Messages

what is a ballpark salary for a 30-year old with doctorate in tow? and what is tow?

I can't say for sure, yet I doubt that VU is hiring tenured or tenure-track faculty in any discipline for less that $50K. They might offer part-time or fixed-term renewable instructors for that in certain fields - for example, hiring a one-year instructor of English at low salary just because there dozens or hundreds of English PhDs looking for positions.

In terms of ballpark salaries, the range is incredibly wide. It depends on the discipline and the university. If it is Business, Purdue, Indiana and Notre Dame would hire a newly-minted PhD for a tenure track position for perhaps $200K, including salary and summer research support. As to the high end, just this year, the University of Rochester made an offer for a newly-minted PhD in Finance at $275K. Clearly, VU is not paying that much, yet if they want to hire faculty in business, they probably have to offer at least in the low six figure range. The last numbers I have available showed the Jim Brodzinski, the former Dean of Business, made $214K in 2020. 

There were 2 obvious issues on the Lottich hiring. 1. Lottich did not have enough experience to be a head coach, and he will be a better and successful coach after this. 2. Valpo and MLB was lazy and predictably cheap in a making a quick fix to keep operations moving.

We should be careful to separate the process of hiring Matt Lottich from the outcome over seven years. Clearly Coach Lottich represented the program with the highest integrity, so it was way better than Evansville hiring Walter McCarty who lasted 1.5 years. I'm also guessing that Bryce and Homer Drew would have had good things to say about Coach Lottich - if they had been against it, it would have been unlikely he would have been offered the job. As far as we know, the players were favorable to promoting Coach Lottich. Also as far as we know, Roger Powell turned down the job, so perhaps MLB was dealing with an unexpected situation, especially with significant financial constraints on hiring a new coach. None of this makes MLB lazy, and it does not make the decision unreasonable.

As to the outcome, if the Horizon League has a real chance to practice at Joe Louis arena in 2016-17, the team doesn't lose a close game to Milwaukee and instead wins the HL and goes on to win a NCAA tournament game. (I don't remember the timing of the injury to Alec Peters, or if he would have been available for an NCAA tournament game.) Such an outcome might have landed a few more high profile recruits and more success rather than a career record just below .500.

I'm not being an apologist for Coach Lottich - the record is what it says, and he had ample opportunities to over seven years to win. He did not, and performance mandated his dismissal. Yet hiring a well-regarded though inexperienced assistant coach is more of a mistake in hindsight rather than an obvious mistake at the time.

If Lottich "has" to stay for some wild reasons his contract at the very least better be restructured so next year is his last season.

The point of having a contract is that the terms of employment are clear for both sides. A re-structuring like this would only occur if there is some sort of benefit to Coach Lottich, like "we'll give you a $100,000 raise next year, yet Valpo can terminate the contract at the end of the year without an additional buyout." Or, "We'll add a $250,000 bonus for winning the MVC tournament, yet your future buyout is reduced by 50% at the end of the 2023-24 season." Otherwise, there is no reason for any coach to restructure.

Note that this is different than re-structuring a contract of an athlete, say in football. In that case, it is often shifting more guaranteed money forward, or the player taking pay cut now to avoid being cut from the roster entirely. Or,  a player agrees to defer non-guaranteed salary in order for the team to sign a top free agent that will make the team much better. The big difference is that most football contracts are year to year and are not guaranteed.

There are many good points here about tenure and expectations. If the salaries are indeed as low as has been indicated, that is a huge structural problem. Someone with a PhD from a good school and who is an effective teacher at Valpo could get hired at a school like Notre Dame and become a teaching faculty / clinical professor, at least in fields where there is demand. That person might get paid 50% more, and have a 3 + 3 teaching load, and no research expectations. (This does not count fields like English where there might be 100+applicants for a teaching position, so the salary differential might be less.)  Almost certainly, the college deans at Valpo make less than a tenured Associate professor in their comparable field at Notre Dame, IU, or Purdue.     

