June will be the start of President Sands' 5th year at Virginia Tech. His goal when he first arrived was to make a VT a research institution that could compete with a Purdue, Michigan, and the like. Curious to hear the opinion of those more in-the-know than me - what do you think of his work so far?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
He's a puppet of the Qdoba corporation.
huh?
I admit I don't keep track of this stuff as well as I should, but my impression is that Sands is doing a fantastic job to this point.
I don't know if I would say we are on par with those institutions you mentioned, which have been at it a lot longer with a lot more money. But I think its safe to say he clearly has VT headed in the right direction in this regard.
I started replying to this about how I like the long term plans that VT has that they unveiled last year, but the more I think about it, I am not sure I am agreeing with the long term growth of VT as a school. I personally believe the college tuition bubble is going to pop in the next 10-15 years. It simply costs too much money to attend college anymore, and the actual honest to goodness education kids are getting nowadays aren't noticeably better than it was even 15 years ago when tuition was a small fraction of what it is now. When I see these future plans with this infinity loop, these glass adorned buildings, where it looks like we're more focused on the aesthetic than the actual quality of education, I worry if our higher ups think this government loan gravy train is going to continue forever. We should be putting more time and money into being able to get anyone into this school who can show they are worthy of being a student, and not make them face generational debt for the opportunity to enroll.
I have a 1 year old, and I already know that unless things drastically change, there is no way I am sending her to Virginia Tech in the 2030s. I absolutely loved every second of my time at Virginia Tech, and I would love for her to experience that as well, but Virginia Tech is not worth $40k per year out of state. And judging from the ridiculous tuition at NCSU (around $20k per year in state) I'm sure it isn't any better for in-state students as well.
I mean don't get me wrong, the new VT logo and the 'VT shaped student' is corny as hell and will get a lot of play in this thread, but that is where my worry is now. I don't want VT to become the kind of elitist institution where only the legitimate wealthy can really afford to attend without committing to at least a couple decades of living paycheck to paycheck paying off student loans. And yet, it seems like we're full sails ahead down that path.
I mean, where WOULD you send your kid?
Tuition has gone way up BECAUSE of the loans, not in spite of them. The reason the buildings are getting nicer and going with high tech is because that impresses students and parents, and the money is available.
Can you get educated in older buildings with books? Sure you can. But sort of like with athletic facilities, it's an arms race. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
This is extremely confusing to me. Why can't buildings look nice and the university be focused on the quality of education? If the plan is for the school to expand, new buildings are a requirement of that.
Has Sands done something that makes you think he isn't fully committed to the academic improvement of the university?
The addition of a few majors have disappointed me greatly. I know that sounds dumb, but majors like criminology don't perform well and lead to large debt for vulnerable populations. Biomedical engineering was a head scratcher to me as was bioengineering. Those are programs that should be at the masters level in my opinion but I digress.
My issue with the buildings isn't that they look nice. It's that it breaks with tradition. VT has an aesthetic that is iconic. So much so that we use Hokie Stone on athletic jerseys. As a tour guide, one of the most common comments I heard was that campus looked like it was straight out of Harry Potter. I don't want glass everything and to become this soulless replication of colleges across the country. I love our identity, our tradition, our values, our motto. It just seems like it is being stripped away slowly each year.
My soils class was filled with people who's major was Water. That's it that's all they ever said it was about was water.
I've worked with many fine Hydrologists in my career as an environmental scientist. You'd be surprised how much work there is for people with a background in this.
How much work is there for someone with a BS in Water vs a BS in Environmental Science? How would it fare vs a Biochemistry BS or a ChemE?
I think the point is that there is this strange duplication that pigeon holes individuals at the undergrad level. I'm fine with expanding the graduate programs and see the need for hydrologists. I think there is a misconception that more degrees = better when often times, we are forcing 17 and 18 year olds to make a decision that is fairly restrictive career-wise. I think it's a poor choice at the administration level.
I don't believe the Water program was around when I was at Tech (2004-2008), so I could be completely off-base here. But, Environmental Science is more of a broad degree that touches on a variety of topics. Water is way more defined in scope. I absolutely see the need for the different degree programs, but I do understand your concern with forcing young adults to make a restrictive decision. However, from the school's standpoint, all of those courses are already being offered, so there isn't much in the way of administrative costs to add the degree program. And, if there's no real marginal cost to add the degree, and there's a non-zero number of people who are interested in just water as a specialization, why not?
Agreed here. I just don't know the cost and overhead. Professors, researchers, admins, admin assistants, advisors, etc. It can be a lot of money but I don't have those numbers/offering a specialization under ES allows you to reuse many of these assets if they aren't being reused already.
Water is a huge industry at this point. Stormwater management is extremely important in municipal governments. Providing water is also important, see Flint, Michigan. Civil engineering with a focus on water or anything with stormwater management is extremely employable.
I can respect that opinion. I don't see it as as much of an issue, I guess. I love the look of VT and the classic buildings, but there are a lot of dumpy looking buildings too. Derring, Whittimore, L-R, all look like ass to me, and even some of the 'newish' buildings, like Fralin seem soulless. I actually dig the modern flair mixed with the old, they feel a little more cutting edge.
I'm okay with some modern flair. I think Turner and Godwin look great. I want you to take a look at the rendering below and ask if that's what you want campus to look like.
Granted, Cowgill is already an eye sore but this is so far off brand and identity it's jarring and off putting.
You take that back. Also Godwin is very uninspired, still better then the NCB which is hot trash though.
There's a middle ground, I think. If they want to do modern, this is a solid look for a facility:
Definitely modern, but with enough Hokie Stone that it looks like Virginia Tech. And that's some kind of art building. Imagine what we could get for engineering! :)
100% fine with this. This it is a great way to modernize yet stay faithful to the tradition and history of campus. This wasn't Sands though is my point.
None of the architecture in that report should be taken as gospel. That report is a master planning report, not an architecture design or review for the school. Master planning paints a image that will later be defined by actual, real life architects. So all this glass facade work will almost inevitably be thrown out by the architect in favor for whatever actual design guidelines they are given for the project which is most likely is going to include heavy use of Hokie Stone. That being said I see no reason why glass facades cannot be successfully incorporated with the use of Hokie Stone, this image is just a poor representation.
I agree with your sentiment regarding the undergraduate BME major. I understand the appeal for adding it; they are popping up all over the place and it makes the institution appealing for that reason. However, as someone with advanced degrees in BME, I have never recommended doing it as an undergraduate major. The jobs that I have seen through the years all require an MS at minimum. Since that is the case, I urge high school students to find an engineering major that teaches them the part of BME they are interested in: materials science, mechanical engineering, etc. and if they still want to go into biomedical engineering after 4 years, they can, but if they don't then they can find a job immediately in their field.
I'm really glad to hear this from a BME. I've been telling high schoolers for years that a "building block" engineering will serve them better at the undergrad level. They will still be able to progress to Masters/PhD level or flex into industry if they want. Thank you so much!
I graduated Sociology in 2000, spec. in Criminology.
What does this statement mean?
Quick google search shows that in state tuition + room/board at VT is about $22.5k/year, or about $90k for a 4-year degree. According to VT Career Services, the median starting engineering salary is $68k. The median starting salary for a sociology major is $30k.
I think NerdMagic is just suggesting that it will typically take a sociology/criminology major a longer time to see return on investment. Given that a lot of 16-18 year olds don't think about college as an investment (that's the bigger issue IMO, but I digress), that the university should focus on offering degrees that provide students a high return on investment in a relatively short period of time, rather than create programs that students will enter, unaware of the financial challenges they may find themselves in.
Thank you for being far more eloquent than I.
Actually now that I think about it, it's funny that all degrees cost the same
One of my friends is a big believer that interest rates on student loans should vary drastically based on degree. It makes sense - your interest rate is supposed to be adjusted based on the risk of the loan, so degrees in high demand, prestigious schools, and good schools should all be rewarded with lower interest rates, because they require the lender to take less risk. In theory, this would force universities to pay more attention to the job market, and provide better degrees/me an effort to set students up for success.
Let's test it out:
Engineering, low interest rates. Sociology, very high interest rates.
Yes, good idea.
I agree. The student loan is the only loan in the world that requires no collateral, no current income, and no payback schedule. Those who are pursuing fields that offer a higher probability of paying back the loan are subsidizing the people who aren't. If you are an engineer, you are being charged more than you should to make up for the losses from others who are unable to pay back a loan they should have never received.
Student loans also never go away, even in bankruptcy
could seek asylum in Switzerland
Like it's cheap to live there.
Would be cheaper to pay off your loans.
Not all about money not everybody wants to be an engineer.
Criminology has an average starting salary in the low 30Ks on average. I tend to also lump criminal justice in with criminology so if I use them interchangeably, I apologize. At that starting salary, a graduate couldn't even pay off 1 year of college with 1 full year of salary if they are out of state at VT or many other institutions. Engineering as a counterpoint, has an average starting salary of 55K. Higher earning power.
Linked below are two sets of data about the degree and its representation in the work force. Engineering, you will notice tends to be dominated by White and Asian graduate, both groups that tend to come from a college tradition (I'm using broad strokes to illustrate a point, bear with me I know it isn't nuanced). Criminal Justice still has a majority of White students, but its #2 & 3 are Latino and Black students. These two groups have a much higher rate of first generation students, have higher rates of financial aid usage, and have higher gross amounts of debt post grad (Black is significantly ahead of Latino here.)[https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/10/why-debt-balloons-...
My point was rather blunt but on average, these programs don't have as high an earning potential, there are plenty of programs already in the state of Virginia, and they are being used as a diversity recruitment tool. As you said, we already have a Sociology degree with a Criminology focus. It just feels wrong to add degrees that aren't necessary or in need on campus when other programs exist where we can allocate resources to.
https://datausa.io/profile/cip/14/
https://datausa.io/profile/cip/4301/
The idea that Tech shouldn't offer degrees that don't earn as much as business or engineering degrees is ridiculously patronizing and pretentious. Someone with a criminal justice degree might be planning on going to law school, or perhaps work for the government which counters their low salaries with strong benefits. Someone gong biomed engineering could use that to apply to medical school. It's a good thing that Virginia Tech is offering more options for students to pursue because not everything is as clear cut as you make it out to be.
I'm fine with offering degrees that aren't strictly high earners. I am saying there is needless duplication of degrees when we already had a sociology degree that had a specialization in criminology.
I am in favor of degrees that are flexible and employable in a number of different settings. College degrees are in this weird scenario where college attendance is at an all time high. This sounds great, but employers are demanding more and more expensive schooling for the same jobs. This is accruing more debt for students and delays entry to the working world. We see people dragging their feet and using college to delay "real life" which becomes a vicious cycle of more schooling, more debt, no experience.
I am making some assumptions but I work with this daily. My job is to advise students on major selection, possible careers, and the pathways they need to walk.
Let's take the BME who wants to go med school as an example. Using VT's check sheet for the major, https://beam.vt.edu/content/dam/beam_vt_edu/documents/undergrad/Tentativ..., we have covered the universal basics for premed prereqs, English, Calculus, Chemistry, and Physics by the end of sophomore year. Med Schools have an increasing demand for Organic Chemistry which will, in our case, eat 2 of our three technical electives allotted in our checklist. They are 4 credit classes with labs though, so we will have to tag that on to the credit total, fine. We then want to add Biochemistry which isn't an approved tech elective so there's another 3 credits. So far we've added 5 additional credits. We then have to consider if we take a psychology or sociology as about 20 med schools in the US require one of those courses for entry. These fit normally in your progression unless you didn't take enough foreign language in high school, then you have to make a call to drop one of them or add on another class. Let's add one, 8 credits. Not too bad, just a class or two shy of a semester. But this major requires you take 124 credits already. You would have to take 132 credits which is an additional full time semester than other students. That's not including anatomy and physiology, medical terminology, or any other helpful prep courses.
If a student sees this and still wants to do it, more power to them. Most students will never have this level of in depth discussion prior to enrollment. It's almost unethical at some point as students are being flooded with new, fancy degrees that are designed to drive enrollment. They often tend to be shallow and don't serve the student.
Let's take schools that are adding Cyber Security as a major. That is a high earner that I hate. There is no purpose to get a Cyber Security degree over a Computer Science degree with specialization in Cyber Security. If anything, the students are being drawn in with a degree that is romanticized in high school and middle school but lacks the substance and flexibility that college students need to make decisions about their future.
So basically, you're just arguing for fewer degrees that are more generic vs specialized degrees.
Makes sense to me.
Yepp. With options to specialize.
Students aren't forced into these degrees however, they still have the option to take the more generic degrees. Now, they have a choice between a generic degree or a more specialized degree that might fit their interest more. I'm a PoliSci student, but I'm not interested in politics. It's super generic and ended up forcing me to take political theory and law related classes even though I have absolutely no interest in them. Now they've added "duplicative degrees" like National Security and Foreign Affairs, Public Policy, and International Relations in addition to the existing political science degrees. I would've much rather taken any of those that have more direction and focus than my current degree. These duplicative majors are good because they give more options to students, it's not like they're forced to specialize by the university.
You're missing the flip side of the argument. Before BME was offered as a major, VT engineers would have to do all of the premed requirements in addition to a full engineering degree. I had a friend that ended up in med school- He majored in ESM, which was the closest thing to BME at the time. Took him five years to graduate even though he was in Blacksburg every summer (He got into med school so I'm assuming his grades didn't suck). He didn't have the time to shadow doctors, do an internship or study abroad. He always had a difficult course load. He was really close to transferring because VT didn't offer BME. Every advisor told him to change majors but he specifically came to VT for the engineering department.
In your example, the hypothetical student takes 132 credits (which is one less credit than the ESM major requires) which isn't that bad for engineering (assuming no summer school, that's 16.5 credits/semester). I would estimate that my friend took 155-160 credits (19-20 credits/semester),
Do ChemE and add the bio classes
As a top engineering school I was shocked that VT didn't offer biomedical engineering as a major when I attended (graduated '14). It's a huge industry and if VT wants to stay a premiere engineering school they have to offer it.
Do we though? What about other schools that don't offer ocean or aerospace engineering or material science? VT has a very comfy niche carved out right now and Biomedical Engineering has always felt like a conglomerate of different engineering programs and less an individual discipline.
I don't disagree with you but:
1) There are several students who want to go to a health professional school (med, dent, vet etc.) and have an engineering background. Before, it was damn near impossible to get a VT Engineering degree, finish all of the pre-health requirements and graduate in four years. Anecdotally, I know someone who transferred from VT to UVa precisely because of this. I know another who couldn't graduate in time even though he was a diligent student. This is a game changer for VT engineers who want to go to med school.
2) BME has one of the highest percentages of bachelor's degrees conferred to women out of any engineering discipline.
3) BME used to be the only absolute advantage UVa and VCU Engineering had over VT.
4) The BME department is run by arguably one of the most "famous engineers" on VT's faculty, Stefan Duma. Duma is considered to be a foremost expert on Sports & Injury Biomechanics (his work was featured on ESPN & Grantland). He's partly responsible for why the ESM program was so well regarded (last I checked it was ranked 4th in the nation). I wouldn't be shocked if the BME program is ranked in the top 5 in 10 years under his leadership.
Counterpoints:
1) Engineering undergraduate degrees should be preparing students to be able to go directly into the workforce, not catering to those who want to go to med school. Engineers have incredible responsibilities to ensure their designs are the safest they possibly can be and if the departments feel that requires them to not have a ton of freedom in their electives, then so be it.
4) ESM had a long history before Dr. Duma took over the department and I wouldn't assign him much credit for the department being well-regarded. In reality you may be able to give him credit for saving the department as VT had let it flounder for years with rumors for years that the ME department was going to absorb it. However, there are less than 8 other comparable departments in the nation, so the ranking of ESM doens't matter too much.
Is there enough wiggle room in other disciplines (e.g. ESM, ME) that would prepare students to work in the medical device or other fields that clearly want BME majors? Based on your username and profile photo, I'm assuming you know way more about this than I do.
I'm not sure why you're so dismissive of engineers wanting to become health professionals. Almost all of the surgical residencies view having an engineering background as a massive advantage (orthopedic and transplant surgery immediately comes to mind)...If I had to get an artificial organ placed in me at some point in my life, I like the idea that my surgeon understands how the device works from an engineering perspective.
You might want to sit down. Many many many doctors when using new equipment or techniques actually rely on the salesperson or "rep" from that company to explain how it works. The rep is often in the procedure room and explaining how it works during your surgery to the doctor.
Hey. Sorry for the long periods of silence between my posts. I'm actually preparing to defend my PhD dissertation tomorrow morning so pretty busy. I'm also a pretty opinionated person and my thoughts may not align with those of the institution or others who have gone through similar experiences. This also isn't meant to be aggressive; I just wanted to get all of my thoughts out. A little bit of background, I did ESM for undergrad, and then went into BME for graduate school. I've interacted with plenty of MDs and med students, as well as mentored young(er) engineers through summer internships in our lab. One of my best friends did ESM with me and is now in med school.
In general I am not against engineers transitioning into medicine, I just don't see a lot of tangible benefits of catering undergraduate engineering degrees to students who want to go to med school. Yes, surgical residencies, especially those focused in orthopedics may look favorably on MDs with engineering undergraduate degrees. However, the percentage of engineers going to med school is small. According to VT, less than 15% of engineering undergrads go on to continuing education, with only a small fraction of that number being medical school. I could not find a credible source on MD specialty breakdowns, but let's just say 10% of MDs are Orthopedic specialists (very conservative estimate). If that is the case, catering a degree program so that the person who wants to go down that path (<1%) can do it in only four years is not something we should be focusing on. If someone wants to do orthopedic surgery they have a long road ahead of them in terms of med school, residency, fellowship etc. One extra year, in my opinion, is not a deal breaker and shouldn't factor in to the development of curriculum. In summary, BME undergraduate degrees should be preparing engineers to be engineers first and foremost.
Furthermore, from what I have seen, most entry level jobs that are in the BME field are open to multiple disciplines of engineers from ME, to MSE, to BME. However, very few jobs that are looking for MEs will entertain the idea of a BME undergrad interview. Thus, BME undergraduate degrees, in my opinion, are unduly restrictive on career path. For this reason, I would prefer VT allow "focuses/concentrations and/or minors" in biomedical engineering instead of making a major, but I'm sure there are many others who would disagree heavily with that statement. Additionally, if someone wants to do BME for graduate level, having a BME undergrad background does not give them a significant leg up on other engineering disciplines.
All in all, I think your reasoning is not out of left field, but as someone who walked down a path that is close to what you are describing, I just don't think the logic follows to the conclusion you are drawing. Again, I promise you I am not trying to be aggressive, just explaining my position. At the end of the day we are all Hokies, and want the best for each other.
good luck tomorrow!
Lock and load, champ. If I made it through, I'm sure you can. Life on the other side is so much better, trust me!
Really great response, good luck tomorrow.
EDIT: Sorry this maybe a dumb question but do you have to be an engineer to gets a master's in BME? I guess the workaround could be for a pre-med student to graduate with a degree in Bio, HNFE etc. in three years and get the master's in BME in their "fourth year".
Not a dumb question. It makes it harder, but not undoable. A guy in my lab studied excercise science in undergrad before coming to grad school for BME. There was some catching up to do in regards to "basic" mechanics of materials and dynamics, but he did an independent study and taught himself what he needed to know. I guess it depends on the type of BME though (we are very diverse). However, I don't believe BME at VT offers a course-based masters degree as opposed to thesis based which typically takes two years. I could be wrong though.
Hope your defense goes well this morning! Keep us posted so we can Fam you when it's Dr. Biomech_Hokie
Thanks everyone for your well wishes. I passed! Just got back from the bar with some friends and it's still gradually sinking in that I have a PhD. I've spent probably more time than I should throughout the past 5 years on TKP, but thanks everyone for providing the welcome distraction!
That proves is. Spending time on TKP makes it more likely for you to get a doctorate.
Fam!
Congratulations!
I am not sure any undergraduate degree is worth $40k per year unless you can be assured that you are buying a life long name/networking to go along with your education from Ivies, Duke, or Stanford or something. That bubble has to pop sooner or later. I hope.
I also don't think VT can become an elitist institution if the goal is to expand to 40-50k students. Unless the plan is to try and develop nationally elite STEM programs and rely on a totally non-selective student body for everything else. I don't know how you hit 50k otherwise. Like applying to VT for English would need to be as easy as going to Christopher Newport or ODU.
I don't know what the implications of that will be, tbh.
Yeah, I'm not big on increasing enrollment in a significant way.
Be a world leader, but do it on merit.
Very interesting comment.
When Sands first announced his goals nearly 5 years ago, I thought he was intending to make VT like a GT or a Stanford - ~20k undergrad, ~10k post grad, but the best fucking students you can find. In hindsight, I failed to understand that most schools can't make this work financially - GT and Stanford can because of their location and their relationships to local corporations. Since VT doesn't have Fortune 500 companies headquartered in their back yard, we're forced to go the Michigan/Purdue route (get a lot of funding from tuition, not from corporate interests). I agree that something has to change in higher ed, I'm wondering how it will affect different universities.
Also related - I was an out of state student (MD), an when comparing full cost of living (tuition + rent/board + food), VT was only a few grand more for 4-years of tuition than UMD, and it was worth it to not live in college park.
I think this is the impetus for VT's insistence on growing their presence in the NCR...and not coincidentally, this is why I really want to see Amtrak develop a true station in Christiansburg
Being more like Michigan in that sense wouldn't be a bad thing. It's one of the best (if not the best) public institutions in the country with many top-10 programs that has succeeded at nearly collegiate endeavor. It's also one of the largest, most influential alumni networks you could ever be a part of.
They still didn't win the Sugar Bowl though.
I personally agree with you but right now I don't think it's a popular opinion. I don't have a lot of faith that things will change until after the "pop". I guess what I mean is, your criticism seems more about the state of the US college education system in general than Sands himself?
I also imagine Sands and most college administrators are acutely aware of this possibility. I would not put someone in a leadership role if they hadn't at least considered the possibility and how to navigate that type of situation.
If they were you'd see schools spending less money on luxury dorms and the like to keep tuition costs down. But that's not what they're doing. Colleges, and VT is no exception, are improving the quality of their facilities but have also allowed the prices to creep.
They're responding to the current environment.
Students want to go to the nicest facilities. The Federal government makes sure the money is available, even if students have to sign up for debt. Parents don't want to deny their kids anything. The students really don't know any better.
It's capitalism, distorted by a well-meaning, but sometimes clueless government.
It is a bastardized form of capitalism. With all that money freely available, the universities have no incentive to provide any kind of value proposition. I would think that a college education would somewhat resemble car buying or home buying where a mansion costs $$$$$$ and a tiny condo costs $. But the little schools will provide a bunch of fringe benefits like gyms or great dining halls, ensuring that the students will spend a bunch on a degree at a lowly-ranked college/university.
40k per year vs. the 5k per year I'm paying right now is precisely why I chose Marshall instead of VT. Amazing school, amazing town, amazing facilities, but an undergrad diploma from Marshall vs. an undergrad diploma from VT ultimately doesn't make much of a difference and sets up me up much better in the future financially.
I think my tuition to VT was 8k a semester in 2011
Tuition and room and board was $2,000+ for the year in 1979
I paid $20,000 + to VT for the daughter for the year in 2012-2013.
Has a bad eye for graphic design.
Here here.
I don't know enough to comment intelligently but:
1) Amazon HQ2 was a huge win for him
2) I still don't understand why VT doesn't accept the Common App during the admissions process
3) Biomed Eng is FINALLY an undergraduate major which was huge for the engineering school
4) I like how some of the majors are evolving with changing demands. A good example is that my coworker's son choose to attend VT over "more prestigious schools" because of the new "Systems Biology" major they created
This should be the official slogan of online discourse
I like that VT is keeping up with the times, and striving to become a better academic institution. I like that they're becoming more competitive in sports.
I don't as much like the aggressive growth agenda. I'd rather they be more selective in admissions than bigger.
I do have to say, though, that the innovation campus in conjunction with Amazon is a huge win for Sands and Virginia Tech.
I think it's terrible for undergrads. I may be missing something, but this NoVa campus will be drawing serious talent away from Blacksburg. That means research & education opportunities disappear for undergrads.
I don't know how they plan to implement it, but I'd guess they'll have technology in both places.
What is the plan?
I think the Nova campus is graduate level only primarily focused on on computer science. Are you referring to Professors being stolen from Blacksburg?
Partially professors, partially research labs that grad professors have. Some of my ideas are controversial based on the reaction in this thread. The NoVa campus will need people. My guess is Sands will want some of his best there to impress Amazon. This means good educators will head north. These educators, even if graduate professors, likely had research they were doing on main campus. They likely advised or collaborated with other labs. They likely had a handful of spots for undergrad researchers. That's not to say they will disappear completely, but it is a hell of a lot harder to access when you are 4 hours away from each other.
So I have some family #sauces inside his office. Let's just say things don't run like a well oiled machine. I have no clue if this is because of Sands or the people he has hired or how he has moved people around in the past 5 years. But my sauce worked for Steger starting in 2000 and then on Sand's executive staff, where he moved her to a VP position. She says things are very different under Sands. I'll leave it at that.
Steger is a hard act to follow. He was a fantastic president. I never knew Paul Torgeson as president, but he was great to talk to post presidency.
Torgeson was the best. I was taking one of his classes when he became president. He used to vent about the past stupidity of the position sometimes during class. He was also always up to play tennis with any of his students.
He pushed hard to get the salary of the president up to where it should be as a top ranking school. Then donated all the money over what he started at (salary wise) back to tech.
Well there is a reason he was the only living/active employee to have a building named after him.
Can you elaborate just a little bit more? I know there's been some complaints over hires he's made?
As far as hires go, you know as much as I do. There was the VT shaped student logo guy that they had to give a golden parachute to. Basically, we don't want to know how the sausage is made.
I feel like he really doesn't care what the alumni want. He has a vision of a massive school and I think it has been detrimental to the sense of community that once existed at VT.
Many moves seem to be made for appearances and have nothing to do with VT's mission as a land grant university.
maybe this is just me, but i never understood what the heck the big deal was about being a land grant university and why the origin of the land in 1862 should matter regarding the direction of the university today
edit: I'm not saying that we should abandon the vision of VT as a service-oriented institution. I just don't think that repeating "land grant land grant land grant" is the best way to achieve or normalize or prioritize that? Like - can we all agree that being a service-oriented institution to meet the needs of the larger global community is a good thing regardless of whether or not we're a land grant? the fact that we're a land grant probably shouldn't be the overarching motivation of any of those goals in 2019??
It may not be a big deal to you. Think of it like an atheist going to Notre Dame. Religion isn't a big thing to them.
I was really drawn by a school that had a mission of service, that educated students to meet the needs of the country and better it through hard work. While it isn't a big deal to some folks, I just ask that it doesn't go out the window in the name of some progress.
I'm not trying to say it doesn't matter, i'm just saying I never understood why it should or what bearing it should have?
Anyhow, I don't think the mission of service has gone out the window, but granted I'm three years removed from being a student. I just think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who spent four+ years on campus and didn't have the Ut Prosim motto drilled into them from a student life perspective - whether it's relay for life, big event, or even just Hokie Pride or Hokie Spirit or Hokie Fam kind of stuff where one person helps another in need.
Hokie history time! The first ever student at Virginia Tech was Addison Caldwell. He walked roughly 26 miles over the Appalachians to attend a new school. If that's not the essence of VT, I don't know what is.
Why the mission is so important and why it should remain in the center of the decision making process is the blue collar tradition for lack of better terms. VT has always been a school that allowed people to attend, get a degree that was in demand and paid fairly well, and it was for everyone. It was never a school that was fancy or particularly showy like Duke or Princeton or hell, even a Michigan or Ohio State. But that was the great thing about it. It was a lunch pail, coal mining country school where you got your money's worth, you were instilled with values that united the community, and you looked to the past for inspiration on what to do in the future.
The last thing I want for Tech is it to become a hyper expensive, bells and whistles type of school. That's why the land grant mission is important to me.
FWIW, Michigan and Ohio State are both land grant universities.
I don't think Sands wants Tech to be some expensive public ivy school like you're fearing. He just wants us to be much larger and (hopefully) more academically prestigious. The land grant is still going to be very much a part of our culture, and there's no reason increasing the student body would hinder that.
Michigan is not a land grant. Michigan State is.
As are Cal, Purdue, and *checks notes* MIT, in the name of furthering your argument.
I spent five years on campus, I know about Addison Caldwell. The story of how Addison Caldwell walked 26 miles over the mountains to go to school resonates with freshmen about as much as anyone's granddad talking about how he had to walk 5 miles up hill both ways through two feet of snow barefoot to go to school - it's quaint and it's cute in an old man yells at cloud kind of way, but it's not the way the world works today.
Why don't we hear more about VT being a sea grant or a space grant university?
I guess my point is that we are 150+ years removed from the granting of the land, that origin doesn't matter as much as the mission or the principles, and even though that granting of the land may have once informed the mission and the principles of the institution, such mission or principles don't necessitate having been granted land in 1862.
My perception is that it's less about "being a land grant university" and more about what that in-particular is supposed to mean about tone and tenor of the university, and I think you'd agree? But I can arrive at that meaning without having to invoke the spirit of an 1862 congressional resolution
You need to focus less on the fact that land was granted and focus on WHY the land was granted. Focus on military ed, ag, technical fields, focus on service (our friggin' motto is Ut Prosim), and our blue collar attitude all stem from our beginnings as a land grant. As I said, VT's very identity.
We can have a blue collar attitude, focus on service and technical fields, but still have top of the line classrooms and buildings, and fantastic food, and a large alumni body. I don't follow how these two things are mutually exclusive?
I never said they were.
Great so you do agree with what i already said.
Your original comment questioned why it was such a big deal. It's a point of pride. Especially, for many that grew up in the shadows of VT and directly benefited from the extension system. For the identity it has given VT and for the good land grants have done for the community, that's why it's emphasized.
I don't know where to put this reply since it's more of a comment based on a lot of the posts in this thread... so please don't take this as a reply to this particular post ...
This is kind of a fascinating thread to me. On one hand, I so know the history about Virginia A&M being created in 1872 out of the Morrill Land Grant Act. On the other hand I know about our university motto Ut Prosim. To be honest though, I never really tied anything about those two facts together. I honestly have never given much more than a passing thought about the fact that Tech is a land grant university other than it being an interesting tidbit about how the university came to be created. On the other hand, the university motto of Ut Prosim and all that it entails is something that I heard about and strongly identified with before/during/after attending Tech.
So with that said, I get where some are coming from -- I think their point is that any school that was created as a land grant university could have virtually any mission now, 150 years later. As a corollary, a school could have been created through a different avenue and now have a mission of service to others. So to them, the fact that our motto/mission is Ut Prosim is far more important to them (personally) than the fact we are a land grant university.
On the flipside, I do now understand that others see these are extremely interwoven and the fact that our motto is Ut Prosim is in by accident bur rather directly attributable to being a land grant university. Or said in another it is not that "Tech has a motto of Ut Prosim and is a land grant university" but that "Tech has a motto of Ut Prosim because it is a land grant university."
TL;DR - Ut Prosim is awesome and it's what we all love about Tech. And I gained a better insight as to the origins of Ut Prosim thanks to TKP
Bruh, being a land grant university has EVERYTHING to do with VT's identity and history. We're known for our Corps of Cadets, Ag and Engineering programs primarily because we began as a land grant university.
I probably have to clarify my original comment but I'm not even sure how.
I think you're trying to ask "Why can't VT become a leader in a variety of fields, AND still stay true to its core values?"
I sort of agree - I get that we're a land grant institution, but I'm not sure if/how/why that affects us from a financial or operating perspective today. If it doesn't, then why can't we just keep the core values (service, hard work, etc) but reinvent our image?
Am I close?
For one there just aren't too many land grants out there, two the whole idea was to use the land for research for the greater good of the community. At least in my major, some of my professors research has traveled the country and some parts of the world and on top of that I communicate with them often via extension.
there's 108 land grant colleges
There are over 5000 colleges in the US so at like 2%, that's not a ton.
I have never understood this perspective, that growing in size will detrimental to the culture.
My brother went to TAMU. It's like 70k students and has an incredible culture and sense of community. I have not seen any erosion over the years. On the contrary, the growth in alumni base has been fantastic from my experience.
From what I have seen, we definitely have the ability to maintain our sense of community through the growth of the school. Why are people so pessimistic and negative about this?
Sands without a doubt has done a good job growing Virginia Tech. The debate is weather or not that is a good thing. I personally don't think VT or Blacksburg can support a 40-50k undergrad student body like what his plans are (not sure if thats still the plan).
Without getting into my personal experience with him while I was at Tech, or politics. I will not donate a dime to the school until he is gone.
Blacksburg can definitely not support that student population with the current municipal setup.
I'm honestly much less concerned with that, but I definitely agree. My strong dislike of Sands is personal experience and with what the current administration is focusing on.
Does it have to with promoting diversity?
I don't have a problem with the University trying to be more diverse, it really doesn't bother me. It does seem like inclusiveVT is the first thing mentioned in every email and event. I see a lot more about inclusive VT than I do about quality of education/research. As a recent grad/sister still there, I still see the emails he sends out to students. And I think he is lucky most older alumni don't see them. Its a bit annoying the focus on it, but not one of my top grievances.
It makes sense, though, from the perspective that if you're trying to effectively double enrollment, there is value in dispelling any notion that a prospective enrollee or current attendee isn't welcome.
I'm not disagreeing, but I dont think tech was unwelcoming 15 years ago either
Its not that we were unwelcome, its that we did an internal audit a couple years ago and found we were the least racially and economically diverse school in the ACC, a major reason behind that was a significant increase in students from the NOVA area, which spiked our affluent Caucasian enrollment numbers. They're trying to correct this imbalance.
So the solution to our perceived "diversity" problem
is to open another campus in NOVA?
I'm a fan. Once I got past the feeling of "Sands is taking the University in a different direction than where it was back in my day at Tech" I started to really appreciate his vision. While students these days may have a much different experience that I did, that's not a bad thing. I'm excited to see where VT ranks in the major rankings, 5, 10, and 15 years from now.
Scary thing is that we are dropping in many rankings (including USN&WR which is probably the most used and cited ranking)
Which raises the question of "are we dropping because we're getting worse, or are dropping because everyone saw us climbing and decided to get that much better?"
Kinda like our special teams over the past few seasons?
One additional comment, but what Sands is doing is very similar to what MIchael Crow, the president of Arizona State, has been doing out here for years.
He came from an Ivy League school and decided he wanted to move the school in the direction of an elite research institution for some time now. He just opened the school of Sustainability funded almost entirely with Walmart money (I met one of the Waltons at an ASU dinner with my wife and he was actually as nice as could be, we walked away and I said to my wife "That guy is worth multiple billion dollars") The research funds and studies taking place here right now are off the charts.
Its working from a $$ standpoint, but the negative possibilities I have seen in this thread definetely do exist.
Tuition is increasing so much that the AZ attorney general in involved as our state public institutions are constitutionally required to keep tuition at a reasonable level for in state students, and its just not happening.
As for a community feel, it simply does not exist at ASU anymore. I forget how many undergrads are spread out across the THREE campuses in the Valley, but it has in effect become a commuter school. Now that works in Phoenix were you already have 1M+ people and the infrastructure and housing available. In Blacksburg, it would never work.
I think it's something like 80,000 students spread across 4 campuses (Tempe, Downtown, West, Poly). I attended a small NAIA school in Arizona, so we didn't compete with them directly in virtually any facet of academic or social life. But we did have some interactions with the big state schools. You could go up to NAU or down to UofA and walk around campus and it felt like college life. If you went to ASU Tempe or West, you felt like you walked into a poorly laid out and overcrowded shopping plaza. Not a fan of what they have done down there.
And the AG is also involved because of some seriously shady land deals ASU is pulling in their massive new office park next to campus.
I think he genuinely cares about the university and the students (I just graduated in May 18') however I don't like the growth rate of the campus as the infrastructure cannot keep up. I don't want to see the center of campus moved from the drillfield to the duck pond. It was hard enough my senior year moving about campus let alone anywhere in Blacksburg (DT etc)
On another note that he may or may not have a lot of control over, but the rate at which Greek Life is being
curb-stomped by Tech disappoints me. Whether it's coming from Student Conduct as a whole or this is an administrative objective I'm not sure.
TL:DR he's a nice guy but my love for the university diminished over my four years there directly or indirectly stemming from Sands
What's going on with Greek Life?
I'm not defending the actions of some shit heads because a few have deserved the boot, but it has pretty much been the death sentence over what I would call minor infractions. Student conduct seems to have a hard on for laying blame on Greek Life and completely ignores the good that they do.
Greek Life is having a rough go at a lot of universities across the country. Quite a few colleges have banned all fraternities/sororities from campus for a semester or year or more in response to an incident (it's never really once incident, but it is usually one incident that is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back). I honestly am somewhat skeptical that social fraternities/sororities (at least in the way that we know them) will still exist at universities in 20 years.
They absolutely won't, but in the case of Virginia Tech they booted one fraternity two years ago who then realigned, formed another organization comprised of original members and are still active at Tech. The only downside is they can't publicly recruit on campus.
I heard of a similar situation with another organization several years ago. There will probably always be ways to skirt around the rules ...
I've noticed more and more fraternities have shell clubs to accomplish this. Was the Fratenity that got booted off just recently brought back before that?
Having unfortunately been on the negative side of Virginia Tech's position against Greek Life, I can absolutely say that it is not a straw breaking the camel's back that results in getting kicked off. The punishments are incredibly uneven but that's not the part that gets me (some of them totally deserved it but others get hosed while some get away with unspeakable things). The issue is that there is no communication from the school to the chapters. There is no addressing of the different expectations and direction that they want Greek Life to go.
If they wanted Greek Life to stay around, they would be working with it to reform it instead of kicking organizations off seemingly at will.
Student conduct seems to have a hard on for laying blame on Greek Life and completely ignores the good that they do.
Completely agree and VT won't get a dime from me until this changes. I don't see it changing, so I guess I'll just be one less alumni willing to donate.
TBH, I haven't closely followed Virginia Tech since I graduated, but I do get the feel that a lot of other programs that aren't engineering are getting attention, growing, and becoming more competitive with other schools which is great to see.
My brother and I got to meet Dr Sands and his wife on the AT hiking Angel's Rest/Wilburn Valley. Very nice people, and I very much appreciate his science/materials background and his vision for expanding that at VT. Not just catering to the college of engineering either, but rather focusing on more multi- and cross-disciplinary programs and institutes on campus. I'm biased as an alum, but I think VT has one of the best materials/polymer science programs (and set of faculty) in the world, and I appreciate that there is buy-in towards furthering science at the interfaces of what used to be discrete and siloed fields. The way the world is moving is such that having deep knowledge and understanding outside your own immediate field, and the adaptability to understand or "speak the language" of your collaborators is incredibly important, and I think VT really fosters that in education.
While I do not believe that VT in Blacksburg is suited for 50k students, I think the NOVA graduate campus will be a BOON for the university. While undergraduate education is (obviously) the primary component of any university, graduate education is the bread-and-butter for academic and scientific advancement, and ultimately drives perception more than most people tend to immediately think. Strengthening VT's position as a premier graduate institution will go a LONG way in strengthening the university. (again, spoken as a graduate alum who did undergrad at a smaller, non-VT PUI)
+1 for MSE faculty. They're great. I changed majors and I still communicate with a particular MSE faculty member.
I never interacted with too many MSE professors, as my program of study was synthetic polymer chemistry. But i always found everyone willing to chat if I felt that they had some sort of expertise that could benefit me. Which really does say a lot about a collaborative atmosphere. My publications from grad school had collaborations within the Chem dept, as well as with professors from MSE, ChE, ME, Physics -- all under the umbrella of the Macromolecules and Interfaces Institute (which more recently got rebranded as Macromolecules Innovation Institute).
I could go on and on about ICTAS and its benefit to the grad students doing STEM research, but having shared services and resources and simply being able to make a beneficial connection and having that on-campus network already established was absolutely vital to my degree.
Proud MSE Grad!!
It was cool to graduate from VT at a time where the President of the university was considered a member of our faculty.
The major itself is fantastic. It was a challenge but at the same time very hands on and rewarding. The new lab facilities in Randolph are on par with the facilities i use now in the real world. Holden is getting a facelift sometime soon and that should only help boost MSE.
Im excited to see what's to come.
Very well said
Not a problem specific to VT or Sands, but the cost of college tuition is getting stupid. The return on investment for many majors is already in the red. At this rate, I will be encouraging my kids to look into trade schools so they can make a good living without a lifetime of student loan debt.
Also, at what point will the physical campus be realized as a giant billboard only. We already have the technology to receive the same education in our pajamas at home. There will always be courses that require human interaction, but essentially every class with a roster over about 50 would be just as easily taken online.
It's interesting you say this. I was just doing research on Mike Rowe (Dirty Jobs) because he's speaking at one of our company's big trade shows coming up. He's a big advocate on trades and ridding the US stigma that you're nothing without a fancy, expensive college education. His perspective is really interesting and well phrased as he weighs the value proposition of certain majors. Here's a good article by him on this:
http://mikerowe.com/2017/07/otw-mistakenstanceonimportanceofcollegeed/
Sitting here with two degrees, I completely agree with Mike Rowe. I believe the question isn't if the bubble is going to burst, its when
Completely agree but not sure what that has to do with Sands?
OP of this subthread stated they weren't sure it really had anything to do with Sands, so i'm not sure it really does lol
I disagree on a slight point. I think we should have a focus on skilled degrees and technical colleges. Kids who are going to be welders, plumbers, line techs, cops firefighters etc should still have a base education in science, math and the world around them. 2 year technical degrees should be the lower standard.
I find it very interesting that the two of us could take the opposite sides that we do given our backgrounds. I feel like it's because technical degrees have been made a lower standard that we're even in the position we are on college education. I think there needs to be more emphasis on the necessity of technical fields
That is a great read and I agree 100% with the message. My Engineering degree has been worth every penny. However, I have high school classmates that earn more than me in trades professions. The problem is also realized when looking at the cost of a degree in education compared to teaching salaries, but that is another rant for another day.
Growing up in WV there wasn't really a stigma of trades, one my friend's father was a coal miner, another a doctor. My parents both have advanced degrees, there are more non MD-doctors in my family than us with just an undergrad degree.
We have a lack of people in trades in the US. But how do you become an electrician, or a plumber? Well you have to work for some one licensed, who will see you as competition for work. You will need to be in the union, which again isn't always the easiest. Lots of times you have to know people just to start. The coal mines worked that way, there was no way just to apply, you had to know some one to vouch for you. On top of all that, there are lots of people that worked trades that didn't want their kids in trades. Every single person i met that worked in the mines didn't want that for their kids. (mountain top removal was different) If you go to college you make more money, you are a lot less likely to go on long term disability. There are a lot of reasons why the trades are suffering and a stigma isn't top 5.
There is a severe shortage of truck drives in this country, mostly long haul. A good majority of the older truck drivers today did the job because their parents did the job. Now their kids are off to college and doing something else. And really how do you convince some one to get into a job that so many companies are trying to eliminate? My wife had to write a complaint to the newspaper (don't remember which one, but probably the Washington post) that they left truck driving off the list of highest paid jobs for new college grads. It takes about 18 months to get fully certified, but you are making $50k-$60k during that time, and then once you have your license the average starting salary is $70k for a long haul driver.
My mother (math professor) had a coal miner in class. He was going for an engineering degree. They were talking about starting salaries in the field and he scoffed at the $50k+ a starting engineer makes in the middle of WV. As a coal minor he would bring in 6 figures, but the work was sporadic and requires less workers every year. He has a side concrete business that was part time making him $30k-$40k a year. So he quite school and focused on his business because full time he could easily bring in $60k+ a year.
My wife had a friend in high school, smartest person she'd met, he knew calculus without paying attention. She said every one thought he'd cure cancer some day, or something like that. Well he went to VT and didn't really like it, his family gave him flack for being smart. He dropped out and became a welder. Because his family was welders. While i have seen people look down on people in the trades, it cuts both ways.
When i interned at GP, every crew member had to have a degree (associates or higher). The crew members painted fences and the parking lot. Every non-admin position could only hire from within, so you had to start on the crew. That is a huge issue too. Not every job needs a college degree.
I rambled a lot, but i guess my point is there are lots of issues with trades and college degrees and the stigma about not having a degree is minor. Not having a degree doesnt mean you're stupid.
Now the people that are proud to be stupid, wow. how does this country not know how tax brackets work? Do people not pay their taxes?
The problem you're going to run into is that automation is rapidly killing off a lot of the professions you just mentioned. Long haul trucking is going to be the first to go, and we'll probably see that entire field evaporate over the next 20 years. And as we approach the Singularity event (where AI evolves beyond human capabilities) more and more trade jobs are going to go away.
Trade jobs pay a lot right now, but I really don't see long term sustainability for someone coming out of high school. And when their jobs are automated away, they're even more screwed than anyone else, because they have no other skills to provide an employer.
Plumber, electrician, carpenter, mechanic, welder, mason, heavy equipment operator ... These are just a few off the top of my head that I don't see being automated.
I used to work with a guy that did underwater welding in the Gulf. His stories are amazing (and scary) and I always said that if I could pick a trade it would be that. Not to mention the $$$,$$$.$$
Yeah knew a guy that did that, some big money, but scary shit.
Let's weld next to my oxygen supply!
No doubt. Speaking of shit, one of his stories was when he was literally diving in shit.
Wouldn't much like that aspect...
well how else do you weld the inside of a septic tank.
Yeah I know someone who did that too. Retired before 40, has a pension from that and builds custom fishing rods for fun money.
My youngest brother completed a welding apprenticeship several years ago and had a job with a nice salary lined up 3 months before he finished.
He then went on to get his underwater certification and works at the Port of Wilmington making big time money. There are definetely occupational hazards, but its a great gig for a 28 year old saving money.
When he was going through the program, he voiced concerns about just learning a trade and the stigma that exists there, and my dad would tell him "Everybody wants the corner office. Pretty soon there is going to be no one left that knows how to build it."
A lot of these kids these days still have this stigma and it's unfortunate. I used to have that same views towards the military and getting trades. It wasn't until i got back from basic training that i realized that people can make money without having a college degree.
I agree, AI isnt going to replace a plumber in your house any time soon. I think the corporate world will be hit harder. Legal (research), Doctors (sugery), developers will be hit hard once we get there. I say developers because when I was doing software have the time it was just data manipulation which a computer should excel at.
Welding robots exist, but lots of things exist. The point at which they become capable enough as well as affordable enough to replace human labor is far off. Working in manufacturing, the mantra around many companies seems to supplement human work with robots, not replace.
Portability is what helps the trades. I can administer networks from across the globe, I can plumb some ones house. Letter a robot that you dont own into your house to do the work is a giant leap that I dont think people are ready to make.
Skilled laborers are becoming scarce. Naval maintenance community is feeling that big time right now as they have to fly specialized welders around the world.
Its pretty easy to push six figures as an electrician or millwright if you are greedy.
Not the biggest fan. From what I heard the administrative stuff is a mess, also there is some drama about hiring a Dean for the College of Architecture and Urban Studies externally, from a different school philosophy.
As a student in my final year, I have to say Sands has been in charge of some pretty worthless purchases while there are clear problems with the campus and facilities. The drone cage was chosen over remodeling the library, which is DECADES behind the libraries that even VCU and Radford have (no offense). The designing of the new logo had a budget of $600k, no reason for that. Literally give any group of art students a couple days and they could've done that.
The new logo had a budget of SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS!?
That is grounds for firing.
What an absolutely embarrassing waste of resources.
Wait until you see how much it'll cost to replace the old logo on every sign around campus.
I really hope this is actually true, but I heard that someone got really worried about them changing the VT logo on the exit lane sign on I-81 because that sign means something to us. The question was asked and the sign will be left alone.
I love that the Pylons are forever in the new 460 bridge:
That feeling of sadness that comes over you when you realize that you haven't been back to campus since before this construction started :-(
This is not a VT problem. A lot of organizations feel the need to rebrand and spend huge amounts of money to do so and it is usually a really terrible idea.
If they really had to drop the pylons (I hate that they did this) they should have just adopted the athletic logo without any modification. Washington, Michigan and Miami did this, so there is plenty of precedent for quality universities merging the branding.
I really did my best to give the new logo time to grow on me, but I don't like it.
Wait until you hear that we spent 500k on creating a brochure that pretty much only said "Diversity and Inclusion are valued here!"
There's a million little things like this that schools do that are part of the insane price hikes.
Sands has said a goal is to gain AAU membership. It seems like many of the decisions and moves being made are with an eye towards this goal. My understanding is that VT is on the cusp. All of the universities VT wants to be like have been members for many years. So, while severely uninformed, Sands making AAU membership a priority and putting in the work to making it a reality suggest hes doing a good job.
Can you talk more about the value of an AAU membership? There's a lot of presigous schools on that list, but also a some programs I consider average (Stoney Brook, WashU St. Louis). I know Nebraska getting one was essentially a requirement for getting into the big 10. What does an AAU membership get us?
Funding is probably the best example. Research and grant funds trend toward AAU schools as does tuition support. I pose the analogy that its somewhat similar to sports: VT is G5 trying to get to P5 with regard to academics.
WashU is not a university I would consider average
Can we cash in on one of those sweet shoe deals if he does?
Not a fan of the new logo but I am a big fan of Sand's vision and the job he has done so far. He is trying to model VT's growth after the giant land grant B1G universities (i.e., Wisconsin, Purdue, Michigan, etc.). I know we all hate the B1G, but all of these schools are massive compared to VT, while still being academically prestigious land grant universities.
While this would obviously come with drastic changes to Blacksburg (some good, some bad), overall, I think this would be a very good thing for the university. Blacksburg will be ok, and VT will be much better off. If a school of 30K can have a "community" feel to it, I don't know why the same wouldn't be true for 40-50K. There's also the added benefit this will have on the sports world.
More students = more alumni = more money for athletics and the university
50/50. While I like having some new blood to shake things up a bit, it seems the new blood has not respected the traditions and values of the University that I went to, and now work at. As mentioned by someone up in the thread a bit, it is as if the Land Grant Mission has been forgotten, so much so that in College of Agriculture had to re-route some guidance/regulations because Extension was not included, the rest of the University just forgot about it, or something. It's all about the research $, everything else be darned. I was excited to see some new blood to try and move away from some of the old, entrenched beuracracy, instead it has just been upgraded (how about that provost that was hired, and then because he couldn't "communicate" with the faculty - his job mind you, he hired a person just to do that for him! He got relieved of that provost position, but is still pulling in the salary in addition to getting a tenured position in a different department! Waste not, want not unless you are in administration I guess.)
Additionally, I don't think the town can handle the larger amount of students. If the University wants to hit the 50k number, then they need to work with the town more. As a resident it appears that the University does not do so, or think about those that live in the town. They focus on getting more students ($$) and don't care about the effects on the overall population of the town. Sands needs to do a better job of interfacing with the region, and not just the medical college in Roanoke.
Speaking of all the extra money coming in, a lot of us who teach have no idea where that money is going. We certainly aren't seeing any of it, even though the class loads have grow significantly. And we get less money to teach labs and hands on course to more students! Here is a direct answer we got when we asked for the lab fees to fund materials and supplies to run a lab, and I paraphrase: "you are not going to get it, just have the students watch a video instead." Learning is suffering. Education is suffering. It appears all the $$ is going to research and not filtering down to the mission of education.
It is nice to have fresh idea's and energy, but the words don't fit the reality of existing conditions on campus.
This is an awesome post, exactly the type of insight I was hoping for. Can you elaborate on these two stories? I haven't heard about them:
To the second point:
https://www.roanoke.com/news/education/higher_education/virginia_tech/vi...
http://www.thekeyplay.com/content/2017/october/24/ot-faculty-dissatisfac...
He's no James McComas.
This entire post must be torture for our benevolent Moderator. He would probably love to comment, add clarity, and share his opinions and experiences, but cannot since he is currently employed by VT.
I can almost see him now, eye twitching in his size "Small" T-Shirt (for those of you going "huh?", this is somewhat of a joke from several years back)
You hit the nail on the head. There are many things I would like to say. In broad strokes, Dr. Sands is generally well-liked among the faculty and students. One of my grad students occasionally plays basketball with him and he is a genuinely good guy.
The problems that faculty grumble about are the actual implementation of his ideas. The recent hire of Cyril Clarke as Provost has smoothed over some tensions that were still simmering after the last Provost situation (some of my thoughts on that are linked in another comment, so I won't beat a dead horse). The thing we deal the most with is an ever-increasing (sometimes nearly crushing) burden of what our job entails. Teach, bring in grants, mentor students, render service, volunteer more time to try to figure out how to conform to and shape University policy, it never ends. I love my job, it's what I've always wanted to do, but I haven't been able to come up for air since this semester started. My days are completely booked with stuff to do, including weekends (where I am now catching up on my actual work - grading assignments and polishing off some details of two lectures, two guest lectures, and a research seminar). And for what it's worth, my teaching load is light. I only have one, 3-credit course to teach each year. I know people with 4x that load. My teaching is a result of that land grant mission discussed in a sub-thread above. CALS faculty are funded by the USDA via the Hatch Act. They "buy out" our teaching time so we can do research, towards serving the public rather than keeping our discoveries "locked in an ivory tower."
Virginia Tech is changing fast and some are worried, mostly from the perspective of town infrastructure. Many of you know my wife and I are expecting our first child in a few months. My wife had a craving the other day and I immediately ran out to get what she wanted (it's my only real function during the pregnancy - get her what she wants). Took me 30 damn minutes to park anywhere downtown, nearly got hit twice, and Main St. was basically impassable the entire time. Add to that the stress of "my pregnant wife is home and hungry while I'm out here going nuts."
The town can't handle 10k more students, at least not in its present form. The Town Council is talking about big renovations to downtown, but I sense that they're doing it somewhat begrudgingly. They need a relationship with VT to remain in business, but they dislike being strong-armed into making changes.
Agree entirely.
Your last sentence is an excellent way to phrase it.
I honestly don't know if Blacksburg can remain this amazing place to raise a family if it is forced to change in the ways it will be if Tech transforms in ways I think current leadership would like.
Begrudgingly is a nice word for the Town Council. They decided about 15 years ago to try and turtle up rather than start addressing significant infrastructure problems. The Toms Creek sewer basin is plagued by overloaded pump stations and failing septic systems. Also by terms of the agreement to add that area to the Town from the County in the 70's it was supposed to get public sewer.
So, an engineer was hired to design a comprehensive new system that would take 8 of those little stations offline , connect all the areas currently on septic, and allow for "growth." Once they realized that additional development would be wide open as the sewer would no longer be the restriction, they threw out the bids (it had actually been bid) and cancelled the project.
So yeah, Blacksburg is very much anti-growth.
They would likely be less anti-growth if they didn't have a huge funding mechanism in the middle of town. I dont mean that as whether they are wrong or right, just pointing out that they are fortunate to be able to turn their nose up at development when so many other towns would sell their soul for a revenue stream.
FTFY...I didn't know, but congrats!!!
I don't like the ever increasing acceptance rate in relation to increasing the student population. I believe it will result in a drop in academic rankings due to having lower qualifications for acceptance. I also don't think Blacksburg is an area that can sustain a university with 40-50k students.
Ehhhh don't read too much into acceptance rates going up. Super abbreviated but students who used to apply to 3-5 schools in the 80's are now applying to 9-12. This means they have more choices so yield rate has dropped. All across the college admissions world, this is the general trend but quality won't suffer much.
Thanks for the insight. That actually does make a lot of sense and it was not something I really thought to much of.
Question to further discussion:
A lot of people have made blanket statements such as "the town can't support a 50k person campus" - Why not? In theory, this should stimulate economic development. Are you concerned with physical infrastructure? Roads, Parking, etc? Afraid too many chains will replace small businesses? Afraid of losing the small town charm? Let's talk specifics people!
I would like to see VT more selective, not less. My concern would be overall quality of student body/education.
I want VT to have the best programs in particular fields, not just the biggest.
Also, I have to admit that I kind of like the current size. As for making it bigger, I just wonder "why?"
I think its all those things you listed. Land-wise, it could support it theoretically but it would take a lot of new development. New buildings, new roads, and all that comes with it because all those extra thousands of people have to go somewhere. Blacksburg would cease to be a small town or have that atmosphere and instead be more like the typical Suburbia you see elsewhere. Whether that's "good" is debatable. But what isn't debatable is that it would have to change.
All of the above.
edit: supposed to be a reply to bar
Based on what I've heard on how he handled the Amazon campus and coupled with his decisions on how to make student life better, I'm not his biggest supporter.
In the words of Forrest Gump, that's all I have to say about that.
Sands is a product of the higher education industry so my dislike of him is parallel to my dislike of higher education. I use the word industry intentionally because universities have become tax exempt R&D corporations. Education is 3rd at best on the hierarchy of university priorities.
This is one of the causes of disgruntlement at the university since Sands took over. He has made it clear that research is the fundamental focus of professors and educating students is a peripheral activity. The old guard who became professors because they wanted to teach and cultivate the next generation of thinkers at the highest level sees research as a means to deepen their knowledge and enhance their ability to educate students.
The reality is that students exist to provide cash flow to fund the real business of the university which is research. The drive for 40-50k students doesnt include a proportionate increase in faculty. More and more education will be done through places like the math empo and other online platforms. VT pays no taxes and is a direct competitor to many local tax paying businesses in downtown bburg. The economic benefit VT provides swva is still far greater than the cost but there is a growing tension between the town and the university.
As far as Sands and his administration diluting some of the traditions and culture; I think social media is a bigger culprit. I graduated in 2010 when facebook was popular and Twitter was taking off. At that time you could visit different schools and experience a unique culture and identity at different schools. It seems to me that the exponential rise of social media has commodified the college experience. Everyone dresses the same, talks the same, and eats at chipotle. When I was at tech Greek life wasn't near as big as it is now and I think that is a product of its popularity across social media platforms. This isn't a knock on Greek life just an observation. It's also very possible that I'm just a curmudgeon who thinks a society of people living in perpetual distraction is unhealthy.
I am hoping that the staff will increase in proportion to the students. The smaller class size and availability of the staff was actually a factor in my coming to Tech for the engineering load. I only had 2 TA's teaching classes in my 4 years.
This is the common refrain I hear about higher education (that it has become a self-licking ice cream cone and intentionally de-prioritized its focus on educating students, viewing them strictly as a funding stream). Have any current professors spoken out about this shift in focus?
I'll try to condense a response to you and HokieCFA here. The above quote:
This statement is both true and false, depending on context and how you define teaching. Most of the professors I had were primarily research faculty, and I hate to break it to everyone, but that's how we're hired. There are non-tenure-track positions (collegiate faculty) that are primarily for classroom teaching, but almost everyone on Tech's campus was hired to do research and bring in grant funding. My appointment, for example, is 70% research, 30% teaching (plus undefined amounts of service, so my total commitment is probably closer to 125% available time).
Older (tenured) faculty headed powerful research labs that produced a lot of grants, papers, and patents. It's not a "shift" that universities are primarily research industries. However, I also do not believe that a research focus is incongruent with teaching. VT is heavily emphasizing "experiential learning," i.e. that which you get outside a classroom. For instance, I have had 4-5 undergraduate research students every semester since I have been on the faculty. That's a teaching activity. I teach my students research techniques and how to apply their classroom knowledge in a practical setting. So in that sense, it fuels my research program. Maybe it's becoming more apparent in recent years, but it's been this way (at least in the sciences) for a long time.
I agree with everything you've said and I believe you have reinforced my point. You've stated that most professors at VT were hired to do research and bring in grants. Teaching is a necessary peripheral activity required to maintain the tax exempt status granted to universities and provide substantial cash flow to further fund the research operation. It's like bars having to generate a certain percentage of sales from food to keep their liquor license. You are correct, research and education are not incongruent and research is an integral part of a proper education. My contention is that for a taxpayer funded institution with a mission to educate the populace, education should be the primary focus with the research operation used to enhance it at every level. It seems that this relationship has inverted.
This is why people are so pissed about the cost of tuition. It's unsustainable economically and untenable politically. I expect major changes to the model in our lifetime, if not the next two election cycles. No clue whether they will be net positive though.
Edit: The concept of tenure also seems like low hanging political fruit to me. And I say that with solid understanding of the positive intent behind establishing it.
Maybe the disconnect is that when you think "education", you think undergraduate education. Research is education - it's just primarily for grad students.
I work for a company that is deep into higher ed and in particular I work with people who have been in the industry for 30+ years. I am not an expert but over the course of the next 5 years, expect small colleges and universities to close up shop by the hundreds and hundreds as well as other significant changes (see Purdue acquiring Kaplan). The bubble is at it's near-peak and VT is making moves that will make it a winner through all of that....the DC campus move is not about making VT different or bigger, it's about survival. I get how it makes things feel different, but many of us don't have the ability to see around the corners of higher ed. A slow burning shit show is already in motion and Sands is getting ahead of it.
I was the SGA President back in '09 and had the privilege of working closely with President Steger. He was a Hokie through and through. Undergrad degree and multiple graduate degrees and then an entire career spent at VT.
He understood the core of what made VT special. The Pylons. Ut Prosim. The aesthetic. Hokie Stone.
And he was an architect who cared deeply about creating a sense of community. He cared about green space. Bringing the arts to VT was super important - the Moss Center was one of his biggest accomplishments and one of his most passionate endeavors.
To be honest, Sands is just not the same. He doesn't have that "it" factor. Doesn't understand the intangibles and beauty of VT that makes it special. He came from Purdue, a school without any real identity. That was obvious in his decision to change the logo and go away from the idea of "Inventing the Future." In addition, his enrollment goals are only focused around quantitative numbers; he doesn't have a feel or understanding of the qualitative experience. And he doesn't understand the long-term impact of creating a unique identity and association and attachment to a University.
Steger did. And that's why the Alumni satisfaction was #1 in the country while he was President. It's because he was a Hokie through and through. And Sands is not.
Id like to see more of the post grad degrees taught on campus as opposed to in NOVA but that's just because I'd actually like to get one from Tech in the future.
I'm not a fan. Sands just seems like a typical manager/executive and does not get what it means to be a Hokie. Executives lose sight of what makes a particular company great in their industry or be THE PLACE to work and instead just focus on hitting their quarterly targets so that they can collect their bonuses. Steger and Torgerson were great leaders. McComas was good too, getting us into the Big East and painfully getting us through the budget fiasco of 1989. Sands is generic at best and seems to have expended a lot of energy and capital on non value added activities like the logo.
I will add that I have not donated to the university since 2016 and don't see that changing until Sands is gone.
I talked to a current student who gave a very passionate criticism of Sands. The gist was that he cares more about making a personal mark on the University with no consideration for culture/traditions rather than improving it for improvements sake. Things like the logo, enrollment, and campus expansion are more about him doing things than improving education and quality of life for students/faculty.
I don't pay a whole lot of attention to what he's doing but I am critical of not improving older facilities, moving the center of campus to the duck pond, and the lack of coordination with the Town in expanding enrollment. The Town struggles with traffic and parking demands that are the result of dispersed development (sprawl/suburbanization) in relation to off-campus student housing. VT will not be significantly housing the expanded student body outside of the freshman. The Town has developed in a suburban model (which brings higher expenditures and lower tax revenues) with an emphasis on keeping undergrads out of downtown. There have been two main results of this development:
1) businesses downtown are struggling as new competition springs up in peripheral areas such as University Mall and First & Main. There is also not a built in, walkable customer base that would keep many businesses afloat.
2) Sprawl requires cars to get around. While the bus system is good, many still need cars to get where they need to go and induced demand of parking lots creates a mess of traffic and parking pain that shouldn't exist in a small town with a great downtown structure. There is no reason that a town with a central magnet location (campus) should be so spread out that cars are required to reach that destination, especially with half the population going to that location every day. Denser development close to downtown targeted at students would limit some of pains that currently exist and create a better town environment in the process. The University has not worked with the Town to encourage this, and it will hurt both in the long run.
Couldn't agree with point 2 more. Our generation doesn't like living in suburbia as much and catering to a denser downtown with increased walk-ability works in everyone's favor.
I find it interesting that most people here say that Blacksburg can't support 50k students. When you look around Blacksburg, the whole first and main complex is largely empty of stores except for the few major ones like Bull and Bones. Qdoba off campus closed up shop in less than a year. There's so many restaurants and stores in the periphery that have gone under, even within walking distance. I can't imagine every one of those is because of mismanagement. Even the stores on main street that aren't staples change hands or rebrand frequently. There's even the annual rumor that big Al's is going out of business. Ignoring the physical infrastructure problems like utilities, I think there is plenty of room for the student population to grow and still support local business downtown without it creating a massive suburban sprawl.
Former Mike's waiter checking in. Anyone in the food and beverage district has a hard time staying open if they don't cater to the bar scene. The main competitor is VT Dining Services being cheap and high quality. Simply put, students don't want to pay for off campus food if they don't have to.
I think most of the "Can't support 50k" crowd is saying there are challenges with infrastructure. The roads aren't designed for that many students, VT doesn't have enough housing as is and the apartments are quickly filling up off campus. It will take major changes from town council to facilitate further growth in the area.
Do you think we will see the old blacksburg middle school land developed in our lifetime?
I mean, I'm 27. Something will hopefully happen by the time I kick the bucket. The bigger issue is traffic. We just saw a whole renovation to campus entry from 460 since it was such a cluster and we want to add 20K more students. Downtown is one lane. That's not an area that is easy to solve. Tech was putting freshmen in a hotel as they don't have the dorms they need to house everyone and I won't be shocked if they start enforcing an early enrollment deadline to ensure house (which is exploitative as hell in my opinion).
VT is in a relationship with a town that isn't designed to handle what it wants to become.
The middle school land is surrounded by a sewer system that has little to ZERO capacity due to inflow and infiltration. The Town is also not willing to spend money to address said problem. They had a potential buyer on the hook and then told them that they would need to spend the money to fix sewer if they actually wanted to develop.
My parents went to Michigan and the way they talked about their college experience played a roll in my picking Tech (well that and the moment I stepped on campus I knew right away that it was the place for me) and they loved visiting me in Blacksburg because it reminded them so much of what Ann Arbor used to be. My biggest concern is that Tech/Blacksburg is on the path to becoming Ann Arbor as it is today which has lost some of its character to the point my parents don't enjoy going back. Blacksburg being a small town in the mountains and being a total college town was an incredible experience and I really hope it doesn't lose that with the planned expansions/investments.
It's funny, my dad, when visiting Blacksburg with me, said it reminded him so much of his time at Notre Dame. It was a huge influence on my decision because I know how much he loves his alma mater.
I 100% agree with you.
I grew up a Michigan fan so I'll say "Go Blue" but man am I glad I'm not a part of that fan base. I'll watch occasionally and text with my dad about the game but even he is getting sick of the entitlement. He actually prefers to watch the Hokies and Auburn since my sister went there for undergrad
Hahaha my pops is the same way. He watches Notre Dame games every week but I was one of three VT grads so he watches every week and has been to significantly more VT games recently including both ND VT matchups.
I just visited Notre Dame in January for the first time during a midwest hockey arena road trip. I will say that ND is a beautiful campus. Like nicer than Tech and I think VT has an elite campus. It was snowing and off-season so that helped, but wow on your dad's alma mater.