<p>"The entering quality of our student body needs to be much higher if we are going to transform bright minds into great achievers instead of transforming mush into mush, and I mean it," he said in the October speech.</p>
<p>So I am wondering, is a great school a school that turns bright minds to great acheivers? Isn't what the president is saying is, "I want great acheivers coming into the school so I can have great acheivers going out"?</p>
<p>Wouldn't a great school turn mush into great acheivers? </p>
<p>Where is the value added?</p>
<p>I'm not sure about Richmond, and I wonder which schools are really the great schools that really change a kid's life?</p>
<p>I don't know why a college president would say such a thing, but I do think that what a student brings to college ( or any situation) has a lot to do with how much they are able to get out of it. A kid who is really interested in learning will seek out opportunity and make use of whatever the college has to offer. That doesn't mean that there isn't value added. There is - but the student has to reach for it - not just wait for it to be handed to them. And if a certain level of critical thinking isn't there in the first place, no college will be able to make much of a difference or change a kid's life.</p>
<p>I have often thought it relatively unimpressive that a school takes kids who are motivated, bright, organized, self-starters and turns out kids who are motivated, bright, organized, self-starters. What is so special about that, in fact? That they haven't lulled the kids into mediocrity and boredom? Face it, given a group of sufficiently bright and motivated kids- lots of schools can look good. </p>
<p>I guess Loren Pope(at least) is of the opinion that there is a subset of schools- often relatively unheralded and not topping any rankings, that do something special. They take in kids who are perhaps slightly less motivated or talented and turn out kids who are high acheivers. They do this with a combination of unique challenges, genuine support and high expectations. If you buy into his premise, those schools are unique.</p>
<p>Similarly, it is likely that 'on paper' the kids who go to Richmond are not much different than kids who go to one of the "40 schools that change lives." If their lives aren't changed by going to Richmond...who is to be blamed?</p>
<p>To make your school have a higher national profile, like the U Richmond president seems to want to do--you really do need to be more academically selective (higher GPA/SATs) than you have been in the past. But how do you attract those kids to your campus? You have to intice them from higher ranked schools with $$ and research opportunities and high quality faculty interaction (or whatever). To do all that, you need $$ from alumni whom you just called "mush." Not smart. . .</p>
<p>USC has done much to upgrade its academic profile in the past 10 years with $$ thrown at attracting faculty and students with a higher academic profile.</p>
<p>Another controversey at U of Richmond. Last year they raised tuition 1/3. One of its appeals was cost, no longer. Hoipefully that extra tuition will improve the academics so they will attract "non-mush" candidates.</p>
<p>Hannibal, you beat me to the punch. I have no idea what UR is doing. They were doing great as a Southern LAC/small university with a growing national reputation. So they raise tuition by a huge chunk and now insult the students who have bitten the bullet to pay the increase? What is going on here? </p>
<p>I know from past statements that UR wants to move into a higher peer group (Wake, Duke, Davidson) but how is this helping their strategy?</p>
<p>And for the record, Richmond's entering class has an SAT range of 1250-1390. While this may not be as high as the Prez would like, I imagine that neither these kids, nor their tuition-paying parents, appreciate being called "mush".</p>
<p>As a follow-up, the article linked by the OP indicated that there would be a special trustees meeting to discuss the issue. President Cooper was retained, but it appears to be a complete mess --not sure how long UR can put up with deep divisions over the Prez. </p>
<p>It is most unfortunate. The five University of Richmond grads I know are a. A gifted Surgeon b. a brilliant radiologist c. a pediatrician who is a community leader and d. an attorney and e. University of Virginia Medical student.</p>
<p>COME ON! This Prez has some explainin' to do. UR has managed to build an ecumenical student body from what was initially a Baptist one. UR has a decent amt of international students for a small school.
UR has always had a good law school, good pre business program and good preparation for doctors if you prefer to do your premed in small classrooms with good labs. They have a new Science building to die for. They have a pretty campus. They have a deep endowment that can help kids with financial aide. They really are delivering very similar products to the schools with selectivity they aspire to...
If I was a trustee or a grad, I would be pretty perturbed. This is not the way to go about increasing selectivity and may I add they were already pretty selective. Maybe he had a mini-stroke? Cause I can't believe he meant to say that.</p>
<p>Yeah, I'm sad about Richmond, too. My 8th grader liked the school a lot when we visited for his sister. It would be a good choice, a little reachy, but perhaps not out of the stratsophere for him. Then they raise the tuition to what is in some ways an astronomical sum - who are they kidding? Then the President gets crazy?! I wasn't sure what they were trying to do by raising the tuition so high - turn off their core constituency? They certainly aren't going to increase diversity. And they aren't fooling any Southerners, it is a good school, but its not Princeton!? Rant over.
