BLACKSBURG — Friction between faculty and the chief academic officer at Virginia Tech has led to a discussion of a no confidence vote in a high level administrator at the university for the first time in 30 years.
Faculty have questioned the direction of the university, focused on ambitious programs like Tech's so-called destination areas, an incentive-based budget model and how they're judged as they aim for promotion and tenure at the school.
According to a pair of surveys that have circulated among faculty, a growing chorus is becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the university's direction and leadership, specifically with the school's chief academic officer, Provost Thanassis Rikakis. The senate has also voted on a resolution stating that one memo, regarding promotion and tenure process and outcomes, was in violation of the Faculty Handbook.
This article came up during a VT football search (go figure). It was alarming to read that there was such faculty dissatisfaction with Rikakis' tenure. Just being curious, I wonder if those in the TKP fam can elaborate more on whats happening at ground level with faculty.
Comments
Well, there goes our spot on Forbes' Best-Named Provosts in America list
So can someone explain what this means in small words? What's the destination area? Are these things that ultimately lead back up to Sands?
context
http://www.roanoke.com/news/education/higher_education/virginia_tech/vir...
I think it's safe to say where the shitty logo redesign came from.
Nothing says inclusive like, "You are welcome to not participate." /s
The logo fiasco alone should get this guy fired.
In my experience in the workforce and moving through levels of management, the people that talk like that have no effing clue what they are talking about. They may have lots of degrees and a stacked resume but don't know jack shit. They're the kind of people that if its raining and you give them an umbrella, they'll walk in soaking wet and worse, will tell you its actually better to be soaking wet. They've gotten to where they are by conning people with a lot of talk and wit. The "smart" ones usually recognize when their BS is beginning to smell too strong and will "move on to better opportunities".
So, he's a Wahoo?
Holy shit I thought you were kidding with that quote
...wut.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yy0lEzhc8yo
Combine this with the drama surrounding Mark Neuhoff (Google it and discuss among yourselves as its quite a political topic and thus not suited for TKP) makes me wonder what the heck is going on behind closed doors in Blacksburg.
Hope that Dr. Sands gets these issues cleared up, and quickly.
Yeah the Mark Neuhoff stuff is disturbing to say the least.
He should be sacked just for thinking that Facebook is truly private. Really, dude? IT'S THE INTERNET. Keep a diary.
.....or don't be a white supremacist.
me reading this: ...c'mon, it can't be THAT bad.
*googles*
oh shhhhhiiiiiiii..
Regardless of politics and what he's posted, if the recent allegations are true and he's posting pictures of his students with solicited threats of violence, how in the hell is he still employed and affiliated with the school.
Is he considered an employee or student?
Teachers assistant who also leads his own lectures, so it's one of those weird gray areas where they are both. If it's anything like what my wife had when she was in grad school, he's getting a decent percentage of his tuition paid by teaching for the school.
Same with my wife, when she got her masters they paid for all of it if she also taught. But I'm not sure how his truly disgusting social media posts would be viewed. An employee or as a student, I would think the student would get more leeway and freedoms so to speak.
Virginia Tech is in a very dicey legal situation with this. Anyone is allowed to be a reprehensible asshole in whatever he or she believes, because that's the way our rights system works. But if that crosses into a space where it affects others negatively, action can be taken.
If VT had dismissed this low-life because he said atrocious things on the Internet, that's a big lawsuit. Now, public opinion would be on VT's side, but the courts would not. If, however, the allegations of harmful or potentially harmful acts against students are proven, then it's clear that he can be dismissed easily. VT Principles of Community can also be used as rationale for a dismissal, but likely only after a full legal investigation has taken place.
Weren't the threatening posts about a student he was teaching in his classes? If that's the case, at a bare minimum, shouldn't he be suspended from teaching until this gets cleared up?
He was suspended from teaching immediately upon the University learning about the situation.
He can't be removed from the University or denied his financial aid without any proven wrongdoing, hence why this is being done very carefully.
I'm a little confused by this. People have been fired for being massive assholes on their own time before - looking at you, Harvey Weinstein - so do you say this because of our association with the Commonwealth? Even then, it's not a governmental infringement on rights - a job at VT isn't a right. He can be a dick, but can also find another place to work, too.
Seems to me it would be more of a drain on VT's finite financial resources, more than a loss in court.
Ignoring the rest of the argument here, but let's stop short of comparing extremely unpleasant political opinions with actual predatory sexual behavior.
Fair enough. I was thinking more along the lines of asshole-ishness, and less about comparing opinion-based v. action-based. Maybe Cam Newton, being fired by .... Dannon? ... for his "girls and football" statements the other week? Cam could say it, constitutionally, but the sponsor company is/was entitled to "fire" him from their agreement for it, and there's no lawsuit-potential.
.... I know, that's more of an independent contractor v employee situation. Coming up with examples is hard.
A private company or entity can enforce whatever rules it likes for an employee's conduct because their interests are perception and profit. As a publicly and federally funded/subsidized university, Virginia Tech cannot simply dismiss someone for an unsavory comment in a personal forum, unless and until that action harms or may cause harm to another individual. This guy is perfectly within his rights to act like a Nazi asshole on shady Internet sites in whatever free time he has. VT can't touch him for that, at least not under the laws as they stand, no matter how reprehensible the comments are.
If he violates the law in any of his actions and/or the VT student code of conduct, then VT has jurisdiction over these actions.
You can't fire someone for having an opinion. From my googling, there's nothing that suggests Neuhoff physically hurt or threatened anyone. Now, it looks like he did post a Facebook status that included a link to VT student's personal Facebook page (though not one of his students). Was this ethical? Probably not. Does warrant an investigation? Possibly/probably; I see no harm in investigating his whereabouts. Does his action qualify as harassment, or some type of other illegal action? I highly doubt it (disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer). Unless this violates VT's honor code or student agreement, I don't think this is a fireable offense.
Harassment of any form is a violation of the student code of conduct as is any threat or intimidation, which fall under the "abusive content" provisions.
I don't disagree with that. But, from what I can see (let me know if I missed something), this guy hasn't harassed anyone.
I think it's the domino effect of the phone number in the Facebook post.
And the part of the post that say "destroy her".
My question is how did Wisconsin remove Dylan Bleier so quickly. Was it because he didn't fight it?
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/news/blacksburg-police-investigating-post...
He identified someone who protested him and called for bodily harm. VT is taking a backseat to a full criminal investigation, as it should. VT can then take action based on what Blacksburg PD does.
It gets a little dicey when its teh government punishing for speech. If I own a business and you say something I don't like I can fire you. But VT isn't just an ordinary business. It's effectively a government entity owned and largely funded by the Commonwealth of Virginia. so it can be a little trickier to fire someone. Then throw in the fact he is sort of an employee but mostly a student.
Graduate student TAs are considered employees when it's convenient for the university and students when it's convenient for the university.
Not limited to TA's FWIW. I get paid less during the summer because I'm "not a full-time student" so even though literally nothing changes about my day-to-day, I get ~$80 less per paycheck because of how I'm classified and taxed.
Also worth noting, every institution treats their students/employees terribly in their own special way, this is in no way limited to VT.
That's not true, my company is great and they treat everyone with respect and certainly aren't dysfunctional in almost every single way.
(He says while typing on his company controlled and monitored laptop)
Blink twice if you're in trouble.
(yes, your webcam is on)
I guess i should have said graduate assistants. It was the same for me when i was on research assistantship. Also other bs stuff like not being able to use McComas at certain times of year etc etc
Yeah, and at least VT is still among the better funding providers. I recently learned of another university (slightly smaller than VT, but a reputable place) that offers a stipend that is half what you are making, and no money at all during the summer unless your PI has grant money to pay you. That's just abusive.
I TA'd a class as an undergrad and got paid hourly
I had the exact same response.
Had no idea this was going on. My response to loonies (because when is Michael Scott not appropriate?):
... yikes. Those are nasty headlines to read.
After reading the rest of the article, this stands out the most:
Sounds like the faculty feels severely neglected by Rikakis.
