way consistent with past behavior.
Should he know better? Absolutely. Particularly given the makeup of our donor base. But, it's part of the Mark Heckler package that comes with positive and negative aspects.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I guess I dont get why the President of a private university cannot make a criticism that was being made by both Republicans and Democrats about the presidents recent words. Most of his time was spent talking about open dialogue and being able to hear people and that rudeness and hate have no place in constructive conversation. College is the real world. The students will hear both conservative and liberal politics in their time and I would hope that they will be able to understand that they may hear differing views than their own.
As I said, I was there and to qualify this as an anti-trump rant would only make sense if you believe that any criticism of the President of the United States is forbidden and a rant.
I was there also. In his description of the purpose for the Opening Convocation, Mark stated: ""Opening Convocation is one of the primary opportunities for the entire Valpo family to come together...." I would like to believe that by "come together" he means more than just to congregate in the same building, and by "Valpo family" he means to be inclusive of all. Therefore, I would think common sense would dictate that he avoid making any clearly divisive political comments to incoming freshmen in this venue that creates an initial impression. As I have said, I like Mark a lot and I have seen him speak wonderfully many times in public or in private situations, but he does sometimes mistakenly inject personal political views in his official comments as university president, an office that ought to be impartial representative of all.
The neo-communist movement of the far left has cleverly developed a false narrative that President Trump and anyone who supports his policies are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic and misogynistic. In turn, people like Heckler, whose very livelihoods depend on being perceived as champions of "inclusiveness," are "forced" to disavow any support for or association with Trump and his "basket of deplorables," for fear of being accused of complicity with their world view. The Heckler's of the world (including phony NFL owners foolishly kneeling alongside their players so as to not turn over their little apple carts) are nothing more than pawns and useful idiots for a much larger subversive cause. They're playing checkers inside a game of chess. Sad...
Heckler has shown a strong and gratuitous liberal bias on many occasions. The Trump election is just a flash point that he thinks give him license to intensify it and impress people.
Heckler criticized George Bush by name in his 2008 inaugural speech. He was an easy target nearing the end of his 8th year. People can say what they will about GWB's Iraq decisions, but he was never a divisive figure. In fact he strongly spoke in defense of Muslims immediately after 9/11.
Mark is also protecting the enrollment base. Like it or not, there is an important component of undergrad enrollment -- attracting foreign students. The current US administration's policies threaten at strategy. And changing the VU strategy suddenly is not something that is easily done. Part of that is, after decades, to swing almost 180 degrees is almost impossible in a short time span.
Heckler's comments are very upsetting and something that should not reflect Valpo.
As the leader of a private university. he is free to say what he wants to say. As a result, many parents, students, donors, and alumni are also free to walk away and many will. Maybe the remarks are meant to impress the faculty.
So what distinguishes Valpo these days from the hundreds of "progressive" private universities and liberal arts college? Have we decided to abandon the idea of differentiating ourselves in our country and just accelerate recruitment of international students who will take a "progressive" view of the U.S.?
Quote from: crusadermoe on September 29, 2017, 04:07:35 PM
So what distinguishes Valpo these days from the hundreds of "progressive" private universities and liberal arts college? Have we decided to abandon the idea of differentiating ourselves in our country and just accelerate recruitment of international students who will take a "progressive" view of the U.S.?
The one word answer to that question is "nothing." The momentum was rolling before Heckler's hiring, but the final nail in the coffin of Valpo as a truly unique institution and the self-styled meeting-place between "Athens and Jerusalem" was when the board chose to hire a career academic instead of a pastor to run the school.
OP is rolling in his grave.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'll admit that I have not seen an actual transcript of Mark Heckler's speech, but (based on the previous comments in this thread) are his comments any different from these words delivered today as part of a powerful speech by the leader of another university? (though Mark Heckler was likely not as direct)
If you can't treat someone with dignity and respect, then you need to get out. If you can't treat someone from another gender, whether that's a man or a woman, with dignity and respect, then you need to get out. If you demean someone in any way, then you need to get out. And if you can't treat someone from another race, or different color skin, with dignity and respect, then you need to get out.
The appropriate response for horrible language and horrible ideas — is a better idea.
We draw people from all races and from all walks of life, all parts of the country, all genders and upbringings. The power of that diversity comes together and makes us that much more powerful. That's a much better idea than small thinking and horrible ideas.
Those words were delivered today by Lt. General Jay Silveria, Leader of the United States Air Force Academy. Now think about that before you go off and criticize someone for stressing the importance of inclusion in a university.
Oh, and one other thing: General Silveria displayed more leadership in that speech than Donald Trump has during his entire presidency.
Heckler has a right to say what he wants, but with that right is responsibility. Valpo is a middle sized, good academic university. Those on the opposite side of the political spectrum want free public education, and if that ever happens Valpo will have an even more difficult time maintaining enrollment numbers that they encounter today.
Also, there are obviously many that support Trump and tend to be on the right, and historically Valpo has been successful in enrolling students in that group.
usc4valpo - I would argue that Valpo is a very good academic university compared to its peers and when comparing the quality of teaching across all universities.
Free public education at the university level is a joke. Obama's former head of the council of economic advisors (one of my former professors at a different university) called it "economic soundness based on flying puppies that have winning lottery tickets attached to their collars". The point is that there are many non-conservatives who think that Bernie Sanders and others are nuts. I agree that it would be a disaster for schools like Valpo, but it will not ever happen.
I would restate your comment that there are many students (and perhaps more importantly their parents) at Valpo who support Trump OR otherwise tend to be on the right. Trump is a disaster in terms of leadership and this is likely to be recognized more by conservatives who value public education. Additionally, the median political beliefs at most private college campuses like Valparaiso tend to be moderate (perhaps a bit to the right) with a slight skew to the left if you are only looking at social positions. Moving a campus environment far to either side (examples: Hillsdale or Concordia, WI to the right, eastern liberal arts colleges like Ithaca to the left) is going to severely narrow who you can attract and that seems like a losing strategy for a school like Valparaiso.
