Messages

The discussion here about VU's morals, ethics, and situation has been a fascinating read. As a former graduate student at IU, I figured I would jump in with my admitted jaded opinion. Other than the enrollment problem, VU is hardly unique with regards to the other issues in higher education such as faculty treatment and pay, the gutting of programs, and the diminishing the value of a degree. Higher ed as a whole is rotting from the inside out for a variety of reasons. The things that I saw at IU are very similar to a lot of the issues people have discussed in this thread, so I've described my experience below to put some things in perspective about how this is not just a valpo problem but a higher ed problem at its core.

I got to IU after the graduate student strikes. The atmosphere was one of chaos due to the university scrambling to defeat a graduate student unionization effort and to cope with a graduate student shortage because of the strike and lack of domestic students attending graduate school. Unlike at valpo, graduate students do the majority of the teaching at big 10's like IU, so dealing with the grad student shortage and threat of strikes was quite a dire issue for the core function of the university. Instead of addressing the root causes of the problem (an overreliance on graduate students to teach undergraduates, awful treatment and pay), the university decided to recruit undergraduates to teach the other undergraduates in exchange for tuition remission! So now, students take out loans and pay ever increasing amounts of money to sit in 500 person lecture halls, and then be taught recitation and have their work graded by other people in the exact same boat. Speaking of the 500 person lecture hall classes, you would think that at least the lecture component would be taught by a professor, right? WRONG! These classes are taught in many cases by lecturers, since the university can pay them less and more easily replace them. There has been a concerted push to reduce the amount of professors and replace them with lecturers for the above reasons.

Okay, so if you are a student at one of these large institutions and get past the first two years of introductory classes with the lecturers and undergraduates/graduates teaching you, at least you will finally receive a great education from well renowned experts in your field of study, right? Maybe. Because universities like IU are R1 institutions, the faculty members are more focused on their research than they are on teaching students. Bad behavior among tenured faculty at these R1 schools goes completely unpunished. I had a professor in one of my graduate chemistry courses show up to teach class completely plastered, unable to speak coherently or stand up straight. He would also go missing for weeks at a time, and wouldn't show up to work at all. Other faculty members had to step up and teach both the graduate class I was in, and the class of undergraduates he was teaching. The students in his research lab were left without a mentor, and several of his students dropped out of grad school. Nothing was done about it, and when grad students complained about it, they were just told to deal with it. He is still a faculty member at IU. The combination of removing faculty for lecturers, continuing to retain bad faculty, undergraduates holding the office hours and recitation, and the overall attitude at the university mean that students are getting a worse education for the money they put forth. I left the Ph.D program at IU this May after one year, and it was one of the best decisions I have ever made in my life.

This same thing is happening at a lot of the schools across the country, and I think that Valpo has a problem with trying to emulate what these other schools are doing because they believe it will help them stay competitive in the tough higher ed market. The administration is in danger of losing sight about what makes valpo special: The small size, classes taught by professors who want to be there and want to teach, and the positive connection with faculty. While I am a Padilla fan and do think that some of the faculty complaints, especially about the art sale, are overblown, I think that the VU administration has adopted an arrogant and dismissive attitude toward the faculty that is uncalled for. Yes, a lot of other schools have that attitude, but it doesn't make it right and makes the existing problems so much worse. Its the same idea with the solutions the consultants have previously put forth and will likely give valpo. They will point to other schools that are doing "better" since they cut faculty pay, eliminated majors, increased their reliance on lecturers, increased teaching loads, and increased class sizes. But is the grass really greener at those schools, and is that what success should look like? I think not, and I think adapting all those measures, especially at a small school with enrollment problems like valpo, will do a lot of damage. The solution Valpo needs is quite obvious and simple: Heavily emphasize recruitment to get bodies in the seats. All of the less obvious and hard decisions such as eliminating some majors have already been done, so I really don't know why we are paying consultants when the only other answers they will give are awful for the reasons above. This post ended up a lot longer than I thought it would be, but I feel that it all needs to be said and I hope I didn't bore you all with a wall of text.
Valpo22, I wish you the best of luck at your new institution, and I hope wherever it is you are ending up at will respect you and treat you well.

usc4Valpo, I definitely think soft censorship methods like pulling people's job offers is a dangerous road to tread. "Holding people responsible" for their speech is one of the main arguments that the left used to try to censor the speech on college campuses and in general, especially during COVID.


