<p>Unfortunately, few people have the luxury to be able to tell a billionaire donor (who is paying much of the cost of your new 18,000 seat arena) that he is an insensitive out-of-touch dolt.</p>
<p>“Likewise, ramping up STEM fields will cause brand confusion with Virginia Tech?”</p>
<p>Different animal. UVA doesn’t offer engineering and isn’t planning to. There are very few students torn between UVA and VT. But with W&M it’s a different story. Tons of applicant and admit overlap, and W&M’s brand is all about being an elite life-of-the-mind, undergrad-teaching-focused, liberal arts college. UVA competes with W&M just fine because it’s a research university. If it gave that up to follow the Jeffersonian model more closely, that would muddy the waters.</p>
<p>UVA does offer engineering and they do have an Engineering school. Their engineering school is trying to match the demand in the CS field.</p>
<p>Rare Hanna mistake. Yes, UVa has an engineering school with most common eng majors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>fyi, W&M is also a research university.</p>
<p>UVA definitely has engineering.</p>
<p>I’ve known kids who went to UVA, Tech and W&M over the course of the last five years.</p>
<p>All of them were bright and motivated and OOS. </p>
<p>I think UVA is causing it’s own problems with all of this, personally. But, if they want to keep on studying it, they can. They ought to raise the OOS tuition to the level of UMich and Cal. UNC should do the same.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Short</a> History of the University of Virginia](<a href=“http://www.virginia.edu/uvatours/shorthistory/]Short”>http://www.virginia.edu/uvatours/shorthistory/)</p>
<p>The problem is that such a mission makes UVa a niche player. Not every high school grad wants to go into public service, and plenty of those that do, attend thousands of other colleges.</p>
<p>But more importantly, this niche player is without a funding source, as state revenue continues to decline. Right now the big money is in STEM research, and the “professions”…</p>
<p>Yeah, and Amherst was founded to educate “indigent young men of piety and talent.” Dartmouth College was chartered “for the education and instruction of Youth of the Indian Tribes in this Land." Yale was created so that youth “may be fitted for Publick employment both in Church and Civil State”.</p>
<p>How is Jefferson any more relevant?</p>
<p>decidesomehow - you are absolutely right. Strong feelings aside, it was wrong of me to make a personal post like that. I’m not sure how to delete a post but if that’s possible I would in that case. This is a place for parents to help get their kids their optimal future opportunities and, in this case, talk through current challenges at a great university, not to make snide and unbecoming remarks like mine.</p>
<p>barrons - my apologies. You have every right to your opinion and I appreciate the information you bring to these fora.</p>
<p>gator - thank you for correcting my numbers. The figures you cite still seem very small to me, nevertheless, for a “state university.”</p>
<p>mini - It’s clearly subjective but I submit that a mission articulated clearly by an individual of the stature of Thomas Jefferson is different. One only need read the political discourses in any recent Presidential election cycle to find references to Jefferson on both sides. His thought is enduringly relevant. Besides, anyone who knows anything about UVa knows that Mr. Jefferson is revered and his explicit directions are central to its culture and constantly invoked in a way that, for example, Dartmouth’s mission for the “Indian Tribes” is not.</p>
<p>Q: How many UVa grads does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: Three; one to replace the light bulb and two to argue whether or not Mr. Jefferson invented it.</p>
<p>Clearly challenges remain, including an unfortunate shedding of some important faculty because of the out-and-then-back-in of President Sullivan. Fortunately for those who love the school, the response by the University community, students, faculty and alumni has only strengthened our resolve to extend the requirement and tradition of excellence at Virginia in new ways. Perhaps UVa will even benefit in the end because the underlying issues are similar at other great public universities like Michigan, Cal, UT, UNC, etc.; facing them first and accelerating the pace of change may, in the end, give Virginia a head start in the evolution of higher education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Assuming that Eric represents a bunch of UVa alums, the point is obvious, at least to me: goal/mission conflict.</p>
<p>They are hanging onto an ideal, for which there is little/no market in today’s economy. As a result of the internal directional struggles, and lack of STEM money, The U is having issues.</p>