Lastly, does President Heckler have a right to make political statements when speaking at Valpo events (and again, I have never read what he said at convocation)? He is representing the university and should be serving at the pleasure of the board (who, in turn, should be representing major stakeholders, who include donors, professors and students). Thus, the board should be giving him guidance and setting some level of boundaries. If they don't like positions that he takes when representing Valparaiso, they can dismiss him (in fact, they probably could dismiss him for positions taken when not representing Valpo).
I tend to agree with your statements to some extent. Valpo is a very good school regarding their teaching and dedication to education. However, in your opinion academically, what would be an excellent or outstanding university?
Thanks for your explanation on free tuition. There are many naive youth who listen to Sanders or Hillary really believing that free education is possible, and yes even at private universities. The ignorance of this blows me away.
As for Trump, yes he has lackings - but he won over 300 electorate votes and defeated a candidate many had deep apathy for. Sad as it sounds, was there truly a significantly better candidate?
Heckler needs to stay away from making political statements and focus on the Valparaiso University problems requiring resolution.
To define an excellent or outstanding university, you have to define your criteria to measure that. There are generally two primary pillars (teaching and research) and one secondary pillar (service) that define the quality of universities, but schools weight them differently. Valparaiso weights teaching much more heavily than research and they excel in the area that they prioritize (this does not mean that some faculty don't do good research too). From a totally subjective view, I would say that Valparaiso's excellence in teaching puts it on par (on that domain) with the Jesuit schools and Patriot League schools (this is totally my opinion and I am sure that there are other great teaching schools). Valparaiso does not really compete with the east coast schools, so I believe that Valparaiso is competing for students with schools like Butler, Marquette, Xavier, Creighton, Drake.
Schools that are excellent or outstanding in all of the pillars are probably fairly obvious: Stanford, Ivy League, Univ. of Chicago, Northwestern, etc. By the way, USC may be close to that level too - but I only know some researchers there (who are excellent) and don't know much about their teaching reputation.
I don't deny that Trump won (doing so is a useless folly that ignores the rules of elections). Hilary being an awful candidate does not make Trump a good one - that argument might work in political strategy, but judging the quality of Trump and the quality of Hilary are two independent judgements. I like P.J. O'Rourke's (a conservative humorist) assessment prior to the election: Donald Trump is bad in an incomprehensible way. My opinion from the 2016 Presidential Election is that John Kasich was the 'adult in the room' and that he would have been tremendously better than Trump or Clinton.
I agree that Heckler is better served focusing on solving the problems and advancing Valparaiso University.
Good points! When I question the wisdom of Heckler's overtly liberal political comments and openly expressed animosity towards Pres. Trump in statements made in his official capacity as university president, I do so not for ideological reasons. Instead, I am aware that 44% of Valparaiso students come from Indiana. The other top states that supply VU students are Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, Missouri, Michigan, and Iowa. Except for Illinois, Trump won all those states, some handily. In fact, Trump won 30 states. He took Indiana in a landslide by 20%, and he won almost every county, including Valparaiso's home county of Porter. Recent polls indicate almost all Trump voters still fully support him. It seems to me Heckler is needlessly alienating many families who include present and potential VU students, as well as a large number of local Valparaiso community members, which in a different sense is not good politics. Otherwise, Mark is usually an excellent speaker and representative of the university.
Quote from: usc4valpo on October 01, 2017, 10:07:36 AM
As for Trump, yes he has lackings - but he won over 300 electorate votes and defeated a candidate many had deep apathy for. Sad as it sounds, was there truly a significantly better candidate?
Heckler needs to stay away from making political statements and focus on the Valparaiso University problems requiring resolution.
valpopal: you make good points.
Let me pose this question from your statement. You said that most Trump supporters still support Trump. If I look at a poll from a conservative news source (Fox News), Trump has a 42% approval rate. If we are thinking about potential Valparaiso students and their parents, my guess is that this is a bit high since Trump draws more support from those without a college education - but let's go with 42%. OK, the same poll says his disapproval rate is 53%. Valpo wants them too, right? So there would seem to be three options: (1) prevent any discourse on political and social positions as it relates to the President, (2) intentionally adjust your strategy to target one side, (3) welcome people from all sides and state that we stand for open and respectful discourse. Which would you go with? I prefer option 3 and consider that to be inclusion.
Your 42% poll covers all Americans (like the so-called "popular vote"); my stats cover those states from which Valpo draws most of its students: Trump won 6 of 7 top states for Valpo students, including winning Indiana (which supplies 44% of VU students) by 20%.
Nevertheless, in answer to your question, I fully agree with you that #3 of your options is best. Like you, I want any university to allow a fair opportunity to have open and respectful discourse with inclusion from people on both sides of an issue. However, that would mean the administration, especially the university president, should avoid publicly advocating to the students or disparaging in official statements one political position or party.
When the university president puts his imprimatur on one side of a national political position or party, he unnecessarily tips the balance in many ways. Speakers who disagree with him are less likely to be invited to campus by departments or student organizations (especially since they depend upon university funds) or less likely to feel welcomed by the university. Free speech by students and faculty might be (consciously or subconsciously) stifled because they are reluctant to speak in opposition to the university president. If they do speak in opposition, they may be socially stigmatized. Outsiders—such as student families, potential students, and local community members—view the university president's political positions as representative of Valpo and feel their opposing views probably are not welcomed.
Quote from: vu84v2 on October 01, 2017, 01:02:33 PM
valpopal: you make good points.
Let me pose this question from your statement. You said that most Trump supporters still support Trump. If I look at a poll from a conservative news source (Fox News), Trump has a 42% approval rate. If we are thinking about potential Valparaiso students and their parents, my guess is that this is a bit high since Trump draws more support from those without a college education - but let's go with 42%. OK, the same poll says his disapproval rate is 53%. Valpo wants them too, right? So there would seem to be three options: (1) prevent any discourse on political and social positions as it relates to the President, (2) intentionally adjust your strategy to target one side, (3) welcome people from all sides and state that we stand for open and respectful discourse. Which would you go with? I prefer option 3 and consider that to be inclusion.
The idea of welcoming both (and more) points of view is crucial.
I hope students can honestly say that all views are equally respected by their faculty and their peers. Is that the experience of our students? It seems their President is making his thoughts known.
It would appear from news less than a year ago that St. Olaf has become openly hostile to conservative statements and students. My hope is that Valpo is neutral at worst. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/03/conservative-students-violently-threatened-st-olaf-college-supporting-trump/
More faithful to Valparaiso's founding mission would be to say, "We are founded to explore our Christian worldview of the world, but we pursue the truth wherever it might lead." Our motto is, "In thy light we see light. Try that again. "In THY light" Let's not be ashamed of that initial prism. We could even use the word Jesus on the website.
So we need to welcome and include Christians, including (of course) those who are evangelical, fundamentalist, etc. And we need to include conservatives. Otherwise, it would not be inclusion.
But don't we also need to include people that are mainline and liberal protestants? those that are Jewish? Mormons? Muslims? all minorities? Atheists? Liberals? Moderates? Again, it would not be inclusion without welcoming and respecting them too.
We need to stop demanding that our ideologies must win without exception, regardless of whether we are liberal, conservative or whatever. Instead, we need to respect everyone and their inherent right to have and live by their own beliefs, as long as they do not harm others. This is the environment that Valparaiso needs to strive for. Having a great Christian program does not harm someone that is Jewish, as long as there is not some type of required adherence. Having a gay student organization does not harm an evangelical Christian group. Etc., etc. I would recommend that Valparaiso focus on what they can do foster this environment.
Quote from: vu84v2 on October 01, 2017, 04:33:06 PM
So we need to welcome and include Christians, including (of course) those who are evangelical, fundamentalist, etc. And we need to include conservatives. Otherwise, it would not be inclusion.
But don't we also need to include people that are mainline and liberal protestants? those that are Jewish? Mormons? Muslims? all minorities? Atheists? Liberals? Moderates? Again, it would not be inclusion without welcoming and respecting them too.
We need to stop demanding that our ideologies must win without exception, regardless of whether we are liberal, conservative or whatever. Instead, we need to respect everyone and their inherent right to have and live by their own beliefs, as long as they do not harm others. This is the environment that Valparaiso needs to strive for. Having a great Christian program does not harm someone that is Jewish, as long as there is not some type of required adherence. Having a gay student organization does not harm an evangelical Christian group. Etc., etc. I would recommend that Valparaiso focus on what they can do foster this environment.
Well stated. However, that objective has been increasingly harder to achieve in the currently chaotic, divisive and insensitive environment that has developed around us. Inclusion and mutual respect have to work very hard to just to get to the discussion table these days.
Quote from: VULB#62 on October 01, 2017, 05:29:36 PM
Well stated. However, that objective has been increasingly harder to achieve in the currently chaotic, divisive and insensitive environment that has developed around us. Inclusion and mutual respect have to work very hard to just to get to the discussion table these days.
Isn't this chaotic, divisive and insensitive environment extremely attributable to our current president's tweets? Can our Valpo Trump supporters deny this? Is Trump not waging a direct war on inclusiveness? Those are questions not necessarily my statements.
Quote from: bbtds on October 01, 2017, 08:21:31 PM
Quote from: VULB#62 on October 01, 2017, 05:29:36 PM
Well stated. However, that objective has been increasingly harder to achieve in the currently chaotic, divisive and insensitive environment that has developed around us. Inclusion and mutual respect have to work very hard to just to get to the discussion table these days.
Isn't this chaotic, divisive and insensitive environment extremely attributable to our current president's tweets? Can our Valpo Trump supporters deny this? Is Trump not waging a direct war on inclusiveness? Those are questions not necessarily my statements.
I think i know what you are saying. At least i think i do. And what you are are saying points to our problem. In the past, one would rely on honor, integrity and staying above the chaos. Unfortunately, in the environment we face as citizens, those qualities are out the door. Everything goes. I am thinking Heckler reacted out of frustration with these circumstances and was trying to stem that tide in an attempt to reestablish the balance (or at least the dialog) we had before. And that played right into the chaos.
Yet, how does one stem any tide ( regardless of what you believe) unless you make strong statements.
The responses from this board have been outstanding. Thank you very much regarding this informative and IMO important conversation.
Non politically speaking, I truly think people in the US are lacking respect and friendliness to each other. I am not sure why we have to be so divisive and rude. We need inclusiveness of course. I also think we need to respect our disagreements and not be over sensitive and blow things out of proportion.
Regarding Heckler, I would be cautious on the political rhetoric. Focus on creating a great university and quit whining about Trump. Enrollment is down and this is a big problem requiring resolution.
Quote from: VULB#62 on October 01, 2017, 05:29:36 PM
Quote from: vu84v2 on October 01, 2017, 04:33:06 PM
So we need to welcome and include Christians, including (of course) those who are evangelical, fundamentalist, etc. And we need to include conservatives. Otherwise, it would not be inclusion.
But don't we also need to include people that are mainline and liberal protestants? those that are Jewish? Mormons? Muslims? all minorities? Atheists? Liberals? Moderates? Again, it would not be inclusion without welcoming and respecting them too.
We need to stop demanding that our ideologies must win without exception, regardless of whether we are liberal, conservative or whatever. Instead, we need to respect everyone and their inherent right to have and live by their own beliefs, as long as they do not harm others. This is the environment that Valparaiso needs to strive for. Having a great Christian program does not harm someone that is Jewish, as long as there is not some type of required adherence. Having a gay student organization does not harm an evangelical Christian group. Etc., etc. I would recommend that Valparaiso focus on what they can do foster this environment.
Well stated. However, that objective has been increasingly harder to achieve in the currently chaotic, divisive and insensitive environment that has developed around us. Inclusion and mutual respect have to work very hard to just to get to the discussion table these days.
That goes back to the idea of having the university run by a pastor instead of a career academic. We should welcome individuals from all perspectives. However, if they don't hear the gospel proclaimed regularly during their 4 years, Valpo has failed to achieve a primary goal of its mission and has ceded the ground that makes it unique. I don't think this is something that Dr Heckler can/will ever fully appreciate.