Can we clone Whit and make Whit #2 responsible for academics? He'd have it cleared up in a matter of weeks.
I've seen Multiplicity, that doesn't end well
He would sign long term contracts with Liberty and ODU professors (DUCKS!) :)
Good Lord but that's a lot of whiny nonsense from everyone involved.
Luckily, I'm only here for the sports, and can safely ignore this thread from here on.
Yeah, good Lord. Just a lot of whining. Boiling it down, it sounds like faculty think he's just full of it. Lots of big buzzwords and concepts but completely lacking any substance or clarity. Unfortunately, I think that is becoming commonplace in upper level academia these days.
It's think this is commonplace in all businesses, and has been for years. I can't tell you how many managers and executives I've seen that can talk really well but don't know squat about the business they're supposedly running. Only the best run businesses are able to see through the BS and make necessary changes.
Maybe you just haven't studied Six Sigma enough. Perhaps lean management? Have you ever instituted a complete 6s overhaul? Most management level employees can only speak in buzzwords and budgets. I've always found it's better to smile and nod during meetings and pretend you and Emma Watson are in Lane Stadium watching the Hokies take a knee to end a game against Clemson.
PAGING VTGUITARMAN!!
what's your take since you're faculty now?
It would probably be best if VTGuitarman stayed completely out of this discussion. This is a public forum and anything he says could be used against him in the future, especially since his official VT twitter handle is part of his sig line.
Right you are. I wish I could share some #saucy information (there's no scandal or anything here, just some additional details that may or may not be otherwise publicly available) but that would be unwise. I have often contemplated whether it was a good move or not to have a real identity connected with my TKP profile, but I always thought it was best so you guys knew there was a real person behind the Hokie Bird avatar.
That said, pay attention to this story. The faculty are seriously unhappy, and it's not just a bunch of sniping and posturing. This is a real story that may impact Virginia Tech for a long time to come.
So can you answer questions about the mechanics of a no confidence vote? In the fire service if a union votes no confidence in a chief, of doesn't have any official impact on that Chiefs job.
I don't serve on the Faculty Senate, so I do not know anything about mechanics. From what I gather, it does not remove anyone from their position, but the pressure to resign would be pretty overwhelming. The provost is the chief academic officer of the University. If the Faculty Senate (the voice of the collective faculty) indicates strongly that it has no confidence in that provost's ability to serve in that role, it would be pretty damning.
The fact that the most recent resolutions were passed without opposition of any Faculty Senator is your headline here. It is an overwhelming opinion at this point by our departmental representatives.
So this was a board vote and not the entire membership vote? So slightly different then, for no confidence the entire membership votes in the fire union.
For the faculty senate are only full time employees represented?
The Faculty Senate represents the faculty; it does not represent every employee. The whole faculty (to my knowledge) never votes en masse; voting is done based on our representatives in the Senate. If a matter requires our input as a department, our rep discusses it with us and votes based on our collective will.
It's government on a small scale, not a union.
This is exactly the type of insight we needed to hear. It's my fault for asking for your opinion when I truly meant if you could elaborate to us all some of the context left out of that article.
Kudos, VTGuitarMan
It's all good. I'll keep an eye on this thread as much as I can (I have very little time these days) and provide what information I can.
Does that mean you'll only be at 90k legs by seasons end?
(checks profile)
(holy crap I've been on TKP almost 5 years)
(oh yeah, turkey leg count)
So Emma, think I can do it?
Wait......
Are you saying the Hokie Bird isn't real?!!!!
Not gonna lie, for the longest time I just pretended you were the Hokie Bird because of your avatar. In fact, I pretty much do that for everyone on here. For instance, I like to think Fireman is always wearing his helmet at all times. I also think Shoog is actually Daryl Hall.
Shoog better be Daryl Hall and VTJ12 better be Lane stadium texting with an iPhone.
And he damn well better be using the Nokia Network!
I thought Fireman actually was a talking helmet. After all, I'm a talking jazz guitar.
I wish I had this much hair.
I wish I had guns this big (heck even half as big)...
Apparently I'm an empty trophy case of emotions...just waiting for the right trophy to come along...
I wish I had a flask full of whiskey in my ass pocket...
...right now.
Damn non-drinkin' jerbs!!!
Alan Jackson once said, "It's five o'clock somewhere!", maybe make that your new mantra?
I don't need an excuse. Now, if my boss would buy that...
I'm Ron Cherry!
Quick, everyone give him the business!
Spot on. There are many of us faculty that agree with statements from the article. There has been nothing but confusion and obfuscation since some of these things have been implemented. I agree that change needs to be made to keep us current, but it is happening without respecting the past or getting full buy-in from current faculty and staff. The current logo change fiasco is the perfect example of what is going on with the provost and his hubris.
Rikakis reads like the new boss that holds a staff meeting and says shit like: "this year we're going to triple our revenue!" And when you ask how he says "No, you tell me how and I'll support you".
On the face, I agree with the general direction. Getting VT faculty and research engauged with global societal issues is smart, current and the correct path for the future. There is also a lot of money tied up with this type of research. Hell, I am working with UN global goals for precisely this. It's the trend and its only getting stronger.
The way he speaks about it and the bullshit jargon he creates, at least in text form, makes him sound like a giant douche though. Maybe he feels that he is being intellectual about it but wholesale changes to practical execution almost always requires a leader that speaks plainly.
I am starting to suspect how much of a commander in chief Dr Sands is as oppossed to someone who is simply creating doors for others to lead change.
The article I posted above has a sentence which effectively says that Dr Sands may well be defined by the success of Rikakis. This combined with the tragedy of a result he let happen to the logo and brand does not reflect well IMO.
It definitely sounds like he is selling some snake oil, or at least good goals without any ideas whatsoever about how to achieve them. Hence the frequent mentions of "lack of communication." It's hard to communicate ideas that aren't really fleshed out, or worse, ideas that you don't even have yet.
The seeming mantra of, "You have to make decisions fast! No time to waste! No time for practical, well thought out deliberation with input from all parties involved! Nope, gotta move now!" is a giant red flag to me.
Sucks for Sands, and VT, if this fails spectacularly and ends up being his legacy. It wouldn't be the first time seemingly smart people bought a Monorail.
via GIPHY
I was in student government when this hire was made, and was not super pleased with it, especially after being very impressed with Sands. This does not surprise me.
Why were you not pleased with the hire? Who's responsible for making this hire? Sands?
You did not ask me, but I knew someone that was in grad school in 2015-2016 and some of her responsibilities brought her around the bigger names on the academic side. She said that many faculty were not pleased with the hires that Sands was making. Many faculty felt like the new hires did not understand Blacksburg and Virginia Tech culture and were just blindly pushing agendas that did not fit with our culture well enough, if that makes sense.
Yeah, I'm sure it's been beaten to death on here, but my first thought upon hearing they were taking the Pylons out of the logo was that whoever made that call didn't get VT at all.
You know, over the last few months, I had been wondering about the direction the university was taking. I wasn't sure if it was just me getting older and a new administration coming in. It was the combo of the new logo and all of the accompanying bullshit, the desire to rapidly increase the student body without building new dorms so it sounded like we were on the verge of major overcrowding (if not already there), and the talk of possibly renaming buildings on campus because of what those folks did before VT was founded.
Now it sounds like it wasn't just me . . .
My answer mirrors a few below me, but I got the sense, and still do based on people I know in school, that admin is driving the train so fast that it's not fully incorporating the traditions of the university into the future plans they have. I mean, go look at the master plan for 2017. I get master plans generally are fairly vague, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what the actual mechanisms for achieving a lot of the currently stated goals are. A lot of it is a feel more than raw decisions of that makes sense. Honestly, kids that go to Tech don't want to be Ohio State/Penn State/etc. but I feel like that's the way admin is currently pushing the university. I get tuition and costs and etc are driving that train to an extent, but I wonder what the costs will be on the University and Blacksburg in the long run.
We hired a President from Purdue specifically because Tech wanted to grow and develop into more of a research school. Now it sounds like some of the faculty are having issues with the speed of that. As an alumni from a technical field (Civil Engineer), I can see both the positive and negatives of what is happening. But I can imagine the administration feels if they don't take the initiative and drive nothing is ever going to happen.
Wanted to address these two comments together... I understand that this administration wants to move our school towards an OSU/PSU. Personally, I don't like that idea... I'd like to keep our campus smaller (~30k students, undergrad, grad, post grad), but be more selective in the quality of students we select (kind of like Stanford or GT), rather than have 40k-50k like OSU/PSU/A&M, etc.
Maybe I'm ignorant, but when I think of premiere research institutes, I think of medium sized colleges (15k-30k) that have a heavy emphasis on tech (GT, Cornell, Hopkins, Stanford, Northwestern) I don't think of OSU/PSU/Wisconson.
I'm trying to understand why the school needs to grow so rapidly? Is it as simple as more students = more money = more funding for research?
Can you elaborate (or provide a link) to the changes that are being made?
The most important question is - can we pull the plug quickly on this new academic logo?
Rhetorically, why? Let's refresh ourselves about
Translated:
So no wine?
Bourbon it is!
Shouldn't that be a Y?
Why does the "T" come first?
Maybe because when a VT shaped student looks themselves in the mirror, they will see the T first.
I don't like the new logo, but this seems to be what you might expect from changes in leadership at a university, particularly if they're proposing anything that remotely looks like it might constitute change or affect tenure.
Cross-disciplinary learning sounds like it would be great for some types of students and faculty.
IMO, cross discipline training results in broad understandings with little depth.
One of the better ideas that has come from the VT administration is a customizable approach to core education called "Pathways." In essence, students still have a primary major (specialty) but no longer do you have the CLE to take care of. A student can customize his/her electives to augment the primary major and design a cross-cutting curriculum (good grief, I sound like an administrator). There is more value here than just checking a few boxes, like "yeah I suffered through a couple philosophy and history classes that had no value to me."
For instance, a student in my department (Biochemistry) could get a B.S. in that field but design a "Pathways" minor in nanoscience and take some engineering, neuroscience, and business classes towards pursuing graduate education in drug delivery for neurological diseases. It makes a whole lot of sense. The implementation details are still being worked out, but this is one thing that the faculty have generally supported.
As someone in college currently in my mid 30's who knows what I need out of school this is awesome to hear. I've been forced to take classes I have no interest in and won't help me in the future, while being unable because of my major to take classes that would help me.
I can't disagree more with you on this. As someone who is in their 30s looking back on their education and studied Finance for undergrad and earned an MBA with a primary concentration in Finance I feel that it was a mistake that I took such a narrow path. I feel that my education was more of a white collar vocational training - i.e. learn various financial "tools" use them as necessary to "solve" a problem. Basically I learned the "how".
Looking back, I think the value of education is to develop the ability to learn and teach yourself anything you want to know. I'm finding myself recently studying Stoicism and wishing like hell I double majored in Classics (and Finance) so I can have a better understanding of the "why".
I think taking classes outside of your area of study, while may not be your primary focus, can and should expose you to different people, a different way of solving "problems" and adds some variety to your life.
Most of this shit you learn in "your major" you will use much less than you think - the ability to think is what matters.
That's the thing I'm forced into certain new non major classes as my electives and prevented from signing up for others to save them for those majors. In emergency management today I need more math, writing, computer, type classes instead of philosophy or art. I need to be able to read and write government grant proposals, need to learn how to write up major plans using all kinds of computer programs, get classes that help with speaking to large groups of people while designing attention holding PowerPoints or other presentations, budgets etc etc. those are the classes I want to take. But those are reserved for business majors, or math, or computer science. Instead my options for electives include art, music, dance, etc.
The purpose of a university is to teach you more than just vocational skills. Getting you out of your comfort zone, and developing you as an educated person is part of the point. The things you really need to know are how to research, how to learn, and how to appreciate knowledge across disciplines. You should absolutely take a philosophy class.
