|
Post by diehardexplorer on Dec 16, 2021 16:00:07 GMT -5
I love to see this. Get back to our roots: Philadelphia area catholic schools. Get those enrollment numbers stabilized. Thanks 1801olney. Scrolling down the @lasalleuniv twitter account posts over the past several months gives one a much clearer picture of how very active, engaged and involved Interim President Tim O'Shaughnessy has been in a variety of recent initiatives to boost freshman registration for next Fall and beyond. saw a tweet in the last couple days with around 20 kids from archbishop wood who will be attending la salle pictured with tim. i looked around for it but can't find it now. if someone can find it, please post the link.
|
|
|
Post by La Salle 08 on Dec 17, 2021 14:21:16 GMT -5
I think I remember reading years ago that those numbers were dropping. Someone who worked in the registrars office had told me the same. Cant find any actual data. If my memory serves, for a number of years up until approx. 2015 or so, La Salle had an incentive freshman tuition grant program ( funded I believe by The Christian Brothers Baltimore Province ) which provided something like a 20% freshman year only tuition subsidy to any graduate of a Philadelphia Archdiocesan catholic high school who was accepted and matriculated at La Salle. The " catch 22 " of course was that in the following 3 years, when the one-time subsidy no longer was available, some of these students could no longer afford the tuition and found it necessary to transfer elsewhere. Yea I want to say that i received $4 or $5k a year from 2004-2008 for my judge to la salle connection. If that was cut after my freshman year I would have considered transferring too.
|
|
|
Post by big5explorer on Dec 19, 2021 8:23:05 GMT -5
If my memory serves, for a number of years up until approx. 2015 or so, La Salle had an incentive freshman tuition grant program ( funded I believe by The Christian Brothers Baltimore Province ) which provided something like a 20% freshman year only tuition subsidy to any graduate of a Philadelphia Archdiocesan catholic high school who was accepted and matriculated at La Salle. The " catch 22 " of course was that in the following 3 years, when the one-time subsidy no longer was available, some of these students could no longer afford the tuition and found it necessary to transfer elsewhere. Yea I want to say that i received $4 or $5k a year from 2004-2008 for my judge to la salle connection. If that was cut after my freshman year I would have considered transferring too. The Interim Prez was at Wood as well, handing out acceptance letters. Some nice posts on the Facebook feed on this. Great move, and long overdue. The school needs to maintain its strong connection to Philly Archdiocese students in order to remain a strong academic University. Still, more recovery needs to happen from damage done by policy and neglect from the last administration. Some of it still lingers: 1. While it may have been a thinking outside the box move, cutting tuition years ago was a big mistake in my opinion. Having two kids who have gone through the college application process recently, I can tell you why -- a lot of students will make their decisions based on the *real* cost and not the sticker price. If a kid gets into a school like Scranton (arguably a school on the same academic level as La Salle), and they get a letter offering a $125,000 partial academic scholarship over 4 years, in my opinion it makes the kid feel special and more wanted, when they get a large "scholarship" from Scranton and not La Salle. With Scranton being 57K a year, the real price of La Salle and Scranton may now be roughly equal, but I'd argue that Scranton consciously or subconsciously has gained an advantage. Yes it is smoke and mirrors, and I wish it wasn't this way, but consumers want to feel like they are getting a discount. 2. Some of the dumb policy from the last administration still lingers, and it may have to do with other administrators left in their positions making these decisions. Want examples? Currently I can take my high school student to a basketball game at the Gola, but if he schedules a campus tour he is not permitted inside of any buildings during the tour. I won't get too deep in the weeds about how ridiculous this policy is, but we can drive to a Lowes or any restaurant just 5 minutes away, and we can walk in without masks, interacting with a population at far greater risk of Covid complications than young, healthy, presumably vaccinated, college students. The most ridiculous part of the policy is that it's grossly inconsistent. Why can non-students attend a crowded basketball game, but a young, asymptomatic, vaccinated student can't have a walking tour inside hallways of the business building, or dorms? 3. The school has to recognize that a decent percentage of their donors, alumni, parents of potential students, and even the potential students themselves, are of a conservative political leaning. Social media posts and emails from the University that are so consistently left-leaning are going to turn off and turn away a decent amount of potential money, and potential students (who might someday become alumni donors themselves). The La Salle University I attended was a Liberal Arts, Catholic, institution. Now it feels just Liberal. 4. The University needs to make a splash. Some big, and positive, news is needed. For the last decade the school seemed reactionary and rudderless. It needs leadership, and a stated direction. Most of all, it needs to be obvious about its identity -- whatever that is going to be -- and needs to *market* that identity. How about something like this: "We are one of the most outstanding Business and Communication schools in the Northeast. Hundreds of doctors, and thousands of healthcare workers in the tri-state area have received their undergraduate education at La Salle. Though our faculty does research, their job here is teaching, in the classroom, and teaching Lasallian values. Our Honors Program has a long tradition of unique and unbeatable educational opportunities. We are Atlantic 10. We are Big 5. We are Catholic. We are La Salle."
|
|
|
Post by las71 on Dec 19, 2021 9:20:35 GMT -5
Big5explorer. You make some great points but I disagree with you on the conservative/liberal issue. If conservative leaning alums won't donate because school is too liberal will liberal leaning alums stop donating if school leans more conservative. Even defining what's liberal and what's conservative is a minefield today. I donate because I'm grateful for the education I received and because money is clearly a problem for La Salle. If La Salle fails for economic reasons will it matter whether the school was conservative or liberal? These are troubled times and I worry about our survival. I too wish the administration was more transparent about money but understand that if they express concerns about viability it may make it even harder to attract students. The Board needs to hit a home run with the new President, we certainly need a vigorous leader.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Dec 19, 2021 9:42:01 GMT -5
4. The University needs to make a splash. Some big, and positive, news is needed. For the last decade the school seemed reactionary and rudderless. It needs leadership, and a stated direction. Most of all, it needs to be obvious about its identity -- whatever that is going to be -- and needs to *market* that identity. Are you forgetting about the dog dorm?!?!
|
|
|
Post by big5explorer on Dec 19, 2021 10:09:16 GMT -5
Big5explorer. You make some great points but I disagree with you on the conservative/liberal issue. If conservative leaning alums won't donate because school is too liberal will liberal leaning alums stop donating if school leans more conservative. Even defining what's liberal and what's conservative is a minefield today. I donate because I'm grateful for the education I received and because money is clearly a problem for La Salle. If La Salle fails for economic reasons will it matter whether the school was conservative or liberal? These are troubled times and I worry about our survival. I too wish the administration was more transparent about money but understand that if they express concerns about viability it may make it even harder to attract students. The Board needs to hit a home run with the new President, we certainly need a vigorous leader. Let me know when the University sends out a conservative-leaning email anything similar to the email that went out earlier this month that included things like: 1. a proposal to send out a "Climate Survey." 2. "Community circles: Called 'Healing Ourselves through Moments of Empathy' (HOME), the community circle is an opportunity to create a compassionate and welcoming space for the University community to reflect and listen in small affinity group settings to digest and internalize the Commission’s report." 3. Creating "a new category of supplemental questions in the hiring system called “Language Proficiency,” incorporating more instruction into hiring guidelines around specifying what languages are preferred and definitions of proficiency. " 4. Appointing an Assistant Vice President of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion when there is *already* a VP of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion. I'm also happy to point out social media posts that have been obviously left-leaning. As well as some of the administrative decisions over the last decade that are left-leaning -- including a doggy dorm.
|
|
|
Post by SICguy84 on Dec 19, 2021 10:30:07 GMT -5
I'm also happy to point out social media posts that have been obviously left-leaning. Much secular "holiday" talk on their social media. Less "Christmas" than I can ever remember. Reminds me of my public high school.
|
|
|
Post by belfieldhappyhour on Dec 19, 2021 10:34:56 GMT -5
1. While it may have been a thinking outside the box move, cutting tuition years ago was a big mistake in my opinion. Having two kids who have gone through the college application process recently, I can tell you why -- a lot of students will make their decisions based on the *real* cost and not the sticker price. If a kid gets into a school like Scranton (arguably a school on the same academic level as La Salle), and they get a letter offering a $125,000 partial academic scholarship over 4 years, in my opinion it makes the kid feel special and more wanted, when they get a large "scholarship" from Scranton and not La Salle. With Scranton being 57K a year, the real price of La Salle and Scranton may now be roughly equal, but I'd argue that Scranton consciously or subconsciously has gained an advantage. Yes it is smoke and mirrors, and I wish it wasn't this way, but consumers want to feel like they are getting a discount. I think I remember hearing that the actual saving was roughly $1000 per student, partly because they jacked up room and board when they dropped the tuition. Speaking of transparency, any update on the presidential search? Can we get someone in place by the summer? Can we keep O’Shaughnessy for a couple years?