Over homecoming, an atheist student told me how disheartened he was to have to "deal with people talking about Christ on campus" and that, during his tour, he was told he wouldn't have to be exposed to religion if he didn't want. I told him I thought that was naive considering the prominence of the chapel on campus.
The Christian faith makes a claim to absolute truth. How that truth applies to our world is open for discussion, but denying/not teaching it, especially to the lost when we have the chance, is gross negligence and an insult to our ideals.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: Dave_2010 on October 02, 2017, 08:41:51 AMan atheist student told me how disheartened he was to have to "deal with people talking about Christ on campus" and that, during his tour, he was told he wouldn't have to be exposed to religion if he didn't want.
I guess they also forgot to tell him that during his four years, he would be required to take two Theology courses, plus Core/CC would have a lot of their curriculum full of theological thought, readings, and focus. He's also going to a school that follows the Lutheran Tradition of Christianity. Did he really expect Valpo to just drop a part of their background to appease a small minority of people?
Dave_2010, my guess is that you are a person that wants everyone to lead a meaningful life - but I strongly disagree with the sentiment of your post. Valparaiso should never claim that Christianity is an absolute truth and have that drive its mission and objectives, and subsequently the environment of the university. If an individual believes that is the absolute truth, of course that is not a problem. If they want to be in groups or programs with others who feel that way, no problem there either. But, regularly proclaiming the gospel constantly to every person at the university and pushing it on other people is wrong and not inclusive. Now you might say that conflicts with your evangelical beliefs, and perhaps it does. But there is a line between "welcoming" and "making good programs available" and pushing your faith on other people. If the atheist student sees a sign on campus or gets an email announcing an event, he or she can choose to ignore it. But there should never be an obligation or encouragement to follow anything religiously at Valparaiso.
As far as having to take theology classes, theology by definition is the study of religion. Requiring a class that teaches what the Christian faith means and how it varies across denominations is learning, not indoctrination. If it crosses over into what is "right and wrong", that is a big problem. Furthermore, theology classes study other religions too. One of the most valuable classes that I ever took at Valparaiso was History of Religions, as it covered Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. in an unbiased and highly educational manner. The student mentioned in the example does, in my opinion, need to accept that part of being at Valparaiso requires learning about religion.
Again, this is the nature of the inclusive environment that President Heckler should emphasize. If he does not take or promote the ideological side you want, relax - as long as all are respected and welcome.
At the risk of being long-winded, I wanted to make one more point. If someone at Valparaiso has different beliefs (Christian or non-Christian) than that of the denomination that Valpo adherers to, they need to relax, too. Being at a function that starts with a thoughtful prayer is likely to be quite a bit different than someone pushing their beliefs on you. Most any pastor and most students respect that they are not proclaiming absolute truth and that you must follow it. You can be respectful, listen and choose to not agree. Frankly, this is part of inclusion too.
This is a short post, but meant seriously.
The interaction Dave2010 had with the atheist prospective student presents two options for enrollment strategies:
1) Be forthcoming about the role of religious dialog at Valpo
2) Sell your soul (at least your founding mission) - The words of the first VU president William Dau and the great O.P. Kretzmann would be useful in this thread.
Quote from: crusadermoe on October 02, 2017, 11:37:02 AM
This is a short post, but meant seriously.
The interaction Dave2010 had with the atheist prospective student presents two options for enrollment strategies:
1) Be forthcoming about the role of religious dialog at Valpo
2) Sell your soul (at least your founding mission) - The words of the first VU president William Dau and the great O.P. Kretzmann would be useful in this thread.
That all depends on how you define the role of religious dialog.
I wish I took history of religions. Based on my schedule, I took Christian Ethics and that class was a Sominex special.
Quote from: usc4valpo on October 02, 2017, 03:16:48 PM
I wish I took history of religions. Based on my schedule, I took Christian Ethics and that class was a Sominex special.
Piggy-backing on your comment, USC, whether you call it "History of Religion" or "Comparative Religions," in today's world that is something colleges and universities need to have as a featured part of their core curriculum. On the other hand, in-depth doctrine courses on a particular religious view, for instance, Lutheranism, fits better in a Theology Department where students who are interested can elect to study those things. :twocents:
Quote from: vu84v2 on October 02, 2017, 10:58:11 AM
Dave_2010, my guess is that you are a person that wants everyone to lead a meaningful life - but I strongly disagree with the sentiment of your post. Valparaiso should never claim that Christianity is an absolute truth and have that drive its mission and objectives, and subsequently the environment of the university. If an individual believes that is the absolute truth, of course that is not a problem. If they want to be in groups or programs with others who feel that way, no problem there either. But, regularly proclaiming the gospel constantly to every person at the university and pushing it on other people is wrong and not inclusive. Now you might say that conflicts with your evangelical beliefs, and perhaps it does. But there is a line between "welcoming" and "making good programs available" and pushing your faith on other people. If the atheist student sees a sign on campus or gets an email announcing an event, he or she can choose to ignore it. But there should never be an obligation or encouragement to follow anything religiously at Valparaiso.
As far as having to take theology classes, theology by definition is the study of religion. Requiring a class that teaches what the Christian faith means and how it varies across denominations is learning, not indoctrination. If it crosses over into what is "right and wrong", that is a big problem. Furthermore, theology classes study other religions too. One of the most valuable classes that I ever took at Valparaiso was History of Religions, as it covered Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. in an unbiased and highly educational manner. The student mentioned in the example does, in my opinion, need to accept that part of being at Valparaiso requires learning about religion.
Again, this is the nature of the inclusive environment that President Heckler should emphasize. If he does not take or promote the ideological side you want, relax - as long as all are respected and welcome.
If you have yet read O. P. Kretzmann's inaugural address titled "
The Destiny of a Christian University in the Modern World" here is the link http://library.valpo.edu/archives/presidents/kretzmann.html (http://library.valpo.edu/archives/presidents/kretzmann.html)
Valparaiso is a Christian - Lutheran University, and with that knowledge all potential students should know all are respected and welcome. I think this is made apparent by our ranking in the Washington Monthly Valparaiso University Named Best in Nation for Contribution to Public Good (http://www.valpo.edu/news/2015/08/24/valparaiso-university-named-best-in-nation-for-contribution-to-public-good/) If we are not making these things known to prospective students then that could be a problem.
