President Sullivan leaving

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Virginia
501

<p>“Virginia spends $8,600 per in-state student at U-Va. — far less than North Carolina, which spends $26,000 per in-state student at its flagship in Chapel Hill, or Maryland, which supports such students at College Park to the tune of $18,000 a year.”</p>

<p>When you take into account that UNC and Maryland are larger institutions then the gap in total state funding is even larger. The decline in State funding combined with the requirement to maintain in-state enrollments is one of the strategic issues that are at the heart of contention between the BOV and Sullivan.</p>

502

<p>I think another outcome of this mess will be a battle in Richmond between those who want to change the IS/OOS ratio. I had a State Senator tell me not long ago that we wants to see UVA made 50/50. </p>

<p>It will be interesting to see if he (and his ilk) can push through such legislation against the faction that wants to increase IS percentages (eg the NC model).</p>

503

<p>TV4caster, Does this State Senator have any thoughts of getting reelected? That certainly seems like an unpolular position when lots of instate people seem concerned about the IS/OOS rates at UVa, William and Mary and Virginia Tech already. I think the current ratios seem reasonable. I do believe our instate schools should have more favorable admissions for instate students but should admit a balance of OOS students as well to keep a national focus. But the bottom line remains that these are public, Virginia schools.</p>

504

<p>Making UVA 50/50 would pretty much solve the depressing budget outlook for UVA. But that doesn’t seem like it is going to happen. Look how much worse off financially UVA is as compared to say Michigan.</p>

<p>30% OOS enrollment at UVA vs. 40% at Michigan. 9% of budget from state funding at UVA vs. 17% at Michigan. Since Michigan is more STEM, it gets 3X the research funding that UVA does. Both have big endowments and raise lots of money. </p>

<p>But Richmond seems to be stuck on making UVA’s outlook worse than it is today – which is worse than what any of its peers have. Richmond wants higher in-state enrollment but with lower state support. I just don’t see how Sullivan or Dragas or anyone else can make that work.</p>

505

<p>FWIW, last time I looked at the yield numbers for UNC OOS, they also had about a 25% yield for OOS admits.</p>

506

<p>UNC’s oos yield is about 5 points higher than UVA’s from what I can tell. That’s what you’d expect since UNC’s price point is a bit below UVA’s.</p>

<p>UVA’s oos yield has dropped 10 points since 2000. Probably due to (i) UVA’s higher price relative to alternatives and (ii) kids filing more apps due to the common app.</p>

<p>My state flagship, Colorado Boulder, actually gets less state funding than UVA. But the politicians out here at least give CU the flexibility to operate with that funding level. CU is up to 45% oos. In-state tuition has bigger percentage increases each year than oos. OOS students get a four year guarantee against price increases upon enrollment. Lots of things to entice oos students. CU is awash with oos kids from TX and CA who can’t get into their own home state flagships for similar reasons. </p>

<p>While that’s not great (and CU talks about going private), folks recognize that’s what has to happen if state support goes away. I’m puzzled why Richmond thinks that math doesn’t apply in VA.</p>

507

<p>northwesty, The kind of kids that are admitted OOS to UVa are not the kind of kids that would have any trouble getting into their own instate flagship. The state of Virginia has 3 public colleges that are actually ranked higher by US News than Colorado-UVa,William and Mary and Virginia Tech. These 3 schools are very attractive to instate applicants and legislators get complaints every year about instate kids not getting in. In Colorado’s Common Data Set for 2011, 91% of instate applicants and 85% of OOS applicants were admitted with mean SAT of 1175 and mean ACT of 26. These admissions rates are much,much higher than UVa. Also, UVa does not need to give out merit aid , decreased tuition or freezes on tuition so far to “entice” students.</p>

508

<p>As a comparison, Penn State-University Park is now 1/3 out of state, and they don’t give any admissions preference to in-state students. U. Pittsburgh is also around that same %.</p>

<p>The min. in-state % at UVa is not going to change - it is a very delicate political balancing act. Every year, some legislators scream that one of the top students from their rural area didn’t get admitted to UVa. The compromise reached a couple years ago was that UVa would gradually increase both in-state and out-of-state enrollment in phases – if the State provided the resources to pay for it. The intent is to keep the ratio the same. The Governor in particular wants more STEM grads.</p>

509

<p>I thought the deal with PSU, though, is that huge numbers of IS students get admitted to regional campuses knowing they can complete at UP. That is somewhat like what is done now in VA with the guaranteed acceptance agreements with the community colleges.</p>