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Dec 19, 2021 10:44:38 GMT -5
Big5explorer. You make some great points but I disagree with you on the conservative/liberal issue. If conservative leaning alums won't donate because school is too liberal will liberal leaning alums stop donating if school leans more conservative. They could be neutral and both would donate. As Michael Jordan once said when asked why he wouldn't use his celebrity status to back certain political candidates, "Republicans buy sneakers too." I've posted donation numbers on here under the prior administration's tenure and they dropped despite a booming stock market. Anecdotally, several alums to me they were withholding donations due to the progressive-leaning administration. After it was announced she was leaving, donations went up again and people gave to what contributed to a record Day of Giving last spring. You can draw your own conclusions from donations dropping under her to going back up when announced she was departing. This study is a bit dated now, but it does show that the larger dollar givers leaned more conservative/republican back when it was done. www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/u.s.-generosityIt's probably best for an administration to appear more neutral.
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on Dec 19, 2021 10:52:15 GMT -5
Big5explorer. You make some great points but I disagree with you on the conservative/liberal issue. If conservative leaning alums won't donate because school is too liberal will liberal leaning alums stop donating if school leans more conservative. They could be neutral and both would donate. As Michael Jordan once said when asked why he wouldn't use his celebrity status to back certain political candidates, "Republicans buy sneakers too." I've posted donation numbers on here under the prior administration's tenure and they dropped despite a booming stock market. Anecdotally, several alums to me they were withholding donations due to the progressive-leaning administration. After it was announced she was leaving, donations went up again and people gave to what contributed to a record Day of Giving last spring. You can draw your own conclusions from donations dropping under her to going back up when announced she was departing. This study is a bit dated now, but it does show that the larger dollar givers leaned more conservative/republican back when it was done. www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/u.s.-generosityIt's probably best for an administration to appear more neutral. I think a problem is that no one defines “neutral” the same way. I see “Climate Study” and think of that as totally neutral. You would probably see a statement on requiring all athletes to stand for the National Anthem as neutral, which I might see differently.
|
|
|
Post by big5explorer on Dec 19, 2021 11:34:27 GMT -5
They could be neutral and both would donate. As Michael Jordan once said when asked why he wouldn't use his celebrity status to back certain political candidates, "Republicans buy sneakers too." I've posted donation numbers on here under the prior administration's tenure and they dropped despite a booming stock market. Anecdotally, several alums to me they were withholding donations due to the progressive-leaning administration. After it was announced she was leaving, donations went up again and people gave to what contributed to a record Day of Giving last spring. You can draw your own conclusions from donations dropping under her to going back up when announced she was departing. This study is a bit dated now, but it does show that the larger dollar givers leaned more conservative/republican back when it was done. www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/u.s.-generosityIt's probably best for an administration to appear more neutral. I think a problem is that no one defines “neutral” the same way. I see “Climate Study” and think of that as totally neutral. You would probably see a statement on requiring all athletes to stand for the National Anthem as neutral, which I might see differently. A conservative might wonder why time, money and resources need to be utilized for a climate survey in a small urban school that lacks an environmental science program that might even reasonably be able to process any data returned -- and, more important, any utility that data might have -- from such a survey. A conservative might wonder why a climate survey is even relevant to a discussion on equity, diversity, and inclusion. A conservative might bristle at the use or emphasis on the word "equity" above, knowing there is a real difference between equality of opportunity vs. an equity of outcome. A neutral administration might recognized that conservatives are concerned about the blurring of the terms equality and equity. A conservative might have *real* concerns about "Community circles: Called “Healing Ourselves through Moments of Empathy” (HOME), the community circle is an opportunity to create a compassionate and welcoming space for the University community to reflect and listen in small affinity group settings to digest and internalize the Commission’s report. " What are we all needing to heal from? A conservative might paraphrase Norm MacDonald: No offense, but this all sounds like some freakin' commie gobbledygook.