The problems and challenges facing VU right now go well beyond several intemperate and thoughtless remarks by President Heckler about the Trump administration.
The central problem, as I see it, is that VU is trying to please everyone, and in the process, winds up pleasing no one. Either we are a Christian institution first and foremost, or we are not. We can't focus on international students and "students of all faiths" and be committed to an identity as a Christian institution.
Check out the VU website. Not one mention of Jesus Christ and the truth of the gospel message. Instead there are a bunch of catch all phrases like "Lutheran Heritage" and "Lutheran Tradition" and the "Search for Truth." Meaningless.
Other area schools have embraced their Christian foundation. Wheaton, Taylor and Calvin come to mind. All these places are doing quite well.
Enrollment is down for the last two years. This year it is down by a lot. No new buildings have been started in the last 2 1/2 years. The current fundraising campaign is sluggish. And the Law School, I predict, will close at the end of the academic year, bringing down a cascade of unfavorable publicity which will be a punch to the gut for the admissions folks. Where was the current administration during the last several years, when the Law School was bringing in many students who clearly were going to have difficulty passing the bar exam?
The undergrad admission policy is to me equally baffling -- we have focused our efforts over the last several years in urban areas rather than the Chicago/Milwaukee/St. Louis suburbs which up until recently were our bread and butter. The results speak for themselves and this trend, I predict, will be hard to reverse the longer this strategy is in place.
I love VU but we have issues right now that need to be addressed -- and fast.
Paul
Valpo definitely has important issues that need to be sorted out with the law school and student retention. However, are the schools that expressly appeal to conservative Christians really doing that much better than Valpo? The numbers are below. Wheaton certainly looks to be on a different level, but Taylor and Calvin don't look demonstrably different in their profiles to me. And if you start to look at other conservative Christian schools in the area (North Park, Bethel, Huntington, Concordia River Forest) you will see more profiles that look like Taylor's (or worse) and none that are as impressive as Wheaton's.
School | Wheaton | Calvin | Valpo | Taylor |
Category | Nat Lib Arts | Reg. Coll. | Reg. Univ. | Reg. Coll. |
Rank | 63 | 1 | 4 | 2 |
UG Enroll. | 2,456 | 3,807 | 3,294 | 2,131 |
Acceptance Rate | 79% | 75% | 83% | 80% |
4yr Grad Rate | 82% | 62% | 54% | 66% |
Endow. (millions) | 388.0 | 129.1 | 204.7 | 76.7 |
Our 4 year grad rate is terrible. It reveals the weaknesses in our current admissions policies and is a main reason why we are #4 in the Midwest instead of #2 or higher.
Paul
While I would always agree that universities should focus on improving their graduation rate, you need to be careful in making comparisons between Valparaiso and schools like Wheaton, Calvin, and Taylor. Valparaiso has programs in nursing, engineering, business, and advanced sciences and all of them are accredited at the highest level (which is highly related to difficulty). Wheaton has a business program accredited by a lower body and has a liberal art engineering program (I don't even know what that is, but it is not accredited by ABET and would not be recognized by most companies). Taylor has nursing (I don't know about accreditation in that field) and business, but they are not accredited by the top accreditation body (AACSB). In fact, I have never even heard of the business accreditation bodies for Wheaton and Taylor. Calvin has engineering and it is accredited by the same body as Valpo (ABET).
My point is that Valparaiso has a much greater percentage of students studying fields that have much higher attrition. I don't think that you want to de-emphasize these fields and, in fact, I would suggest Valparaiso needs to continue to increase its emphasis in these fields. Students (and their parents) are going to incur a lot of cost at a private university and you need to really sell how a degree will yield a high paying job/career. In fact, return on investment (demanding that they can get a job that is in a high paying career) is the greatest trend that Valparaiso needs to address.
A more valid comparison might be Marquette, Butler and Dayton and looking at four and six year rates.
Valparaiso 4 year graduation rate: 54%. 6 year graduation rate: 67%
Marquette: 4 year graduation rate: 60%, 6 year graduation rate: 80%
Butler: 4 year graduation rate: 53%, 6 year graduation rate: 76%
Dayton: 4 year graduation rate: 62%, 6 year graduation rate: 77%
So Valpo needs to improve, but it needs to do so in relationship to its peers and focus on its professional disciplines. Enrollment is not down in the professional disciplines. Engineering and Nursing are up quite a bit (Nursing significantly), while Business is flat. Undergraduate Arts and Sciences is down quite a bit in the last few years, but Arts and Sciences is way down at the graduate level (over 50% of the drop in university enrollment from 2016 to 2017 is attributable to the graduate arts and science programs). It probably is not as simple as generalizing all Arts and Sciences fields, so you need to look at each of the programs and prune the ones in which there is little interest and grow the ones where there is interest.
As far as the difference between welcoming, including and respecting all or moving towards a heavy Christian emphasis, my guess is that we'll never agree. People like me want all ideologies that do not harm others to be welcome and respected and it seems others want an environment more like Wheaton where you are required to adhere to their specific interpretation of Christianity or accept that there is some absolute Truth (and i would assume students would be told to go elsewhere if they don't like that). I would ask, however, what you would say to the many people who are like me if you were to somehow win the ideological battle. Please go take your money, time and interest elsewhere since you don't agree with us?
Thank you, FW Alum, for the link to Kretzmann's inaugural address!
I read it too quickly, but I was struck by the 1940 similarity in its tone to what Churchill said about dark and light and the enduring quality of truth. He makes you want to stand up and follow him.
It is tempting to pull out bits of his eloquence and package them into twitters and posts that benefit my opinions. But that devolves quickly into our reflexive and partisan behavior. We are better served to just listen or read a soaring address that stands confident in the value of a Christian university.