It was not always obvious, yet when I was a student at VU, many (if not most) of the faculty I had in Engineering and Christ College had a strong sense of mission. They had PhDs from the best universities (Stanford, Johns Hopkins, Purdue, Notre Dame, Minnesota, MIT, Chicago) yet were at VU because they wanted to teach, and they were at the Lutheran version of Notre Dame or Chicago. Many also had Lutheran roots.  The were paid well enough to have a good living (at or above most teachers, pastors or nurses for example) yet not enough to be wealthy; they could have made more if they would have been at one of those research universities or in the public sector. 

How much of the current faculty has a sense of mission, and is that mission shared by most of the faculty? Have the salaries fallen so much that they no longer are able to make a reasonable living? Or, is it that more adjuncts and part time instructors are covering the load yet have far less buy in to the mission? Does this differ by college Arts & Sciences versus Business and Engineering? Has the decline of the Lutheran ethos hit the faculty even more than the student body?

The good news is that there is almost nothing with the ridiculous lighthouse logo available for sale on the bookstore website, nor on seemingly related https://valpogear.merchorders.com/. The sooner that image is erased, the better.

(When it came out, I told my wife I would never wear any VU gear with a lighthouse logo on it under any circumstances, and I still hold that!)

VUSERF is asking about the alternate logo that includes the Chapel, yet I don't know about the branding rights for that.

Given that this was a cowardly anonymous quote, I'm guessing something was lost in translation or else it was interpreted in the worst possible way.

Perhaps President Padilla said something in a one-on-one meeting something like the following, "It is very difficult for our current donor pool to support more fundraising, especially for dorm renovations. Our pool of donors is not diverse nor fantastically wealthy, and they stayed in those same dorms when they were students here. They have been very generous in the past, and have pledged a significant amount of their estates to VU in the Forever Valpo campaign... I can't keep going back to the same donors hoping they will pay for central air conditioning when there is no more they can give...Look, I know you are upset that the Theatre major was cut, yet I can't keep raising more funds from the same old donors."


 

As to ROI, it is clear that if you are in a STEM program, or a well-defined and in-demand major like Nursing or Accounting, there is a clear value proposition and thus an ROI. Then, it is easy to say, "you are an (engineering/science/business) major, you need to take these courses in (literature/art/history etc.) so that you are a well-rounded individual. It is more problematic for someone to be passionate about ancient Greece,  art history, or philosophy - those can be great passions, yet much harder to define the ROI.

As an Engineering and Christ College grad myself, I had a wonderful education at Valpo.

I also remember a wise engineering professor remarking to the class of freshmen or sophomores something like this: "You are studying engineering, and some of your liberal arts friends might look down on you or dismiss you for studying something practical or technical, all the while they are studying art, music, theology or philosophy, the liberal arts. You will have the opportunity to pursue any of those liberal arts topics throughout your lifetime. However, your classmates who are studying those other topics now will never have the opportunity to study engineering. Your hard work now opens up many opportunities later."  I didn't realize how true he was, and again how much I value both the engineering and humanities education I received.

I saw this article that St. Johns / St. Benedicts in Minnesota are phasing out 8 majors / minors. This is a well-regarded liberal arts institution (a merger of the men's and women's colleges). For the athletically inclined, St. Johns had one of the top D-III football programs in the USA, said to be the winningest football program in D-III history. (St. Thomas was its major sports rival.)

Incidentally, Mark Schwehn (former Dean of Christ College) had been a resident scholar and guest at St. Johns Collegeville Institute during his sabbaticals and visits.

Like VU, the majors being cut include the following:

Asian Studies
Ancient Mediterranean Studies
Classical Languages
French Studies
Gender Studies
German Studies
Peace Studies
Theater

Here is another example of an academically-focused university with a modest endowment (in this case $80M) cutting back on traditional liberal arts majors and minors due to declining enrollment.

https://kstp.com/kstp-news/local-news/saint-johns-and-saint-benedicts-phasing-out-8-majors-9-minors/

The landscape for private universities (especially in the Midwest) is challenging. In recent days, we have seen announcements of recent closures of campuses or programs at other small universities.

Trinity International University (Deerfield, IL) closing residential and in-person undergraduate programs, moving to fully remote/online instruction for those programs. (MDiv and Seminary stay.) https://www.tiu.edu/reimagining-the-future/
Finlandia University (Hancock, MI) closing. https://www.finlandia.edu/about/teachout/

Neither of these programs are direct competitors of VU, yet they are religiously-affiliated private universities in the region. These had reasonably well-regarded academics, yet very small endowments. Finlandia is especially interesting, as it a small Lutheran University (ELCA). We also should remember that three of the Concordia (LCMS) campuses closed in recent years, including Alabama (2018), New York (2021) and Portland (2022).

My info was related to deposits no applications so not sure where they are tracking in comparison. I feel like there was maybe too much optimism coming out last year and people ended up with egg on their face when the final numbers hit.

And now, we have a new VP of Enrollment.

Finally, I'll conclude with a financial justification for moving on from Matt.  Here it is--the last time we had a winning record was 2019-2020 at 19-16.  That year we drew 2971 per game in attendance.  The last two years we have averaged 1692 per game.  Without specific knowledge, other than seeing the chairbacks half full, I'll use $20 as the average ticket price.  That means we lost an average of 1,280 ticket sales at $20 or $25,600 per game or 256,000 per season based on 10 home games.  So over the last two season, a combined loss of $512,000.  There is your justification for his buyout.

72, I don't think your numbers quite make sense. The attendance numbers surely include students: To my knowledge, they are not paying to go to the games, and certainly not $20 per ticket. Said another way, if attendance is down by 1,280, could student attendance account for half of that drop? Hard to say from my vantage point, yet it looks like there are fewer student-age fans in the seats.

Clearly, there still could be a buyout, and I'm sure the Department has been running some numbers about the costs associated with declining attendance. This also may include others who have cut or cut back on their donations.

As a numbers guy I found the report pretty fascinating.  The University is a very complex organization.

A few quick observations: Salaries increased from 46 mil to 53 mil; Endowment payout: 23 mil v. 16 mil; Operating Revenue 119.6 v. 116.2, but, net loss of 1.1 mil v. a gain of 8.6 mil. Cash and cash equivalents 18.1 mil v. 13.7. Bad news, the endowment fell to 338 mil v. 367.

vu72, I figured you might like to see those numbers. As far as I can tell, the 2022 buy-outs were part of the salary line item. The Board may have authorized a larger endowment pay-out to cover those one time costs.

Speaking to enrollment. Id like to have a budget sheet for the University.

You can get the FY2022 audit results (with the associated financial statements) here https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/350868125.

This does not break out all of the budget line items, yet it gives a sense of the University's financial situation.

Hard to know where to put this, yet figured it was best under the General VU Discussion area.

As of June 30, 2022, the total investments in the endowment was $326M. This was down from $350M in 2021. (This the net as of that date, inclusive of gifts and grants received less payouts and investment performance.)

Some things to note:

1) In FY 2022, the endowment payout was about $23.7M. The highest sources of revenue came from tuition and fees of $48.5M.
2) The total revenues (including endowment payouts and contributions) in 2022 was $119.6M, and total expenses were $120.7M. This is a net loss of $1.1M. (Yes, the University lost money even including about $7M of donations received in the year.)
3) As of 2022, the university had outstanding loans (notes, bonds and line of credit) of $126M, and paid out interest of $4.3M.
4) Significantly, there seem to be about $21M (of the $126M) that are borrowed two lines of credit in 2022. In 2022, this interest rate on the lines of credit was about 2.05%, which accounted for interest payments of perhaps about $420K. Looking at current rates as of today (LIBOR + 0.6%), the interest payments on $21M are going to be $1.1M.
5) The two $15M lines of credit expire on November 29, 2022 and October 31, 2023. I would assume that the line of credit have been or will be renewed.

The good news is that the University is not going to go bankrupt - they have significant assets that far exceed their liabilities.

However, it may be easy to say that the university should spend more of its endowment for any number of purposes. Yet it is clear that the University also has significant obligations - the reason they can get $30M line(s) of credit is that the have an endowment. In addition, the endowment payout makes up a big chunk of the University's annual budget which funds the continuing operations and programs of the University. Finally, interest rates are going up, so the costs to service the existing debt must be considered. It would be increasingly difficult to take out loans for major construction projects.   

Could they have proposed selling the Art in order to secure/endow the Brauer or the Communications and Arts department, and then diverted the funds ordinarily paid out of general budget for those arts programs to renovate the dorms?

In these times, I feel like arts defenders might have been more willing to support the sale if it were somehow bringing them a real benefit, like ensuring the protection of arts staff and programs from getting cut, even if it were an indirect way of moving assets around to get the dorms fixed.

Maybe that wasn't possible for some logistical/legal reason, but the headlines sure would have looked a lot better if they were separate:

"Valpo endows permanent Arts faculty, through tough decision to part with Georgia O'Keefe. The newly promoted "Brauer Endowed Chair of Painting" will be hosting a Master class..."

"Valpo constructs beautiful freshman dorms to improve residential community!"

valpo22 - an excellent idea. I was thinking the same thing yet hadn't had time to post it. I think a combination of this approach could have worked.

Imagine if the paintings were sold for $20M: Devote $1M as an endowment to support the operations of Brauer and/or the VUCA, and another $1M to pay for acquisition of new pieces for the collection for the next decade (say $100K per year)-the other headline would be "Valpo Sells Beloved Paintings, Looks to Add to Collection."  This would result in $18.9M available for new dorms right now, more funding for operating expenses, and some new art. Even the $1M increase in endowment could be used to guarantee part of a construction loan.

Why random fans on a message board can come up with these ideas (or at least be aware of the public relations issues) is surprising.   

I'm no art expert, yet often the appraised value is much higher than the market value - this is common for insurance purposes. The highest price ever for an O'Keeffe that I could find was $44M, and it is hard to say what this particular painting would bring at auction or at a private sale.

What seems more disappointing is that this process is so badly mismanaged from a public relations perspective. The president had to know it would be a public-relations nightmare, and that is exactly what it has become.

The sticker price is a terrible benchmark. In the 1980s and 1990s, many universities increased their tuition prices and simultaneously increased their financial aid grants and so-called scholarships. This occurred for a variety of reasons, yet one was that the sticker price was perceived as a mark of quality, and if a school's peer institutions did it, then it made sense for that school to do it as well. Second, as tuition increased, the aid awards did not once a student entered the university - a student that got a 50% "scholarship discount" in year 1 might only be getting a 40% scholarship discount by year 4. Yet for that student, it probably did not matter all that much. It was a reasonable decision for the school, as long as the tuition prices could keep going up. In addition, typically a few students paid the full price so that was more revenue for the university. Again, it was not just VU, yet many of its peers did the same thing.

The downside of this is that over time, many students and families had the perception that the sticker price was the actual tuition, so some of them did not apply thinking that it was too expensive. It is easy to see why - If you compare Indiana and Purdue's in-state tuition of $11K and $10K, why would someone want to come to VU and pay tuition of $45K? The difference is that most students will get a significant discount to go to VU, and may end up paying nearly full tuition at IU or Purdue. (The other interesting thing is that typically, the living expenses are about the same for any of the universities.)

Brand new episode of the show, talking all the goings on in the Valley.  We are also joined by Paul Oren of the Victory Bell, to talk Valpo hoops and he also tells a must-hear story about his summer playing in the World Series of Poker.  Fun show as always, check it out!

https://open.spotify.com/episode/78h9zhYYIQklBCckmZAblK?si=T51Wa9W2TxydYE3QGQy-ng

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-march-to-the-arch-podcast/id1478136026?i=1000600182726

BTW, for all Valpo Hoops fans, this was a fine episode. Paul Oren's story about playing in the WSOP main event was great!

The FY 2022 NABUCO results are out, and it shows the VU endowment was at $326.7M. This is good for #276 in total amount. This places VU just a bit behind Bradley, and just ahead of Butler, Drake and Gustavus Adolphus for example. You can see the entire list here:

https://www.nacubo.org/-/media/Nacubo/Documents/research/2022-NTSE-Public-Tables--Endowment-Market-Values--FINAL.ashx?la=en&hash=362DC3F9BDEB1DF0C22B05D544AD24D1C44E318D

Note that the endowment for VU shows a change of -6.81%: This is the net change (additions - withdrawals + investments gains/losses).

Rather than learning about Valpo's investment level in the men's basketball program with a possible coaching change, we will learn more about the donor base.

In most of the D-1 world, there would be a deep pocketed donor (or donors) who are very much involved in calling for a coaching change. The donors contribute or promise to contribute enough for the athletic department to make a large buyout, as well as the funds to hire a new coach who also might have to pay an exit fee to his present employer.

Jim Collins writes in "Good to Great" that truly great organizations know 1) What they can be best in the world at 2) What they can be deeply passionate about and 3) What drives their economic engine. The great organizations do (or at least try to do) all three at the same time.

For universities, there is a lot more leeway to point #1 as excellence in education and scholarship can come in many forms - schools like Valpo, Drake and Butler are not directly competing against MIT, Carnegie Mellon or Northwestern in all respects. At least when I was at Valpo, there were many faculty who were very passionate and committed to excellence in the classroom, which made for an excellent undergraduate experience. The economic engine (point #3) is no less vital - That is the reason that Valpo has had to cut some programs like Theatre, Secondary Education and Asian Studies - these were seemingly well-respected programs, yet did not have enough students in them to support the costs of the programs. 

So, one piece of good news is the growth in the Nursing program - Valpo is well-positioned to have an excellent Nursing program that serves the region. A growing program can more easily attract both faculty and students who are passionate about health sciences. Finally, this can drive the economic engine of the University.

 

The true colors of the Indiana AG, Todd Rokita, are showing up with a very ugly head.

This related to Forever Valpo Fundraising? Or is it because Rokita was critical of VU's Confucius Institute in 2021, when Valpo was one of the last remaining Confucius Institutes that had not been closed by their host institutions? (VU closed it on March 1, 2022.)

Clearly strategy involves tradeoffs. If you read my posts on this, I have never said the paintings should never be sold in any circumstances.

What I keep coming back to is that the University has demonstrated a lack of leadership and vision. Off the top of my head, some failures include 1) A strategic plan (launched by President Heckler) to grow the university to 6,000 students. 2) A failure to monitor the Law School leading to a stumbling closure. 3) A ham-fisted mascot change. 4) Poor enrollment strategy, and turnover in enrollment leadership. Now, another black eye because there is seemingly a lack of trust from key individuals and donors to the Brauer.

To paraphrase John Kotter, the number one attribute of leadership is to create a sensible and appealing picture of the future state: I hope President Padilla can do so. Perhaps, a new first-year residence complex is a key part of that vision, yet the first time I heard about it was in the open letter that was an attempt to limit damage with the forthcoming Chicago Tribune article.

More generally, Kotter would also say that to make change, establishing a sense of urgency is the vital first step. This would involve making the status quo more dangerous than taking action. Some on this message board are convinced of the existential threat to the University, and they may be right. However, I doubt that most faculty, staff and alums have the same sense of urgency, nor is there a common vision of the future.

I hope the leadership can both raise the level of urgency to make changes, and provide an appealing vision of the future state.

If the university does sell the artworks, there is no guarantee another museum will purchase them. They could be bought by a private individual and be removed from access to public viewing.

Agree 100%, I was going to comment further yet got pressed for time.