<p>And funny that you should mention Dartmouth, mini, since D has the exact same issue. Before Pres. Kim jumped ship, he was navigating the waters to bring in more STEM research – because that is where the money is – over the objections of the alums and some lit/hume faculty who want to keep D as a (large) liberal arts college. (Most of Dartmouth’s strongest disciplines do not offer graduate degrees.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, no. Michigan and Cal never held themselves out to solely train “leaders in practical affairs.” As part of the land grant colleges, they have been designed to be major research Unis from the get-go.</p>
<p>“Besides, anyone who knows anything about UVa knows that Mr. Jefferson is revered and his explicit directions are central to its culture and constantly invoked in a way that, for example, Dartmouth’s mission for the “Indian Tribes” is not.”</p>
<p>Well, then if this is true (I don’t accept it), UVA has no business trying to compete with Harvard, Princeton, UMichigan, or anyone else (except perhaps American University), since their missions are at odds. And they certainly don’t need STEM majors.</p>
<p>bluebayou, the underlying issues are more than the need to expand STEM support. They include the impacts of MOOCs, for example; the feeling from the Provost was that the President was too incrementalist in response to what is a still-new trend.</p>
<p>Other common issues to which I refer, which were also part of the discussion, include the relationship a flagship has to the state and in-state residents while state support is dwindling. I know from this past cycle that Michigan for example has real issues with this.</p>
<p>I don’t know how to do the quote thing but you say “They are hanging onto an ideal, for which there is little/no market in today’s economy.” I reject the premise of this comment, that a great university is solely or primarily about preparing grads to get that first job. If that were the case, UVa would close its architecture school, for example. Focusing on “today’s economy” would lead one to believe that an architecture degree would be unprofitable and unwise.</p>
<p>I recently participated in a discussion on LinkedIn, which is mainly about folks networking to find work. It was about which would be the most versatile degree, what would prepare one for the broadest range of opportunities. The conclusion was…architecture, oddly enough. This was at a time when it was posted that architecture grads had the lowest employment percentage of any degree program.</p>
<p>And yet, universities must be about more than just today’s marketplace. I would think - even though I’m an architect - that an English or History degree might be more optimal. In an age of accelerated communication, perspective and the ability to communicate clearly are more important than ever, and yet neither is a STEM discipline.</p>
<p>Also, having been at this for 30 years now, I can tell you that today’s under- or un-employed architecture grads are picking from some amazing offers two years from now. I’ve been through at least four cycles like this in our profession, and yet if we were picking foci for universities based upon current needs, as I said, UVa would close the A-school. We need to keep the high-beams on in such things. Current trends would lead one to suspect that outsourcing will eliminate the profession in this country. Yet I work in a city, Chicago, whose architects are designing the tallest buildings and entire cities in China, for example - they can do the drafting (and actually are required to in that country) and yet the Chinese come here because American architects are still the best at it, at the high-value work, and the great firms endure.</p>
<p>STEM is about way more than the current economy, it’s about the generational need to expand our nation’s labor force in those key fields, to keep the high-value jobs here and to push back against corporate support for H1-B, well, scabs is one way to think of them. And as has been pointed out, UVa has had engineering (and the rest) for a long time. As for research, the best research even at schools like Hopkins, a rock star in research funding, is about interdisciplinary studies, which by definition is broader than STEM. There is no reason not to make it a broader focus on research for its own sake than to try to select these departments and not those.</p>
<p>Anyway, it’s good to see that folks care enough about UVa to have a discussion like this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seriously? You fire a President for moving slowly on an untried an untested teaching methodology? Is that even good management?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said that, nor implied it. My point is that right now the MONEY is in STEM. Period.</p>