Quote from: vu84v2 on September 30, 2017, 12:28:45 AM
I'll admit that I have not seen an actual transcript of Mark Heckler's speech, but (based on the previous comments in this thread) are his comments any different from these words delivered today as part of a powerful speech by the leader of another university? (though Mark Heckler was likely not as direct)
If you can't treat someone with dignity and respect, then you need to get out. If you can't treat someone from another gender, whether that's a man or a woman, with dignity and respect, then you need to get out. If you demean someone in any way, then you need to get out. And if you can't treat someone from another race, or different color skin, with dignity and respect, then you need to get out.
The appropriate response for horrible language and horrible ideas — is a better idea.
We draw people from all races and from all walks of life, all parts of the country, all genders and upbringings. The power of that diversity comes together and makes us that much more powerful. That's a much better idea than small thinking and horrible ideas.
Those words were delivered today by Lt. General Jay Silveria, Leader of the United States Air Force Academy. Now think about that before you go off and criticize someone for stressing the importance of inclusion in a university.
Oh, and one other thing: General Silveria displayed more leadership in that speech than Donald Trump has during his entire presidency.
[/b]
Couldn't agree more and I, regrettably, voted for Trump (finding very little choice, not by enthusiastic support).. Mark Heckler has done a remarkably good job. Valpo is in a much better place as we hired a professional not a clergyman learning on the job. He also is a strong Christian and is not afraid to make that known in his speeches and Valpo promotional videos.
OP was an inspirational man, no doubt. Yet he left Valpo with virtually zero endowment and the need to scramble facing a declining base of students from traditional sources.
I would not criticize Wheaton College - their admission standards are significantly better than Valpo and have graduated top 500 CEOs. they are doing something right.
On the other I agree that comparing Valpo to Wheaton is an apples to orange comparison.
Quote from: usc4valpo on October 03, 2017, 09:52:28 PM
I would not criticize Wheaton College - their admission standards are significantly better than Valpo and have graduated top 500 CEOs. they are doing something right.
On the other I agree that comparing Valpo to Wheaton is an apples to orange comparison.
Here's a nice interactive tool that I use for one-on-one comparisons between my alma maters and other universities. It has a pretty comprehensive scoring and grading mechanism.
I plugged in Valpo and Butler just out of curiosity. I think you'll find the results pretty interesting:
https://www.collegefactual.com/tools/college-combat/#butler-university~valparaiso-university
Enjoy.
Quote from: usc4valpo on October 03, 2017, 09:52:28 PM
I would not criticize Wheaton College - their admission standards are significantly better than Valpo and have graduated top 500 CEOs. they are doing something right.
On the other I agree that comparing Valpo to Wheaton is an apples to orange comparison.
And Valpo hasn't?? You're kidding right? :crazy:
https://www.valpo.edu/academics/outcomes/distinguished-alumni/
The list is a little outdated. For one, you can add Bob Hansen, retired President and CEO of Dow Corning to the list. Dow Corning has 12,000 employees and does over $6 Billion is revenues.
Quote from: vu72 on October 04, 2017, 06:19:07 AM
Quote from: usc4valpo on October 03, 2017, 09:52:28 PM
I would not criticize Wheaton College - their admission standards are significantly better than Valpo and have graduated top 500 CEOs. they are doing something right.
On the other I agree that comparing Valpo to Wheaton is an apples to orange comparison.
And Valpo hasn't?? You're kidding right? :crazy:
https://www.valpo.edu/academics/outcomes/distinguished-alumni/
Another factor that we have not talked about that drives a university to be successful is networking (between alums and between students and alums). This likely has an impact on post-graduate earnings and career advancement. From a purely subjective viewpoint, my guess is that Wheaton excels at this and that this is another area where Valparaiso needs improvement.
Quote from: 78crusader on October 02, 2017, 05:54:37 PM
The problems and challenges facing VU right now go well beyond several intemperate and thoughtless remarks by President Heckler about the Trump administration.
The central problem, as I see it, is that VU is trying to please everyone, and in the process, winds up pleasing no one. Either we are a Christian institution first and foremost, or we are not. We can't focus on international students and "students of all faiths" and be committed to an identity as a Christian institution.
Check out the VU website. Not one mention of Jesus Christ and the truth of the gospel message. Instead there are a bunch of catch all phrases like "Lutheran Heritage" and "Lutheran Tradition" and the "Search for Truth." Meaningless.
Other area schools have embraced their Christian foundation. Wheaton, Taylor and Calvin come to mind. All these places are doing quite well.
Enrollment is down for the last two years. This year it is down by a lot. No new buildings have been started in the last 2 1/2 years. The current fundraising campaign is sluggish. And the Law School, I predict, will close at the end of the academic year, bringing down a cascade of unfavorable publicity which will be a punch to the gut for the admissions folks. Where was the current administration during the last several years, when the Law School was bringing in many students who clearly were going to have difficulty passing the bar exam?
The undergrad admission policy is to me equally baffling -- we have focused our efforts over the last several years in urban areas rather than the Chicago/Milwaukee/St. Louis suburbs which up until recently were our bread and butter. The results speak for themselves and this trend, I predict, will be hard to reverse the longer this strategy is in place.
I love VU but we have issues right now that need to be addressed -- and fast.
Paul
Not sure about this. Why would the law school close? The VU site says that the school has an enrollment of over 400 scattered over J.D. and LL.M. degree seeking candidates. Law schools don't simply close because its bar passage rates are awful or because job prospects are abysmal in an oversaturated market. If you're going to tell me that its because of an anticipated drop in enrollment because of media, well okay, but the entering 2016 1L class had 104 students, which is on par with other smaller law schools. Why do you feel closure is imminent?
I think a lot of concern about the Law School stems from the size of the 2017 1L class.
https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/44565-valparaiso-law-incoming-class-significantly-smaller-but-posts-higher-lsats-and-gpas (https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/44565-valparaiso-law-incoming-class-significantly-smaller-but-posts-higher-lsats-and-gpas)
Quote from: wh on October 04, 2017, 04:13:34 AM
Quote from: usc4valpo on October 03, 2017, 09:52:28 PM
I would not criticize Wheaton College - their admission standards are significantly better than Valpo and have graduated top 500 CEOs. they are doing something right.