I fully agree with the recruitment discussion, and I think that people's college reasoning does vary greatly from person to person even if some of the general criteria remains the same. Even if the campus culture and speech doesn't actively bring people in, the lack of negative media attention to the University over the issue won't turn people away. I do think that prospective students (or at least some) care about those sorts of things, even if it is lower on the list then say affordability, nice dorms, location, and the social scene. Maybe there is a low effort low time way to communicate Valpo's values and diversity of ideas to prospectives, perhaps just a sentence or two in the recruitment propaganda they show/hand to students during their visits. If they bring in 1000 prospectives and 1% are swayed by this for one reason or another, thats 10 students added to the enrollment for very little work.

Recently, there has been a huge discussion in the media about free speech and censorship on college campuses, brought to the forefront by the current fighting between Palestine and Israel. Schools such as Harvard and UPenn (and many others as a quick google search will reveal) have been embroiled over controversies regarding statements over the conflict and whether or not the university should pick a side or censor student opinions, especially when wealthy donors threaten to pull their donations if they do not get their way. Professors have been accused of pushing their agenda onto others in the classroom (for both sides of the conflict). Additionally, people are calling for administrations and employers to punish students for statements that they have signed/made.

I feel that free speech and a well rounded college environment in terms of beliefs is something that Valpo has done well. While there are always extremists anywhere you go (like the student body president trying to circulate a petition to remove someone from VU), Valpo seemed to blend a variety of groups and people with different opinions and religious beliefs very nicely, and has dodged some of the bullets that other schools have been taking the past few years. Additionally, from what I saw as a student there, the administration was pretty hands-off in imposing their beliefs on others both inside and outside the classroom (a lighter example, the University is not censoring the torch even though the views about the art sale are intensely critical to the administration. From my graduate school experience, there are definitely schools/programs that wouldn't hesitate to pull something like that).

I believe that the University needs to market this openness in terms of ideas in some way. As I have stated before on other posts, Valpo has a reputation for being a religious school, and some people are still put off by this as they think that they will not be welcome if they are not Lutheran/very religious. I am aware that free speech/campus culture is an intrinsically difficult thing to market, but it may be worth trying if it reels in some additional amount of students a year for the enrollment numbers. It is also worth diving into, as there is always a chance that Valpo ends up in the media crosshairs over this issue the same way some of these bigger schools have. Just wanted to get a discussion started on this, as free speech, academic freedom seem to be an urgent and pressing issue for colleges and academia right now.

VU22, that is an interesting point. I also think one of the big defining factors for Valpo, besides its location in northwest Indiana, is its size. There are really 4 sizes of universities: Universities that are tiny liberal arts colleges, universities that are Valpo sized, mid size private universities like Notre dame, and large state schools. I think the small school size yet decently ranked programs is what attracts midwestern students to Valpo vs. other midwest schools such as Notre dame, Purdue, U of I, IU, ect.

From my experience, most students who want to stay in the Midwest just blanket apply to some or all Illinois and Indiana schools, so there has to be some sort of Valpo identity at play (private Christian school, size, location, admission, ect) for each student who is going to Valpo. I am surprised that the university does not publish statistics for main reasons for attending the school, it would go a long way to improving recruiting and would allow certain demographics to be targeted with a personalized recruitment campaign rather than a one-size-fits-all strategy

Good point wh about the legal fees. I have no clue why the art sale is being fought tooth and nail. It's a tough decision, sure, but there is no alternative and there was no point in contesting once the decision was made. All this dragging of the feet is only going to make it truly pointless, win or lose, and will harm valpo in the long run

Wow, really, my 2 sisters, ex-wife, 2 female college friends, internet female friend from fan message board, 2 internet female friends from European soccer message board and one of my nieces are all big sport fans.

Historyman, you do not know how good you have it, I wish the women in my life would be sports fans like that. But Alas.

VU22 I fully agree with what you said. Doing a job is hard and requires effort, and some people today do not want to (nor are forced) to put the effort in to do something with their life. I think that it is the core of the issue. If it wasn't video games it would be something else instead of doing manual work (painful and exhausting) or going to school (requires work, no guarantee of success) even if one or the other are necessary to live a good life

David, I think another factor is that there is no guarantee of success in college or with a college degree, so young men today are afraid to try, not realizing that the line of thinking is flawed as anything is better than doing nothing in your parents basement. It is very hard to wake up everyday and put a lot of time and effort into something knowing that there is a chance it is all for naught, which is what I think many of the young boys today believe. There needs to be a lot more effort spent in high schools on teaching young men the value of working hard and at least trying, and on the value of a college degree (just having a bachelors opens up many doors). From my experience as a male, there was a lot of emphasis on getting women into higher education (particularly stem) but less focus on the male students and their potential options, nor was there a lot of encouragement provided to said students. College is scary when you are still in high school, and a little encouragement and outwardly expressed belief in the male pupils of today would go a long way in solving this issue