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on Dec 19, 2021 11:37:25 GMT -5
I think a problem is that no one defines “neutral” the same way. I see “Climate Study” and think of that as totally neutral. You would probably see a statement on requiring all athletes to stand for the National Anthem as neutral, which I might see differently. A conservative might wonder why time, money and resources need to be utilized for a climate survey in a small urban school that lacks an environmental science program that might even reasonably be able to process any data returned -- and, more important, any utility that data might have -- from such a survey. A conservative might wonder why a climate survey is even relevant to a discussion on equity, diversity, and inclusion. A conservative might bristle at the use or emphasis on the word "equity" above, knowing there is a real difference between equality of opportunity vs. an equity of outcome. A neutral administration might recognized that conservatives are concerned about the blurring of the terms equality and equity. A conservative might have *real* concerns about "Community circles: Called “Healing Ourselves through Moments of Empathy” (HOME), the community circle is an opportunity to create a compassionate and welcoming space for the University community to reflect and listen in small affinity group settings to digest and internalize the Commission’s report. " What are we all needing to heal from? A conservative might paraphrase Norm MacDonald: No offense, but this all sounds like some freakin' commie gobbledygook. Yeah I’m not going to engage in this, part of the deal I made with myself when I came back to the board. I was just saying that finding “neutral” is a pretty difficult concept in this day and age, when nearly everything is seen in political terms (and I’m very much a part of that, I’m not gonna pretend I’m not).
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Dec 19, 2021 11:37:56 GMT -5
I'm also happy to point out social media posts that have been obviously left-leaning. Would love to see a couple
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Dec 19, 2021 11:46:04 GMT -5
Yeah I’m not going to engage in this, part of the deal I made with myself when I came back to the board. I was just saying that finding “neutral” is a pretty difficult concept in this day and age, when nearly everything is seen in political terms (and I’m very much a part of that, I’m not gonna pretend I’m not). But you did choose to engage and now want to back away as part of some coming-back-to-the-board high ground. No one mentioned the anthem here, but you chose to bring it up. Not only did you engage, you added something no one mentioned that obviously was polarizing to prove a point on neutrality that most don't see as neutral...something that was so polarizing it was already moved to the other part of the board. And you want to "not engage" now. Typical liberal debate strategy...come in, throw a bomb no one mentioned...and leave by saying you're not going to engage.
|
|
|
Post by gymrat67 on Dec 19, 2021 12:04:10 GMT -5
Big5explorer. You make some great points but I disagree with you on the conservative/liberal issue. If conservative leaning alums won't donate because school is too liberal will liberal leaning alums stop donating if school leans more conservative. Even defining what's liberal and what's conservative is a minefield today. I donate because I'm grateful for the education I received and because money is clearly a problem for La Salle. If La Salle fails for economic reasons will it matter whether the school was conservative or liberal? These are troubled times and I worry about our survival. I too wish the administration was more transparent about money but understand that if they express concerns about viability it may make it even harder to attract students. The Board needs to hit a home run with the new President, we certainly need a vigorous leader. Let me know when the University sends out a conservative-leaning email anything similar to the email that went out earlier this month that included things like: 1. a proposal to send out a "Climate Survey." 2. "Community circles: Called 'Healing Ourselves through Moments of Empathy' (HOME), the community circle is an opportunity to create a compassionate and welcoming space for the University community to reflect and listen in small affinity group settings to digest and internalize the Commission’s report." 3. Creating "a new category of supplemental questions in the hiring system called “Language Proficiency,” incorporating more instruction into hiring guidelines around specifying what languages are preferred and definitions of proficiency. " 4. Appointing an Assistant Vice President of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion when there is *already* a VP of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion. I'm also happy to point out social media posts that have been obviously left-leaning. As well as some of the administrative decisions over the last decade that are left-leaning -- including a doggy dorm. Fiscally, Rome is in flames. Meanwhile ...
|
|
|
Post by gymrat67 on Dec 19, 2021 12:06:16 GMT -5
Nero fiddles ( ctd. )
|
|
|
Post by big5explorer on Dec 19, 2021 12:07:06 GMT -5
I'm also happy to point out social media posts that have been obviously left-leaning. Would love to see a couple The U's Twitter feed has done a much better job this school year highlighting students, sports, academic achievements etc. There were much more of these under the last Prez, but here are a few recent examples:
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on Dec 19, 2021 12:07:44 GMT -5
Yeah I’m not going to engage in this, part of the deal I made with myself when I came back to the board. I was just saying that finding “neutral” is a pretty difficult concept in this day and age, when nearly everything is seen in political terms (and I’m very much a part of that, I’m not gonna pretend I’m not). But you did choose to engage and now want to back away as part of some coming-back-to-the-board high ground. No one mentioned the anthem here, but you chose to bring it up. Not only did you engage, you added something no one mentioned that obviously was polarizing to prove a point on neutrality that most don't see as neutral...something that was so polarizing it was already moved to the other part of the board. And you want to "not engage" now. Typical liberal debate strategy...come in, throw a bomb no one mentioned...and leave by saying you're not going to engage. I’m not going to engage (further) because this board has become fucking unbearable because every thread turns into this. I’ve contributed to it in the past. I was trying to convey a point about a difficult situation using current examples from the board. And I think my point is being proved correct. It’s almost impossible to maintain a neutral stance as an organization like a University now because almost everything is seen as political. If not wanting to participate in another exhausting round of back and forths is “typical Liberal tactics” then fine. You got me. My point of view is that a University SHOULD be talking about things like diversity and inclusion and devoting resources to it. If you see that as inherently anti-Conservative then we have a fundamental disagreement.
|
|
|
Post by big5explorer on Dec 19, 2021 12:20:00 GMT -5
But you did choose to engage and now want to back away as part of some coming-back-to-the-board high ground. No one mentioned the anthem here, but you chose to bring it up. Not only did you engage, you added something no one mentioned that obviously was polarizing to prove a point on neutrality that most don't see as neutral...something that was so polarizing it was already moved to the other part of the board. And you want to "not engage" now. Typical liberal debate strategy...come in, throw a bomb no one mentioned...and leave by saying you're not going to engage. I’m not going to engage (further) because this board has become fucking unbearable because every thread turns into this. I’ve contributed to it in the past. I was trying to convey a point about a difficult situation using current examples from the board. And I think my point is being proved correct. It’s almost impossible to maintain a neutral stance as an organization like a University now because almost everything is seen as political. If not wanting to participate in another exhausting round of back and forths is “typical Liberal tactics” then fine. You got me. My point of view is that a University SHOULD be talking about things like diversity and inclusion and devoting resources to it. If you see that as inherently anti-Conservative then we have a fundamental disagreement. I think you might be over-reading arguments. Inclusion and diversity is very different than equity of outcome and affirmative action programs. A University can be inclusive and diverse without needing to put its thumb on the scale, thereby excluding people of other races, genders, etc. While a University has every right to have its own agenda and even political leaning, I am simply pointing out that doing so isn't without consequence of losing donors, alumni, or future student interest if they don't agree with that agenda.
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on Dec 19, 2021 12:27:36 GMT -5
I’m not going to engage (further) because this board has become fucking unbearable because every thread turns into this. I’ve contributed to it in the past. I was trying to convey a point about a difficult situation using current examples from the board. And I think my point is being proved correct. It’s almost impossible to maintain a neutral stance as an organization like a University now because almost everything is seen as political. If not wanting to participate in another exhausting round of back and forths is “typical Liberal tactics” then fine. You got me. My point of view is that a University SHOULD be talking about things like diversity and inclusion and devoting resources to it. If you see that as inherently anti-Conservative then we have a fundamental disagreement. I think you might be over-reading arguments. Inclusion and diversity is very different than equity of outcome and affirmative action programs. A University can be inclusive and diverse without needing to put its thumb on the scale, thereby excluding people of other races, genders, etc. While a University has every right to have its own agenda and even political leaning, I am simply pointing out that doing so isn't without consequence of losing donors, alumni, or future student interest if they don't agree with that agenda. My last post wasn’t directed at you. I understand the points you’re making. You and I don’t agree on the substance but I totally get what you’re saying. I was just trying to point out how difficult I think it is to strike a balance that isn’t gonna piss people off one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by big5explorer on Dec 19, 2021 13:12:57 GMT -5
I think you might be over-reading arguments. Inclusion and diversity is very different than equity of outcome and affirmative action programs. A University can be inclusive and diverse without needing to put its thumb on the scale, thereby excluding people of other races, genders, etc. While a University has every right to have its own agenda and even political leaning, I am simply pointing out that doing so isn't without consequence of losing donors, alumni, or future student interest if they don't agree with that agenda. My last post wasn’t directed at you. I understand the points you’re making. You and I don’t agree on the substance but I totally get what you’re saying. I was just trying to point out how difficult I think it is to strike a balance that isn’t gonna piss people off one way or another. I think it comes down to the question: What is the role of a University/College? Is is to be the place for college members to exchange and discuss ideas, or is it a place with its own ideas that it wants to advance on the members of the college? I don't think a college can be the latter without infringing on the former. And I grant that becomes a challenge for a private institution that may be tied to an identity that is Catholic, or Baptist, or any religion.