<p>Last I looked at the numbers for UNC, I was comparing # of OOS acceptances to number of estimated OOS slots, so my estimate could have been off a few % points. Not only is UNC’s tuition somewhat lower that UVa’s, but Carolina also throws merit money at high achieving admits. Nevertheless, UNC has been cutting left and right the past couple of years because their state appropriations are being slashed. It will be interesting to see where state funding levels end up for UNC. Their recent athletic and related academic scandals may impact that somewhat.</p>

510

<p>Yes, in Pa. is it is relatively easy to be admitted to a branch campus of Penn State or Pitt and then transfer to the main campus in 2 years. However, many people don’t want to attend Penn State branches because most have little or no housing and they cost much more than the state-owned universities and community colleges. Penn State is seeing increases in applications to the main campus and decreases in applications to the branches. </p>

<p>Penn State also offers $4500 a year merit scholarships to students admitted to their Honors College. In comparison, UVa doesn’t have any merit aid for incoming students, except a relatively few full privately funded Jefferson scholarships. I’d personally prefer if that program offered 50% scholarships to twice as many students. If you offer a full scholarship to a student from a rich family, you effectively have bought him an expensive sports car.</p>

511

<p>For in-staters, Penn State relies heavily on their “2+2” plan. First two years are at a local branch campus then two years in State College. It is relatively hard for in-staters to spend 4 years at the main campus. I don’t know for sure, but I’d doubt that that program is used for OOS. They also do a significant amount of online.</p>

<p>I know that all state schools are under money pressure. But UVA seems to already be in a weaker financial position than its peers. And the available solutions all would appear to run very counter to what UVA has been historically – a public ivy but with more ivy than the others.</p>

512

<p>No one believes that Dragas, Kington, Kiernan et al handled this situation well, but that doesn’t mean that they made the wrong move. The school has some big items on its plate and there are a lot of UVA alums (some with large wallets) who think we need a much more forceful and visionary President. </p>

<p>At the risk of stimulating even greater protest, I want to offer a few thoughts counter to what’s been (or not been) written here or in the media about this situation.</p>

<p>First, from the perspective of some constituents of the University community, President Sullivan was not the right choice 2+ years ago. There were questions then about cultural fit (Texas/Michigan, no previous association with the University, ie, her status as the first President without a degree from any area of the University, nearly all experience as an administrator at two much larger universities). Maybe we needed someone cut from a different cloth as Frank Hereford or John Casteen, but Terry Sullivan was a stretch. I think that the idea of a woman leading the school for the first time was exciting, but did that thought perhaps cloud our view of her true capabilities for serving as the President of our University? </p>

<p>Second, her record in academia is politically to the left and her career has been spent working at institutions that are far more liberal than the University of Virginia. It’s certainly not surprising that the UVA faculty senate has come to her defense as she represents the academic establishment and they see her (and her reinstatement) as the bulwark against the difficult choices and potential budget cuts that face the institution and many of the faculty. </p>

<p>Third, she has described herself as an incrementalist. The BOV believes that the time calls for a more active and decisive President. If the situation is as dire as many on the BOV project, an incrementalist is the wrong person to have at the helm of the University.</p>

<p>Can an incrementalist solve the challenges that the University faces today? Dragas listed some of these challenges in her recent mailing, including:</p>

<ol>
<li> State and federal funding challenges</li>
<li> The changing role of technology and how to employ it to the University’s benefit</li>
<li> A dynamic and rapidly changing healthcare environment</li>
<li> Heightened pressure for prioritization of scarce resource, eg, Access UVA, projected faculty retirements, declining faculty compensation, etc.</li>
<li> Issues of faculty workload and the quality of the student experience</li>
<li> Declining fundraising activity—this is especially important for a school facing relentless declines in state funding</li>
<li> Declining research funding</li>
<li> Connecting the curriculum created by faculty to student learning and post-graduate results & productivity</li>
</ol>

<p>No disrespect meant to Terry Sullivan, who all accept as a very decent person and a highly capable administrator, but if she does get reinstated, the problems will fester and the University will suffer and decline. Moving on from her is the best move for the institution.</p>

513

<p>After having had a President in office for 2 decades (and who had spent many prior years at the U. or in Richmond), there was a need to bring in an outsider. A fresh perspective was needed. </p>

<p>To have attracted such a highly respected administrator as Teressa Sullivan was a major accomplishment. Michigan was really sorry to lose her - I’ve heard that directly from people there. </p>

<p>To have attracted someone who ran much larger and more complicated universities was a plus. UVa wanted to increase its emphasis on obtaining research dollars, so it would make sense to have a President who knows how to run universities that are much more successful in those regards.</p>

<p>I also believe it is wrong to portray Sullivan as a flaming liberal. Yes, she did research on how economic systems can harm average families, such as through bankruptcies. However, she is also a strong Catholic.</p>