WH- I agree with your points about the jobs women choose to go into, but it definitely could be expressed in a less condescending way. It is true that women, despite the efforts in getting them into STEM, strongly prefer other career paths. One is hard pressed to find a male in social work and a woman in engineering, and biological factors are 100% at play in this. Men and women are  very different and desire different things. For example, while there are female sports fans out there, there aren't any women that I know that enjoy watching and following sports, one of the favorite pasttimes for me and my friends. This of course presents interesting issues for universities of today, as the most profitable STEM industries, and thus the most profitable degrees that make college worth it, tend to be male dominated fields that most women are not interested in, yet less men are interested in college. The fields that are getting cut and may not be worth the cost to major in tend to be women-dominated, yet women are the ones who are more likely to go to college, which is a bit of a catch-22. However WH, I will say that I think your point was written with underlying contempt. I agree with most of the things you post on this board, but they can definitely be written without the closeness and hostility that hinders debate. You have expressed your concerns with how the far left is stifling debate in higher education and is expressing intense hate toward individuals who do not agree with them, which I (and most people) would agree that this is a big problem in higher education at certain schools. Thus, to quote Star Wars, I would caution you not to become the very thing that you swore to destroy

3000 full-time students seems like a reasonable goal. Near the end of my tenure there the number was closer to 2500 due to the small COVID classes. Reaching that goal would mean that enrollment has bounced back and slightly increased

That's pretty horrible. No reason why you can't get an additional 100 students some way or the other

Make sure you eat at the uptown cafe (and grab coffee) if you're visiting. Best restaurant ever, and was the main college hangout when I was there 

Glad to hear the renovations are starting! Loved my time in Brandt, but man was it bad without AC during the fall and spring. Additionally, the heat and humidity lead to the thermal paste in my brand new at the time PC melting and destroying the motherboard...

Valpopal, I'm not sure that I agree with the argument put forth above. If there isn't such a commotion over the art sale, perhaps construction does begin this spring instead of in 2024. It feels slightly like an unfair comparison to make, as people who have opposed the art sale have dragged their feet, slowing down the process for the university, and then pointed their finger at the university for the process being slow.... A more just criticism as you pointed out might be on Padilla for at least attempting some sort of alternative methods or being transparent and putting out statements like "we need x amount of money by this deadline or we will have to resort to downsizing the brauer collection for those funding as we need it immediately." However, I would counter that by saying that we need new dorms ASAP and funding takes time, and there are other projects that valpo needs like a new nursing building that donors will need to fund. At the end of the day, there just isn't enough donor funds for everything the university desperately needs tomorrow, hence the art sale. 

If we're looking for people/parts of the organization who should shoulder the blame for where valpo is now, I think we can look no further than the former  people in charge of recruiting (falls on heckler too of course being tje president). Under their direction, enrollment not only didn't increase each year but even decreased despite other big schools seeing an increase (even during COVID and with the beginning demographic crunch). It was a massive failure on all levels. They did not adequately communicate to high schoolers the reasons to go to valpo (great STEM programs, small class sizes, small and safe city, but still a good college atmosphere with plenty of social activities). I speak from experience as a Chicagoland high school student at the time, whose classmates either didn't know what valpo was, or said things like "that's such a small school, why would anyone want to there over a school with higher rankings and that I can have fun at, like (insert big 10 school)", not realizing that rankings aren't everything and that valpo isnt BYU or Wheaton. there was no reason that valpo wasn't more well known in the Chicagoland area than it was, and there was no reason for the marketing not to emphasize that valpo, while a religious institution compared to a state school, is not a controlling, strict place like some other religious schools are. From my perspective as a former student, things definitely began to change for the better my senior year under Padilla. Bolstering athletics, the tailgating/social scene on campus, the push to renovate the dorms, and the emphasis on the opportunities available only at a school like valpo because of its small size and faculty focus on undergraduates are all things that will bolster recruiting and retention. These  are things that could have (and really should have) been done sooner. At the end of the day, if each graduating class at valpo since 2018 had just 200 more students (and that's conservative), that's 800 more students paying tuition, spreading the word about valpo to friends, family, and communities, (increasing awareness and interest!) and becoming potential future donors to the school. The situation now wouldn't look nearly as bleak if this were the case....nevertheless we cannot change the past, we can only focus on what is being done now, and the main thing that matters now is increasing enrollment by convincing the youth of today that going to valpo is a better choice for them than the competition

I'm a grad student at a big 10 university, and most of the first and second year courses in my scientific discipline are taught by adjuncts (and the lab supervision and grading done by grad students like myself). I definitely had it pretty good at valpo in regards to being taught by actual faculty. It seems to be a higher ed problem in general where universities hire adjuncts to squeeze a few more bucks out since you can both pay them less and cut a tenure track position at the same time...which leads to the devaluation of educators. I'm not sure what the fix would be for increasing faculty salaries at valpo, but it could be worse as they could eliminate more faculty and replace them with adjuncts, which would tarnish VU forever and remove any incentive to go there

The sentiment that Valpo basically wasted money on buildings and that current students need all the bells and whistles to come to valpo compared to previous generations is pretty weird to me. IMO most of the construction was absolutely necessary to continue as an institution- let's walk through it:
-Harre Union: you have to have a central place with facilities that can support events and prospective students. Additionally by having a large dining hall centrally it eliminates the need for other large dining halls all around campus

Library - main place students hang out to study/use the computers. Students do need a decent place to study and gather to do work

ASB building -makes sense to consolidate the arts and humanities into one roof to save money and because the colleges building were on thier last legs -the recent fire in the psych building has made this clear, and dickmeyer is visibly on its last legs too.

Chemistry -building was necessary for the chemistry equipment needed to support all the new health sciences students taking chemistry and biology. Additionally, it expanded the universities ability to do science research, which has basically become a prerequisite for certain jobs and internships (including my grad school admission!)

Gellersen additions: see above for chemistry, additionally an entirely new engineering discipline, bioengineering, is being offered and it needs space and equipment to be respectable.

Kallay Christopher - this is the only one that I think the university could have perhaps not built. That money would have been much more useful elsewhere (nursing building or ARC/alumni/lank renovation?

Beacon - lankanau is clearly on its last legs, and would be impractical to renovate due to being connected to scheele, need to get out ahead of any issues here.

Brandt renovation -see above

Any of the other "luxuries" either make life a lot more comfortable or are relative cost effective 

While I don't think valpo needs to be smaller, what areas are being offered at valpo needs to change. While valpo is considered a liberal arts school, this honestly does not reflect what students are actually studying. Most VU students are in STEM fields, or in the college of business. I see that the buyouts and layoffs of humanities faculty have been much bemoaned on this thread, but at the end of the day it doesn't make business sense to employ faculty for such a small number of students in things like Japanese studies and hurts the greater VU community as the money could go to more populated majors and disciplines. I think that the cuts to various humanities disciplines did not go far enough (that said, I graduated with a stem degree so I am, of course, biased), and I think that crusadermoe is saying that Padilla might still take action to reduce these less popular disciplines and further shore up the budget.

Well hopefully the campaign is continuing to raise money, as the school is going to need to raise more money with the old Art and Psych building burning down this afternoon. (Tried making a separate thread about the building being on fire earlier, but my post appears to have not gone though). Also, glad there's another Vu22, class of 22 representing!

Requiring masks at Valpo athletic events is an extremely bad decision by the school. It does not make a lot of sense given that 98% of the student population is vaccinated AND the booster shot is required for students for the spring 2022 semester. Not only that, but it will crater the attendance to school athletic events, since the people who are already COVID cautious are not showing up anyways and none of the students who attend athletic events will want the hassle of having to wear a mask. I for one will not be attending any more athletic events until the mask requirement is lifted.

Current VU student here who just stumbled upon this thread. While religion is definitely a part of the Valpo identity, I would argue that it is not at all what attracts students here. Almost everyone I've talked to in my 3+ years here, myself included, came to Valparaiso because they wanted to attend a good (Engineering, Meteorology, Nursing, PA, Business, Chemistry, ect) school and they either got a scholarship to come here or wanted to go to a smaller Midwestern school. As someone also mentioned, athletics definitely attract people to go to VU as I know several people who came to Valpo because they wanted to get an engineering degree whilst playing D1 football, an opportunity not as readily obtainable at a bigger school. Anyways, back to what I was previously saying about religion, hyperfocusing on the religious aspects of Valpo likely will not help enrollment and will scare off potential students, if anything.

-VU2022