A university develops you as a person, not just as a worker. Take electives that interest you, not just the ones that you think makes you a more valuable employee, because at the end of the day, it's your interests and your passion that make you a more valuable employee.
I would think public speaking and writing would be offered/required in every degree program.
I absolutely agree with you for a person of the typical college agee, as would most people. But most people in HF's situation (ie Family and Career) already know exactly what they want out of school and are not there to figure things out as an individual, as they have a lot of their life figured out already. They are there to advance their career, not begin one.
I think what I said still applies, but everyone's situation is different. University degrees are about more than just vocation, even for those who are older and have it all figured out.
Basic intro classes are, but upper level classes are locked out until the last second for certain majors to make sure they get their required classes in. I'm going to class to further a career not start or find one.
I get it. I didn't know about the lock outs. That does make things challenging. You should have the flexibility to make your degree fit your requirements. After all, you're the one paying and putting in the effort.
All of that said, I'm a big believer in lifelong learning, and the idea that all knowledge is valuable. I think the cross-disciplinary concept is more valuable than people realize, and a university degree is about more than vocational skills.
My phd advisor was a big supporter of this kind of cross-disciplinary education. ardent supporter of the integrated science curriculum and also a lot of the different efforts to get nanoscience courses up and running. The undergrads doing research in our lab that came from those programs or similar had a much higher work ethic and a willingness to explore the research that might have been outside their preferred scope, etc.
I agree. My graduate training was done in part in two interdisciplinary programs. My Ph.D. is still in Biochemistry and I did my research and coursework in that field, but the fact that I can speak productively to people in engineering, food science, polymer chemistry, pharmacology, etc. has always been an beneficial trait.
Yeah. Disagree with the above statement a few comments up that students end up with wide knowledge but not deep knowledge. Depth of knowledge often comes as a result of knowing which questions to ask and which questions are worth answering. The wide knowledge ought to beget the drive to acquire the deep knowledge. That's why being able to tailor pathways (or track etc) to a student's interest as that student learns more and more about their field is an absolutely fantastic way to do it. Learning is always most effective when the student is excited to be learning.
Replacing CLE's is fine as long as it doesn't mess with major curriculum. I do think that most companies just care about your major, gpa, and job experience so while the pathways sound really cool for students with high aspirations, I think it's only self-hindering for those who just want a good job. If I had the choice between Intro to Music and Polymer Processing (a great class by the way), I'd take the easy A.
While employers care about your resume, I've found that there's an increasing emphasis on hiring fresh graduates who are blank slates that know how to think. Especially with the behavioral-based interviewing that is now so common in the hiring process, having a broader base of experience to pull from is often super useful. Also going with what was said above, sometimes simply being able to speak the language of people in tangential, parallel, or related roles or functions goes so incredibly far.
Agreed. IMO, many employers would rather hire someone with limited experience and a solid set of skills and intangibles in order to train them to do what they want and how they want it, rather than someone with multiple years of experience doing things a different way. Experience matters most internally. If you're not satisfied with your current job or don't envision yourself there for the next 5 or more years, get out, unless you have a highly specialized expertise in some field or another that would be valuable anywhere.
Updated for corporate jobs. No employer has ever asked my GPA and once I had more than 2 or 3 years of experience, they stopped really caring what my degrees are in either, as long as I have one or more. Obviously this doesn't apply to specialized disciplines such as engineering or hard science, but for corporate office jobs, even in technology, they are way more interested in what you've done than what you studied.
I agree with what you said, but I was talking about getting a first job post graduation
Broad understanding describes Engineering in a nutshell. The curriculum teaches you how to learn and where to find an answer. Your first job out of college begins to define your actual career knowledge. After a few years, the experience in the work place is much more important than the college curriculum, but the curriculum is an essential building block to get there.
I graduated in 2013 with a BS in Civil Engineering and a minor in Music Technology, and this is what my college experience was. Once I realized that it actually made school much easier for me. I tell people all the time that Engineering School (at least at a bachelor's level) teaches you some information overall, but is really designed to teach you how to think, find the answers you need, and how to go about thinking on your feet and solving problems that may arise in the field. It's all about thought processes.
Minus the PE Exam, I rarely use any of the stuff I learned in school relating to design, moments, statics, etc. (this also is probably exacerbated because I am a Consultant and cover anything related to buildings, and am not an actual design engineer or something like that).
From what I know, there are some culture clashes happening at Tech. The new blood being brought in aren't the same cut as the old VT. Expect changes and a shift in the type of student VT brings in.
The new students will have softer edges and will no longer be inventing the future.
I've already heard from coworkers that the application review will likely change and the schools VT recruits are going to vary after the new enrollment management Vice Provost was hired and started questioning the VT admissions process.
Don't beat around the bush here... Relaxing or restricting admissions?
I'm very much interested in what these changes might mean to the future worth of my VT degree in the job market.
Wow, you went inherently to relaxing/restricting admissions and my first thought was that it had to be a rebalancing of admissions between the various colleges. Ie, accepting more engineers vs ags etc
Edit: not saying either of us is wrong, just that i didn't even consider that at first
I was here too. Isn't the admissions standards strongly governed by applications anyway. The only way I could see a relaxation in standards is to have a major increase in admissions numbers.
Yeah, unless applications are through the roof, it'd stand to reason that standards would drop as admissions increased. With the campus-wide housing shortage, it would make more sense to make the admissions more selective??
Not when the goal is to increase undergraduate population by 10-20,000.
Growth is designed to be steady and consistent. I'm afraid to see what happens to freshman if more housing isn't built soon.
My freshman year I lived as a civilian in the cadet dorm due to overcrowding and was grateful that I wasn't living in a dorm common area (others were) or in a motel...
Corps is growing though and has had to take up civilian spots as their housing was renovated.
Its basically stabilized at this point. They are happy to stick to a bit over 1100 for the foreseeable future as that is the capacity of the new dorms, and it allows them to become more restrictive as applications increase.
My freshman year I lived as a civilian in the cadet dorm due to overcrowding...
Wow... so that's what our school is like in the year 6144
or as a freshman in 1993. I still remember throwing the bucket of water on the bugler the second morning. After that he stood further away from the doors.
Just the water or was it still in the bucket when it hit him?
Rebalancing majors has been on the agenda for a number of years. If you want to get your kid in and don't care about major, college of Natural Resources or Liberal Arts are your ticket. VT is bursting at the seems with engineers and they either have or are tossing around the idea of differential tuition like other schools have done a la UMD.
When you start talking about changes in the schools the University targets, it sounds to me like demographics/socioeconomics. I fear top students in small, rural in state public schools will have an even lower shot of admission in coming years.
As someone who got into Tech from a rural high school by the skin of my teeth the possibility of this being a side effect of the planned changes to admissions concerns the hell out of me. There's probably not a lot more I can say about this without straying into community guidelines territory.
Did you know that VT is the least socioeconomic diverse school in the ACC, due primarily to the sheer amount of students we allow in from wealthy urban areas? Yeah, we learned this one through the Alumni Association this year, and it shocked me, but its true.
So I would say any shift in socioeconomic diversity would likely aid those kind of students to attend Tech down the line. In fact, I've already been told that VT considers this a big problem and is currently working internally on ways to fix it going forward.
That is pretty surprising to hear. I've been led to believe that admissions has capped the number of acceptances they give per high school in the most affluent areas of the state to offset this for some time.
100% false.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I'd only ever heard it from people on the high school side of things anyway.
This whole perception comes from the fact that VT reviews within the context of a high school (for now at least) so each student is expected to perform in their environment. This leads to a lot of NoVa parents swearing their student is better than others but caps or quotas kept them out. Nope, just means you went to a school that puts tremendous weight on AP courses and didn't do well in them.
That's very interesting. I would hope changes to make it a more equitable distribution would happen. It's already more difficult to be offered admission in state because of the sheer amount of spots given to NOVA and the bigger urban areas.
Tech faces a number of issues with socioeconomic diversity. Academics isn't the main factor as many other ACC schools are similar.
Big things include location, lack of scholarship availability, and perception. VT blows when it comes to scholarship for most students making it wayyyyy too costly for high need students. Yes, it will cover costs, but the debt is monumental when there are often closer, cheaper schools for them. Transfer is still a ways behind other schools that are offering AA holders an easier, cheaper transition than VT. It's also been shown that lower socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to travel far distances to attend a college, part of my current employer does so well with lower socioecinimical groups since we are right next to D.C. And Baltimore. The deck is largely stacked against VT and their current approach isn't working.
Lots of people asking questions so I will try to explain. VT has long had a "gold standard" admissions process where it outlined what needed to be done academically but left enough qualitative factors to the review to get the right type of student in. Things like legacy, demonstrated understanding of school culture, effort from a student in a disadvantaged or underserved district, and many other factors would help avoid a robotic, mechanical review.
The new Vice Provost is numbers obsessed from what I've heard and is scared of a law suit. She wants to play by stats and numbers to stay safe which sounds great but it kills the review process and the human aspect of the review. A lot of people in the office are fearing they may not have a position next year or will be encouraged to look for a change. A long time friend of mine who has worked there for years is looking already for reasons that will start political war on TKP.
If you all don't know or have never met the head of VT admissions Mildred Johnson, she is revered in admissions and is one of the best advocates for VT you have ever met. She's known as "old school" in admissions and has always visited schools and considered students outside of the numbers and stats because she respected the human element of the process. If things change drastically, VT will become more difficult to get into and runs the risk of becoming unattainable to students from smaller school districts that don't get super charged AP schedules or heaps of SAT prep in the class room.
So to answer your question, statistically, incoming classes will look more impressive, I just don't know if they will feel like the same type of students that we've always recruited.
I read this as "A bunch of LOLUVa-esque backstabbing douchebags who are all too willing to brag about their SAT scores and how many AP classes they took in HS."
Your VT education served you well.
Everything I have heard about her is amazing. I know multiple people that were wait listed or did not expect to be admitted into VT. Throughout the admissions process, they practically became friends with her, and would talk to her weekly about Virginia Tech. She saw how much they wanted to come to Virginia Tech, and how well they would fit in. These people would go on and do very well at Virginia Tech whereas some schools would not have given them a chance just based on statistics.
This is Mildred to a VT. She's like everyone's Hokie Mom (if I say G-Ma she'd find me). This is what I worry the review loses with a numbers first approach.
Mildred just announced on her facebook that she will be leaving her position at Virginia Tech to go to Radford and be their Dean of Admissions. It's already underway.
This thread needs to die!
Found Thanassis's account
It all makes so much sense now!
Too many big words non sensical stuff that's confusing but with all this senate talk this is what came to mind
NOT YET
Welp
Roanoke Times: Virginia Tech provost announces resignation in wake of faculty unrest
Can the new academic logo resign as well?
But he's keeping the $400,000 salary... get that off the books ASAP please
He should only get to keep the salary if the logo goes with him.
Re-invent "Invent the future!"
omg. i just saw the new logo. i want to vomit.
Can anyone explain what that actually means in terms that someone who has left a school environment understands?
Largely a ceremonial title from what I can tell. He gets to keep researching academic innovation, which is kind of what he did as provost, but now he's just not in charge.
What does "researching academic innovation" even entail? Sounds like a leisure job to surf reddit while collecting a fat paycheck.
He gets to keep pioneering new levels of academia BS and retain a fat salary, yet no longer has any authority. Sounds like he got a sweetheart deal here.
Eh, people seem to not mind his thinking and ideas to a degree, but the faculty hated how he was trying to implement it. Apparently, it seemed there was either no direction, or it was changing every week.
This explanation actually fits the new academic logo. Every time I see it the starting point of the lines seems to change.
Welcome to every corporation ever. When you get that high up the ladder, you never fail. You just get reassigned, keep all your salaries and stock options, and still vacation 4x a year on your private yacht on the Italian coast.
meanwhile we are no longer Inventing the Future. The irony is immense.