DH and I spent 4 very happy years living in Richmond, and sending a kid to college in the city had some sentimental appeal for us, but not at those prices, not for a kid for whom the school is a reach - he can go to Furman or Sewanee or if his grades come up, take a chance at Vandy.</p>
<p>well I am a Furman grad and spouse did Vandy grad school. don't let this snafu turn you off to Richmond entirely is my advice...I am sure everyone has taken umbrage so don't know how the air will get cleared. Their tuition went up but their ability to offer aide is impressive and they do a good job with grad school placement.</p>
<p>Cangel notes,"I wasn't sure what they were trying to do by raising the tuition so high - turn off their core constituency"</p>
<p>Response: According to U.R., they raised tuition to "be in line with what is charged by comparitive schools and to be able to offer more need based financial aid."</p>
<p>In one sense,if I were a perent of a Richmond child, I would REALLY resent being forced to play Robin Hood and subsidize more needy kids. On the other hand, they now can be a lot more "need blind" in their admissions. It will be interesting to see what happens.</p>
<p>A) They are now one of the top 5-10 most expensive (tuition) schools in the country - most of which are small NE LACs with relatively small endowments - I'm not sure how big UR's endowment is, but I thought it was fairly big for a small Southern uni. Some people have said they want ot be like the Ivies, but the tuition is now even higher than that. On paper the attendees have similar demographics, but my guess is that the average annual parental income at UR is a little lower than at these NE LACs</p>
<p>B) I would think that their core constituency would be full fare payers and merit aid families. At least at our CC office, they were thought of as not as generous with merit aid as some of their true competitors before this tuition increase.</p>
<p>C) I suspect that this has a lot to do with turning their sights northward, both to NOVA and NYC. I think that increasing need-based aid may be in response to the financials of applicants from NoVa, although the house-poor will still need merit discounts to afford that tuition, or a diffeent figuring of "need" than the Ivies - you should be able to answer that Taxguy, being from Rockville.</p>
<p>Does anyone know what it did to their apps? DD round filed hers, but it wasn't because of the tuition increase, she didn't want to do all the extra merit scholarship essays.</p>
<p>Actually, I think an 8% drop in applications is very serious. It will be interesting to see what affect the tuition increase has on future applications.If they get a lot less applications, it could be a minor disaster for the school.</p>
<p>It is serious, but again one year is not a pattern. According to UR, they had actually been expecting much worse (of course, hard to tell how much is just spin).</p>
<p>"This year, the university reported an 8 percent drop in admissions, but Cooper said that was better than expected. The university had been bracing for a drop of up to 25 percent in the first year of the tuition increase." [From the Richmond Times-Dispatch]</p>
<p>25% would have been a phenomenal drop. My own opinion is that Cooper put out a ridiculous number so as to manage the fallout when the numbers came in.</p>
<p>Yet another reason why I'm glad I didn't choose Richmond...the tuition raise right before I sent in my app was enough to make me question even spending the money to apply.</p>
<p>...And then calling the students mush? What the heck?</p>
<p>It is a shame, because it seemed like such a nice school when I visited and I did like a lot about it.</p>
<p>IMO, if they're looking to attract a higher quality of students in terms of stats they would have been better off keeping tuition where it was and offering more merit aid. Offering need-based aid is not likely to raise the stats of the entering students because the higher stat low income students will be able to get need-based aid from higher ranked schools. The students Richmond could raise its profile with are high stat middle class students who would be attracted by a good school with good merit aid.</p>
<p>This would be similar to U Rochester's strategy.</p>
<p>For some schools any news is better than no news. Richmond is obviously trying to transform itself and wants the world to know about it. </p>
<p>When it comes to colleges, it seems that iconoclastic views may pay off for school ranked between 40 and 60 in the USNews. Refusing to fill the survey or making "hot" speeches ... all get attention and cost a lot less than super marketing a la WUSTL or Tulane. </p>
<p>The last thing colleges want is to remain unknown and to avoid the "University of What" syndrome.</p>
<p>One of the best long-term strategies to attract students from outside one's region is to raise tuition, and then use the new fuel for other purposes, including offering merit aid. Parents much prefer their kid goes to a school costing $40k, and gets a $40k scholarship over four years, rather than paying $30k. It's a proven strategy. Worked for NYU, Georgetown, George Washington. A star basketball player can help, but you have to be in position to take advantage.</p>
<p>It seems to me that UR simply wants to join the ranks of other top tier schools that want to bring in students who succeed regardless of what goes on at the school. It probably could have been handled in a much better way, but is not different from the schools in which many here clamor to have their kids enroll. I believe it was a recent Harvard president that said a student who scored a 650 on the SAT could be very successful in the Harvard curriculum. Why then go for the 750? Because they can, and that a higher achieving student is perhaps more likely to be a contributing alumnus. Many schools admit students based on what the students will do for them rather than what they will do for their students. As the research seems to indicate, once the student variable is controlled, top colleges seem to add little to career success (except for URM's).</p>