If you build it will they come - or, how much can a campus change?
 

A few months ago I went to an alumni reception for my alma mater. The current president was there talking about the changes they were making. Some of them sounded great - like having a movie theater on campus that will run more arty movies than Fast and Furious 24. But a lot of them sounded - I don't know - out of touch. The school is primarily attended by middle class students. Many of them are first generation college students. It seems like the school wants to attract people from higher socioeconomic strata and thinks that these things will help. There seemed to be more emphasis on buildings and facilities than increasing involvement in student life.

I agree that more needs to be done to invest the students in the campus but it seems like rather than attract a new market, it could alienate the current students, if for no other reason than pricing them out of the possibility of attending.

Has your alma mater or any other college/university you were associated with tried to change its "image" in any way? What were the results?

From what I've read recently (like you've stated here), it seems that more and more colleges and universities are going above and beyond what they should in terms of new buildings, high-tech gadgets, and luxuries. Of course, this sends tuition through the roof and fails to focus on what students actually need. I think a lot of these schools are trying to compete with each other and are "fighting" for more new students. Meanwhile, they're ignoring their current students and what attracted those students to the school in the first place.

If I can find some articles I've read, I'll post them here.

This is funny and actually quite jarring and disappointing. It shows that I am out of touch with what colleges are really doing out here.

My alma mater has gone in the other direction. They are actively supportive of affirmative action and are quite intent on creating a diverse pool of applicants. There is a scholarship office which focuses on the students receiving full rides (based on financial need) and making sure they are adjusted, even in the face of quite stark disparities between them and the typical rich, white, male, Catholic face of the university.

Georgetown is a better place now than it was when I was there - and they are STILL building new buildings. You can have both if you want.

My college set out to become more "elite" after I graduated. They had historically been very focused on giving an affordable education for the money, and no, they didn't have some of the bells and whistles of larger schools, either public or private. But they set their sights on the significantly higher tuition of some other private colleges in the region, and there were rumblings that they wanted "higher class" students over the significantly middle class ones enrolled at the time. It now costs 3 times what it did to go there 20 years ago. There has been some improved diversity, and they do have more bells and whistles on campus, including one new academic building. When I was there, students stayed on campus over the weekends, and it really had a community feel to it. Now it's a suitcase campus; students often leave for jobs an hour away or just to go home. They now graduate with significant debt, some topping 6 figures. And the school is a good one, but not *that* prestigious to warrant it. Makes me sad, honestly.

Presidents of nearby universities have been released early from contracts due to 'institutional visions' that did not agree with preferences of students/faculty/the community (also known as 'stakeholders').

Colleges are penny-wise to repair/replace/retrofit aging campus buildings, but pound foolish in giving mega-high salaries to members of their executive boards.

Years ago, a university in our state attempted to expand its overall image by making-over its football stadium and changing its football division to include rivals from schools with student bodies two and three times its size. This occurred while multiple instructional departments were losing national and state accreditation. But all on-campus students were provided carpeting, mini-fridges, and microwaves in each dorm room!

Then came the era of lower student numbers (Baby Bust). Four dormitories were shuttered. The football program went independent, then returned to its old divisional rivalry roots.

College executives need to listen as well as they speak, and stop speaking in buzzwords.

The school where I got my master's degree has undergone quite the transformation in the two decades since I last attended. The school had a well-deserved reputation for the sciences and wanted to build on that. Administration started to construct dormitories in order to change from a commuter campus to a more residential campus. The student population started to grow. Overall the school ramped up its programs and is now regarded as an elite state institution. Thus the value of my degree has risen over the years.

Initially I thought that the administration was insane to change the focus of the school, but I have to admit that they succeeded.

I would describe greek life there as still in the growth stages. Greeks had a tough go of it while the school was a commuter campus (many students were too busy with school, work, and commuting to rush,) but they have a new hope now for a stronger future.

Schools used to be funded by the state. Now that piece of the pie is a pittance. So they are defacto money-making ventures and way way WAY less (in my opinion) about educating average people and getting them ready to have successful productive lives. So big football (TV revenue) and big research (big Pharma money and their ilk) run the show. And the person who just wants to go to college for 4 years, maybe have a little fun while they're at it, get to either forego that for a crappy school or pay back loans for the next 15 years because their school had to have a new stadium.

Right after I graduated Otterbein, we changed from being a college to a University*. The different departments organized in to schools. Overall, there's some grumbling about that, but it seems to have been for the better, since we're able to attract more continuing studies students for things like advanced nursing degrees- the school has a great nursing program.