<p>The way you get a University to adapt and to change is by getting as many people as possible to “buy in”. Everyone who has read the plan for the future that she presented to the Board several months ago agrees with it. There may be some organizations that can operate efficiently with a Field Marshall at the top barking out orders, but a major university with historically decentralized decision-making is not one of them.</p>

514

<p>With this move, the BOV has put the school in an awful position. I may eat my words later on, but I think it is going to be very, very hard for them to find someone with superior qualifications to want this job after what has transpired/what is in the future. And, I am not totally sure Terry Sullivan is going to want it back, even if it is offered to her.</p>

515

<p>Woah! What an interesting post (#512, of course). Thank you, Hill & Knowlton!</p>

<p>A few comments:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Lentil is absolutely right that the ineptitude with which Dragas et al. handled this decision does not mean they were wrong on the merits. But it doesn’t mean they were right on the merits, either. And to the extent it gives a sample of their personal decisionmaking process, what they regard as appropriate institutional decisionmaking processes, and the care they devoted to thinking through the consequences of their actions, it doesn’t give anyone a whole lot of confidence that their judgment is sound. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, maybe it’s Thomas Jefferson with a bad cold, but more likely it’s just a duck.</p></li>
<li><p>When Terry Sullivan was chosen for the UVa presidency, it’s hard to believe there was a more qualified person available anywhere, of any gender. She had been dean of the graduate school at Texas and provost at Michigan – itself perhaps a larger, more complicated job than being president at Virginia. In what sense did holding positions of real leadership at larger universities with qualities that Virginia aspires to disqualify her for her current job? (And you heard me right – “Virginia aspires to”. A good deal of the Dragas position – the part that isn’t silly – could be translated out of business-speak into “make UVa more like Michigan”.)</p></li>
<li><p>I love the attempt to deride Sullivan as an “administrator,” as if skilled administrators of something as complicated as a great university were a dime a dozen. Her ability is nicely contrasted with the flawless administrative form that the Board of Visitors has displayed. Does the Board really think that chaos within the university helps to deal with chaotic forces outside the university, threatening it? Probably not, but the Board quite obviously failed to understand how easy it is to create chaos when you have contempt for administration.</p></li>
<li><p>In what world is the University of Texas “far more liberal” than the University of Virginia? Both institutions reflect the general left-leaning tendency of some academic fields, and the opposite tendency of other academic fields (some of which are substantially stronger at Texas). Both reflect the political diversity of their complicated states. I think it’s fair to say that the overall political environment for the University of Texas has been a lot more consistently conservative than that in Virginia for a longer period of time. And Texas faces as much or more political competition for funding than Virginia. Sure, Texas isn’t George Mason, but guess what? Neither is UVa.</p></li>
<li><p>Since Lentil is such an expert on universities, perhaps he or she can name one or two non-incrementalist presidents of major universities in the past 100 years or so who provide models of success? (I can actually think of one, but it’s a stretch to translate his experience into the much more complicated UVa context.) </p></li>
</ol>

<p>An incrementalist is NEVER the wrong person to have at the helm of a major university. It’s hard to find any successful university president who isn’t fundamentally an incrementalist, because steering a major university is far more complicated than steering an aircraft carrier; it’s more like commanding the entire Pacific Fleet. If you aren’t an incrementalist, stuff starts to bump into each other, with disastrous results. The few university presidents with some sort of bold, unique vision and action orientation tend either to go down in flames themselves in short order, or do serious, long-term harm to their institutions. It’s OK to have a vision, but incrementalism in achieving it is always a good idea.</p>

<ol>
<li> Practically every university in the world is facing some version of the factors Dragas (and Sullivan before her, for the most part) listed. Every U.S. public flagship is facing all of them. Maybe a couple haven’t seen recession-related fundraising declines, but only those that never raised funds with the big boys during the good times.</li>
</ol>

<p>The one unique challenge Virginia faces is a governing board that panicked and went into the institutional equivalent of a paranoid fugue state.</p>

<ol>
<li>I suspect that moving on WILL be the best move for Sullivan, and I think that’s what is going to happen. I think the University of Virginia is going to go through a very bad time. The Board of Visitors might still save the day by finding another competent, calm, incrementalist president, convincing her to take the job, and then butting out. But it doesn’t look like that is very likely.</li>
</ol>

516

<p>I knew I’d touch a few nerves with my post. Sorry. I’m not a shill for the BOV or their PR firm, but there has not been a lot of ink dedicated to explaining why this happened in the first place. Now most of the blame for that falls on the inept Dragas who probably is in over her head and also needs to go, but I do believe that the points that she/H&K laid out in their letter are spot on. You may like Sullivan and think she was the right choice. Others like me disagree. Or at least don’t think that she is the right person today to lead the school in making the changes it must make. </p>

<p>The last guy—Casteen—was around for 2 decades because he did a good job. He was in touch with ALL of the constituencies of the University (students, faculty, alumni) and he also was one helluva of a fundraiser. Given the large decline in state funding during his tenure, the school would’ve been a lot worse off without his leadership and actions. We may have needed a change after two decades, but it wasn’t due to any rejection of what Casteen had done. </p>

<p>Probably the decisive factor in Sullivan’s dismissal was the change in the BOV’s perceptions of what the University needs from its current President. Michigan may have been sorry to lose Sullivan, but that does not change the fact that she is an administrator at heart (btw, she was only there for 3-4 years and most of her time in academia was at Texas). Like it or not, there is a sense of urgency among the BOV that we need more decisive leadership to remake the University. The BOV wants an action figure, not an administrator. </p>

<p>Changing the research rep of a school takes a long time, both for schools on the rise and for schools which are living on reputations built decades ago. Research has not been UVA’s historical measuring stick as undergraduate teaching has been valued dating back to Mr. Jefferson and the founding of the University. Should that change? If so, how will the move to a more research-defined institution affect undergrads? Is it possible that the desire to do this is being driven by a thirst for status within academia and doesn’t do much for the students? Don’t forget that the school is half the size of Berkeley or Michigan and one-third the size of Texas. Does UVA need to be all things to all people? Does the school have the money to be all things to all people? </p>

<p>Sullivan is a liberal (as are many Catholics). That’s not a bad thing, but her thinking and approach are out of sync with the current needs of the school. Think Greece/Syriza party /Eurozone. She may get on well with the faculty but is that really the leadership that we need today? Is an incrementalist administrator really the answer to the current challenges that we (and nearly all other colleges) face today? Various financial issues are forcing higher education’s hand. Does she have the vision and the fortitude to take the necessary steps to successfully get us to the other side of the coming changes? </p>

<p>I’m as angry and as incredulous as you with the way that this has played out, but it had to be done. This is not a personal step against Sullivan. It’s business. Unfortunately, some in the faculty are making this personal and of course the media and others in academia are making hay out of this. But for many of us who love the place, we believe that dividing the school and its various constituencies is in no one’s best interests.</p>

517

<p>Very well said JHS, although a guess that it might have been Dragas’ sister may be just as likely as H&K. </p>

<p>For those of you that don’t know about it; her sister posted a scathing missive in either the Cav Daily or the Daily Progress stating how firing Sullivan was the right thing to do.</p>

<p>Edit- Calling Dragas ‘inept’ probably precludes the OP being her sister after all :)</p>

518

<p>By many measures Casteen did not do that great a job. He took advantage of very flush times to raise money–as did most universities with a pulse. His plan to improve the sciences was a resounding flop. Maintenance went downhill. State funding declined. Faculty pay lost ground. UVa was unable to capture much of the rapid increase in research funding and generate needed overhead funds to redirect. Where’s the beef?</p>

519

<p>Lentil writes “No disrespect meant to Terry Sullivan, who all accept as a very decent person and a highly capable administrator, but if she does get reinstated, the problems will fester and the University will suffer and decline.”</p>

<p>A conclusory statement based upon what? An opinion that Sullivan is an incrementalist? Sullivan may have been laying the groundwork for more substantial changes rather than just slashing and burning different programs without an overall strategic plan. It’s still not clear to me that Sullivan was just ignoring the issues or incapable of dealing with them. Nor am I sure whether Dragas’ vision for UVA is one that either the UVA community or Virginians as a group would support.</p>

<p>One thing is for certain. If Sullivan is reinstated then the power of the BOV will be greatly diminished. It will be impossible to fire Sullivan for cause until her contract expires. If Dragas was correct in her assement of Sullivan then the University would lose a lot of time in adapting to deal with existential threats.</p>

520

<p>If Dragas and her fellow coup members had told us what their alternative vision was of the University, then maybe we could make an informed decision about which side was right. But their agenda is hidden in secrecy - all they and their PR consultant do is list the same list of challenges that President Sullivan listed at a board meeting last year. They keep pretending to apologize for a bad “process” without explaining the substantive differences. At their last 10 hour meeting, the board even made their note-taking staff leave the room.</p>

<p>Sullivan provided a plan to address thse challenges which she gave to Dragas 3 months ago - which everyone I talk to believes makes a great deal of sense. Dragas didn’t even let all of the other boardmembers see it.</p>