On the other I agree that comparing Valpo to Wheaton is an apples to orange comparison.
Here's a nice interactive tool that I use for one-on-one comparisons between my alma maters and other universities. It has a pretty comprehensive scoring and grading mechanism.
I plugged in Valpo and Butler just out of curiosity. I think you'll find the results pretty interesting:
https://www.collegefactual.com/tools/college-combat/#butler-university~valparaiso-university
Enjoy.
wh - thanks for sharing! This site is outstanding.
Valpo beat Butler 3,681 to 3,302. Yay!
Quote from: ml2 on October 04, 2017, 07:29:32 AM
I think a lot of concern about the Law School stems from the size of the 2017 1L class.
https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/44565-valparaiso-law-incoming-class-significantly-smaller-but-posts-higher-lsats-and-gpas (https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/44565-valparaiso-law-incoming-class-significantly-smaller-but-posts-higher-lsats-and-gpas)
Interesting. I can see the pause for alarm by reading this article. However, I'm still not sold that this indicates that closure is imminent. Are all applications (LL.M., 1L incoming and 2L transfer) down 73%? While 1L enrollment is down, the reduction in class size could be by design—that is, the thought being that it might be impossible for Valpo to increase its incoming 1L LSAT and GPA averages to more "respectable" levels unless it becomes much more selective. This selectivity, in turn, may improve first timer bar passage rates, which may, in turn, affect reputation, which may, in turn, increase rankings, which may, in turn, increase the potential for job prospects in an overly saturated market, which may, in turn, increase enrollment numbers in the future. It's far too early to tell what might happen to the law school from one incoming class, IMO.
Besides, IMO, Valpo's 1L transfer rate is probably more important in this analysis rather than its 1L acceptance rate. If you are selective as a result of being rankings reliant, and your best and brightest in a selective class leave anyway, it does you no good to be selective in the first place.
Quote from: crusaderjoe on October 04, 2017, 08:12:27 AM
Quote from: ml2 on October 04, 2017, 07:29:32 AM
I think a lot of concern about the Law School stems from the size of the 2017 1L class.
https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/44565-valparaiso-law-incoming-class-significantly-smaller-but-posts-higher-lsats-and-gpas (https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/44565-valparaiso-law-incoming-class-significantly-smaller-but-posts-higher-lsats-and-gpas)
Interesting. I can see the pause for alarm by reading this article. However, I'm still not sold that this indicates that closure is imminent. Are all applications (LL.M., 1L incoming and 2L transfer) down 73%? While 1L enrollment is down, the reduction in class size could be by design—that is, the thought being that it might be impossible for Valpo to increase its incoming 1L LSAT and GPA averages to more "respectable" levels unless it becomes much more selective. This selectivity, in turn, may improve first timer bar passage rates, which may, in turn, affect reputation, which may, in turn, increase rankings, which may, in turn, increase the potential for job prospects in an overly saturated market, which may, in turn, increase enrollment numbers in the future. It's far too early to tell what might happen to the law school from one incoming class, IMO.
Besides, IMO, Valpo's 1L transfer rate is probably more important in this analysis rather than its 1L acceptance rate. If you are selective as a result of being rankings reliant, and your best and brightest in a selective class leave anyway, it does you no good to be selective in the first place.
I visited with one of the deans of one of Valpo's colleges who told me about the law school problems. This year's first year class (29) is less than half of what is needed to sustain the school (75) The faculty has been cut to its minimum size. The problem is exacerbated by the requirement for Valpo to disclose to all applicants that the school has been sencured. Not great for recruitment. One more year at this enrollment level and things could colapse very quickly.
The college comparison thing is fun. Not only did we beat Butler but also all other members of The Valley except Drake (lost by 8 points) and Bradley. The biggest win was against Indiana State.
Hi Joe. Just Moe here saying hi again. Been a long time.
I agree that predicting closure of the law school does seem a bit alarmist and unhelpful. But the facts are pretty daunting. Ironically, the Law School was a prize asset for Valpo with surging enrollment in the early 2000s. They even brought G.H.W. Bush to Chicago to speak at their 125th at the Field Museum.
Let's hope that potential shoe doesn't drop in the middle of our best efforts to correct the UG enrollment losses in this year and next.
The decreasing undergraduate enrollment concerns me and I wonder why this is happening. Could it be the $50K tuition? Are other schools at Valpo's level experiencing the same problems? Maybe Heckler blames it on Trump.
There are 3 places of enrollment so I think it's important to identify what we are concerned about.
Undergrad enrollment is remaining relatively steady although they want to see it increase
Graduate enrollment took a big drop over the last two years. Partially due to international students and partially due to an improved economy and Valpo still having a new player on the Graduate school stage in a major way so they don't have the admissions networks etc set up to deal with some rougher years.
The third is the law school which is down but this has been an issue related to the bubble bursting regarding law schools and the lack of jobs for lawyers and Valpo, once law schools stopped being regional couldn't compete with the schools located at both Notre Dame and in the Chicago Market. The law school is working to turn things around and may be able to do so but it could take time and it's unsure if there is really a market for law schools in the way there used to be.
the Graduate school definitely needs to reassess their recruitment tools.
As far as undergrad the biggest issue that Valpo will be facing is that our surrounding area of the midwest where we get a majority of our undergraduates are seeing decreases in high school graduates and population. They will need to figure out how to compete with a shrinking pool and expand more into other states. Also more students are choosing to commute which are harder students to retain in general at a residential campus. The Northeast is seeing a similar issue.
The Midwest is probably over saturated in College Campuses as well. Combine this with the University looking to recruit a higher level of student and there are lots of challenges but overall the undergraduate seems to be doing well. Even if some of our data is a bit lower than our peers it's not significantly lower.
It's easy to ascribe things like enrollment to our own personal concerns but generally speaking this stuff is much bigger than what we think of as mattering and much more based on larger trends that can be out of our control
Didn't Gonzaga have an enrollment/budget problem? I wonder how their problem went away?