<p>And a college that has dwindling state support has to make it up somewhere else. Alumni donations only go so far before they are exhausted. Thus, to continue to prosper, a college has to look to STEM money since is readily accessible. And that means major research. And that means less of a focus on undergrads (liberal arts), UVa’s strengths. Thus, goal conflict. (Dartmouth College has a similar issue.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not even close. Hopkins has struggled with academic silos for years, and still does. Heck, it took 2 decades for Hopkins to figure out that its Peabody and Homewood calendars didn’t fit together. The interdisciplinary stuff is great spin.</p>
<p>Sure, The Hop has a wonderful classics program, as well as other lit/hume strengths. But those can ONLY exist because Hopkins is a “rock star” in drinking from the federal STEM trough. And your example, thought not intended, just reinforces my point. Major research bucks help cover overhead of the Uni; kinda like spreading the wealth around.</p>
<p>My bad on the engineering. I was thinking of UNC.</p>
<p>I knew that. :p</p>
<p>A large push for STEM has come from the governor, part of a bill passed “Top Jobs Act” to increase degrees to Va students at public 2 and 4 year universities by 100,000 over the next 15yrs. UVa is incrementally increasing enrollment (over the next 10 years I believe) with the goal at 1,500. There has been promised increased funds directly related to this from the governor. The focus is clearly STEM. So, UVa isn’t exactly off in left field grabbing at something for the heck of it. They are following a directive from the governor, as a public institution. Other public universities in Va are involved as well.</p>
<p>I share this information not to be argumentative in any way. If you’re not a Va resident you would have no reason to know this. I just thought I’d add this for a bit of context.</p>
<p>Chris: How many Virginians does it take to screw in a light bulb? Answer: One, plus 5 to complain that the old bulb was so much better.</p>
<p>In response to a comment above, if you spend much time on CC, you will see that UVa is regularly competing with U. Michigan for undergrads. UVa does not try to compete with HYPS - students mainly choose UVa over them if they are in-state and would be full pay (and want to save their debt capacity for med school), or if they are offered one of the full Jefferson Scholarships.</p>
<p>We still don’t know why the Board tried to force out Pres. Sullivan. They seemed to feel she wasn’t moving fast enough - but they won’t tell us what it is that they wanted her to do faster. She is a consensus builder, not a dictator. Most of the board’s emails from last year were never released, so we should be careful not to place too much emphasis on the few emails that were released.</p>
<p>UVa is not as much of a research powerhouse as some of the larger state flagships. UVa is actually decreasing employment this year in research. However, the universities that are dependent upon federal research dollars have to worry that the feds in the future may reduce the percentage of overhead dollars that they pay for their research.</p>
<p>bluebayou - what charlieschm said^. The Provost cited the slow embrace of online learning (essentially MOOCs) as part of her so-called rationale. I, along with maybe 99% of alums, didn’t agree. In fact, if I had to sum up the reaction of the UVa community to her skullduggery it would be pretty much what you said, “Seriously? You fire a President for moving slowly on an untried an untested teaching methodology? Is that even good management?” The Provost is a Darden (biz) school alum and many (including me) found her actions especially startling for exactly the reason you cite.</p>
<p>Federal stimulus spending for research provided a bridge while state support declined. It will remain a challenge for funding sources as federal austerity continues or worsens. Fortunately, research spending remains an investment vs. retiree pension spending.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It shouldn’t be “startling” at all. IMO, the public excuse provided was just that, an excuse; there had to be much more going on behind the scenes for a Uni pres to get fired. (Of course, given privacy laws, we’ll never know the true story.)</p>
<p>Regardless, as the above poster notes, “UVa is not as much of a research powerhouse as some of the larger state flagships.” which has been my point. And more importantly, many don’t want it to move in the research direction, which hinders UVa’s growth even more.</p>
<p>And unfortunately, for LACs and colleges like UVA and Dartmouth, research tends to drive prestige. If UVa is gonna play the rankings game with the big boys…</p>