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Dec 19, 2021 13:20:05 GMT -5
Sorry but outside of the topic of unionization, which was a tweet not praising that but advertising a hosted speaker, you consider tweets about active participation in voting, knowing signs of distress, volunteering to interact with the incarcerated and a course that celebrates religion and social justice with the school’s surrounding community as…too liberal?
Stick to science and math and basketball and watch those applications roll in I guess.
|
|
|
Post by GlitterBro #2 on Dec 20, 2021 15:22:56 GMT -5
Sorry but outside of the topic of unionization, which was a tweet not praising that but advertising a hosted speaker, you consider tweets about active participation in voting, knowing signs of distress, volunteering to interact with the incarcerated and a course that celebrates religion and social justice with the school’s surrounding community as…too liberal? Stick to science and math and basketball and watch those applications roll in I guess. Judging by the declining enrollment and donations...maybe they should have stuck with science, math, and basketball.
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Dec 20, 2021 15:38:06 GMT -5
Sorry but outside of the topic of unionization, which was a tweet not praising that but advertising a hosted speaker, you consider tweets about active participation in voting, knowing signs of distress, volunteering to interact with the incarcerated and a course that celebrates religion and social justice with the school’s surrounding community as…too liberal? Stick to science and math and basketball and watch those applications roll in I guess. Judging by the declining enrollment and donations...maybe they should have stuck with science, math, and basketball. What I don't understand is that some of the tweets that he mentioned were sent in the last couple days. Confused by the argument he's making but whatever. If you look at the declining enrollment and donations YoY since like 2000...did the last five shift the trend downward tremendously?
|
|
|
Post by 23won on Dec 20, 2021 18:18:04 GMT -5
Absolutely
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Dec 20, 2021 18:42:51 GMT -5
Would love to have a crosstab.
|
|
|
Post by thelasallelunatic on Dec 20, 2021 22:32:01 GMT -5
Judging by the declining enrollment and donations...maybe they should have stuck with science, math, and basketball. What I don't understand is that some of the tweets that he mentioned were sent in the last couple days. Confused by the argument he's making but whatever. If you look at the declining enrollment and donations YoY since like 2000...did the last five shift the trend downward tremendously? Forgive my brain fart, but what did YoY stand for, Joe?
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Dec 20, 2021 22:58:06 GMT -5
Year over Year.
|
|
|
Post by 23won on Dec 21, 2021 14:01:48 GMT -5
Would love to have a crosstab. Glitter gave data on this point ("If you look at the declining enrollment and donations YoY since like 2000...did the last five shift the trend downward tremendously?") before from public sources. Maybe he can repost so the doubting Thomases can believe. It's telling and it's not just YoY but for the last five years that is of concern but it's also the last 5 years compared to any other 5 year period in that 20 year period. The data should show that Colleen drove the place down whereas Brother Mike looks like a relative hero/rock star.
|
|
|
Post by JoeFedorowicz on Dec 21, 2021 14:38:22 GMT -5
Yeah he had this which isn't last 20 but instead last 8. It's also dollars only and not enrollment. explorertown.proboards.com/post/115591/threadYou can't develop a trend line from that. YoY freshmen enrollment numbers...and I guess total undergraduate enrollment numbers...would be a great find. It's not a doubting thing. I just want to see more than one administration and the last 3 years of the last administration (who coincidentally had a very public event in their favor in that timespan).
|
|