The Law School enrollment drop from 208 in 2013 to 29 in 2017 is concerning. While the indianalawyer.com article focused on the incoming class of 2017 for Indiana Law Schools, I wonder how we compare with law schools in the Chicago/Milwaukee/IL area. I'm sure many previous Valpo Law Grads went straight to the IL bar exam.
Valpo ranked #178 of 208 Law Schools nationally.
http://law-schools.startclass.com
As the father of a Valpo Law School graduate, I'm disappointed in the ranking. That said, I'm anything but disappointed in the school. It is a real blessing to have a Law School in our local community, where my son could attend while providing for a family. He now has a career that he loves and for which he makes an attractive 6-figure income. He is also heavily networked in the business and law community in NWI, of which there are many fellow VU Law School grads and great people. Valparaiso University Law School provides a great service and helps to enhance our quality of life in NWI in so many ways. It will be a very sad day if they ever have to close the doors.
Quote from: crusadermoe on October 04, 2017, 08:59:53 AM
Hi Joe. Just Moe here saying hi again. Been a long time.
Hey! Right back at you. All we need around these parts is a "Larry", "Shemp" and a "Curly" to saunter in here and we're all set!
If VU law is ultimately hurting for students, what it should do IMO is allow entry for any Valpo undergraduate who applies so long as that student satisfies mandatory minimums either by GPA or by LSAT, but not necessarily by both. So for example, lets say an entering 1L class has an average LSAT average of 151 and an average GPA of 3.25. A VU undergrad applies to VU law with an LSAT of 147 and a GPA of 3.25. Instead of an outright rejection, VU should admit that student conditionally or probationary because the GPA has satisfied a minimum, and then require stringent minimums to remain in the program. Maybe the law school does this already? I have no idea.
I did not attend VU law but I am a lawyer. We are going back some years here, but in the end, I ended up graduating from a school that is ranked higher than VU (based on wh's link), but had I known that I would have been accepted into VU law as an undergrad, I may have just stayed there for another three years regardless of any "ranking."
I haven't seen anything like that with the law school but I know they are looking into streamlining graduate programs for our undergraduate students. So they can start taking courses their senior year and then only have one year left after graduation. It's a nice perk for our students in general. I do think a few more Ph.D Programs could help and increased on-line courses to lure in people from the community even more. I also am interested to see how our new PA program works in the long run as that is a 5 year combined program and, much as our Nursing Programs direct admit combined with high regard is a big draw for students, that could be as well.
I think overall Valpo's undergrad is on the right track and that the graduate program can right itself but was earlier riding high on a peak in graduate enrollment and increased international enrollment. Now they have to reorganize but hopefully can find strategies that work well.
I think that crusaderjoe's recommendation of some level of preferred treatment for undergraduate students to get into graduate programs (law or otherwise) is a good idea (and I also have no idea of whether that is done). I think that the idea suggested by crusader05 that credits and coursework from your senior year can be applied to graduate programs at Valpo also creates a potential advantage that other schools may not be able to meet. This, however, needs to be carefully structured versus accreditation standards for that college/department, but I am sure the appropriate people at Valpo would do so.
Direct entry health sciences programs, while fairly common, give you an advantage towards getting the better students. It seems like a majority of universities have direct entry for the better students, so this might be maintaining parity versus an advantage. Adding PA is a great move.
PhD programs can be costly and difficult to do well. PhD programs, by definition, require the students to learn the research in their area and learn how to do research. You need faculty that are active in research, which is more of a challenge at a university like Valpo that emphasizes teaching (faculty do research at Valpo, but generally not anywhere close to the level of research at a major state school). Additionally, PhD classes are very very small (often less than 5 students), because students are learning a huge amount of research in a very narrow area. Because the classes are small, you need more faculty to cover either the PhD classes or the classes that faculty teaching PhD students do not have bandwidth to teach. Lastly, most PhD students are paid to be PhD students...the university covers tuition and provides a stipend for living expenses ($15K to $35K per year depending on the field and location). Yes, they do teach some (1-2 classes per year, typically), but overall PhD programs are not revenue and margin producers.
I'm impressed with your knowledge of higher education revenues. The PhD "loss leader" reality makes a lot of sense.
I think we all kind of know that the dream financial scenario for a university is to keep costs fixed and max out revenue by attracting kids who are in low-expense fields like languages and sociology "arts". And ideally you bring in the right mix of majors that squares with expenses already baked into fixed faculty costs.
Whether or not those students benefit in their lives from those majors is another question. But that would be the best financial outcome on the university side.
I don't think you can organize an enrollment strategy around the idea of a tuition-driven bottom line AND expect to attract high-performing students. High-performing students expect to pay a reduced price in return for their attendance. What's more, a tuition-driven bottom line forces decision makers to think shortsighted. That's why the new endowment campaign is so important: If you are less reliant on tuition margins/returns, you can afford to lessen the sticker price for everyone and also attract more star students. If you send out high-powered graduates and a general population of happy customers, they are much more likely to become donors down the line. An army of 50,000 happy graduates can do much more financial (helpful) damage than 4,000 undergrads, especially if a few dozen of those graduates are able to contribute checks with two commas. I think Valpo's right on target by focusing on a robust undergraduate offerings while offering a few graduate degrees that are easy offerings that use resources we already have. The law school helps Valpo in a narrower sense (seems that a lot of students come from the region and a lot of graduates stay), and I don't think it's going to be a revenue enhancer anytime soon (see first sentence). The national trend for law school supersaturation seems to be a longer-term headwind than the undergrad's equivalent problem. I think the law school's place is a small, regionally focused school that offers flexible classes for second-career attorneys or for new undergrads with a desire to pursue service-oriented legal work. Undergrad can cast a much broader net.
endnotes:
Last year, valpo's revenue from tuition was $76 million. Endowment was $10 million. That endowment amount should at least double if the current campaign is successful.
good valpo revenue info here: https://pp-990-audits.s3.amazonaws.com/4549220161.pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAI7C6X5GT42DHYZIA%2F20171005%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20171005T215822Z&X-Amz-Expires=1800&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=52207b162b083550f8d2d8a9af0dd1ee5cf10c0ed643bf0f140b2071ca71b1fb