We also changed presidents a few years ago, with our longtime president retiring. He was responsible for building way more campus housing, which was needed to refocus Otterbein as a residential school. There were extensive rennovations on the science building, which were desperately needed. When I was a student, it was like a blast from the past. It was just not aging and keeping up with the times. So the building got bigger windows, efficiencies, better connectivity, better lab space for nursing and science, etc. Art and music separated in to two different buildings, which was for the best because there was not nearly enough space for both programs, and the music program is highly rated. The equestrian department got a new barn and new arena facilities, which again, were needed to meet the incoming students for that program, and provide better facilities for competition and training.

At homecoming this year, they announced a new campaign: http://otterbein.edu/stand/campaign-priorities.aspx that has a threefold focus. I'm seriously glad that one of those is affordability and access. Otterbein isn't and wasn't a cheap school to attend, but the amount of aid they gave/give helps many students afford a private liberal arts school. I was concerned when I heard the announcement that we'd be doing a campaign, but when I saw the priorities, I'm OK with it.

Overall, there's been tremendous growth on campus. More students, more degree programs, etc. And it seems to be working well. From what I hear, the facilities are meeting the current students needs with some space for the future. It doesn't feel like "we're getting rid of our image and trying to be this new school" it feels like we're trying to play to our strengths and do a little better?

So I don't know. At my campus, that's pretty old, I feel like the improvements are needed, just to be on par with where we should be- no one wants to live in a cinder block barracks dorm anymore, and there's only so long you can expect a building built in the 40s to keep up. On ward and up ward?

*Actually, that should say "BACK to a university". We went from University to College then back to University.

This crap is happening at Slippery Rock too. I never understood it- you get mostly lower or middle class students. I'm assuming most are fine with sharing a room and a bathroom! The cost to live there is outrageous. People who are all about status simply aren't going to give schools like state system universities a second look, even with the newest facilities. Recruit the same kids you've always recruited. It makes me sad because idk if I would have even been able to afford to go there nowadays (1st gen college here). And the state system schools are supposed to be there to present a lower cost option, not compete with whomever it is they're trying to compete with.

These amenities, though, are NOT what is really driving costs in most cases. Costs are driven by 1) The loss of state funding, 2) Technology needs, and 3) The cost of making college accessible for all, including both financial aid for less affluent students and assistive programs for students with special needs.

I got some major sticker shock when I started looking into college costs a couple of years ago when my oldest hit middle school. This article breaks down the reasons pretty well. They mention the improvements to the facilities and the salaries of executives, but they attribute most of the increase to the loss of public funding.

Ugh; where do I begin to list the ways Pitt has changed since I graduated? The Powers that Be saw fit to replace the script Pitt logo with generic block letters. They changed our school colors. They got rid of our freaking football stadium! Sure, the building that stands where Pitt Stadium once stood is a very nice facility and all, but the students have to take busses to the beautiful but cold and impersonal Heinz Field (an NFL venue) to watch home games.

Pitt owns most of the real estate in the Oakland neighborhood of Pittsburgh (where the campus is located) and they opted not to renew the leases of some of the mom and pop type establishments that gave the neighborhood its flavor. Instead, Pitt chose to rent the spaces to fast food chains. Everything is just so sterile now, it's like the campus I loved doesn't exist anymore.

I'm jealous of my husband, a Naval Academy graduate, who can go back to his campus and find it as well as the school's colors and logos unchanged from when he was a midshipman.

Oh, and as long as I'm whining... I don't know if it was Pitt or the other schools who decided we wouldn't be playing football against WVU and Penn State on a regular basis, but I think it was a bad decision. Students today know nothing about those rivalries, and they were fun!

As an alumna, I hesitate to make donations to a school I can barely recognize :(

^^^Not to mention the nightmare it's created in the South Side for both business owners and longtime residents, since there are very few venues left for socializing in Oakland. And the university and UPMC both refuse to admit culpability or take any responsibility for the amount of students funneling into an area that is simply too small to handle them all.

Agree, agree, agree, especially the bold part - but what are the school colors now??? When did this happen, and better, WHY??

Honeychile, it's not as drastic as perhaps I made it out to be but remember back in the day (think Danny Marino's uniform) it was a medium blue and something my husband snarkily described as "mustard yellow". Now, they're a navy blue and a more metallic gold. You know, navy blue just like WVU and PSU :eek: