Liberty: The Elephant in the (Class)Room

I don’t have an answer but there have been several articles written about it including -

The Rise of Liberty University

http://www.newsmax.com/libertyuniversity/

I attended a small evangelical college during my freshman year in 1969. It’s name was Marion College and it is now named Indiana Wesleyan University. They are not near as large as Liberty U but they have done well. According to the article, a key to Liberty’s growth was the funds from their massive online education endeavor. Indiana Wesleyan now has 15 satellite campuses in Indiana, Ohio, and Kentucky which provide adult education. The funds from these satellite campus have been used to grow the main campus in Marion, Indiana. Indiana Wesleyan went from about 400 total students in 1969 at the Marion Campus to over 3,000 today. Plus they have about 12,000 adult learners taking classes at the satellite campuses (numbers are from their website).

Perhaps, the fundamental colleges were so entrenched in the “old” ways of doing education that they wouldn’t consider opportunities like these. BJU with their satellite based Christian K-12 and later homeschool education should have been able to more with online education. Instead, I think that they considered online programs to be incompatible with their mission since they couldn’t disciple students in a residence setting. But Liberty and Indiana Wesleyan were able to grow their residential programs, where they could disciple more students, because of the non-residential programs.

As a very robust on ling program of long standing.

From the article that I read, they capped on-site enrollment because they are simply running out of space. Leaving the “compromise” out of the picture and speaking from strictly a pragmatic point of view, they appear to be a model for how to run a modern university. Often, discussion about Liberty in our circles gets mired in the issue of “compromise;” I wonder about the quality of their education in general. They seem to have an excellent reputation.

On Ministry Success, Failure and “Whac-A-Bogeyman”:

There is a tendency to:

• If a ministry fails (closes or is in decline) and one is not a friend of the same, blame something that is seen as a threat. Goes like this: “XYZ Christian College closed … and you know why? … they tolerated CCM”
• If a ministry is successful and one is not a friend of the same, blame something that is seen as a threat. Goes like this: “XYZ Christian College is busting at the seams … and you know why? … they tolerate CCM”
• If a ministry is successful and one is a friend of the same - “It’s the Lord’s blessings for their obedience!”
• If a ministry fails and one is a friend of the same - Blame the world and the devil.

Happens all the time!

I agree with the comments on the model of education. Small universities (not just Christian ones) that today are struggling to find and retain students need to consider branching out from using only a “traditional” model. I know that, for example, BJU does *some* online education, but I think this needs to be expanded, both for adult education, and so that students that can’t afford 4-year residency can still do, say, 2 years worth of their education (those classes that don’t need labs or on-site hands-on work) online. Satellite campuses would make it possible to do even many labs remotely.

There are many factors that cause current educational expenses to be through the roof. If colleges just continue to stay stuck in a rut and insist that the traditional product they offer is good enough and do nothing to address the realities of today, they will quickly find that the number of people who can afford what they offer continues to dwindle, which will put them at risk for closing.

Can the answer be similar to that of “Mega” Churches? It hard to deny their size, but it is not a model most of us would want to follow for our churches. Size doesn’t always mean God is blessing.

[wkessel1]

Can the answer be similar to that of “Mega” Churches? It hard to deny their size, but it is not a model most of us would want to follow for our churches. Size doesn’t always mean God is blessing.

That’s true, but large size doesn’t mean he isn’t either (cf. first church at Jerusalem with at least 5000 members, possibly plus their families).

Further, we understand that churches are not colleges. One obvious difference — one institution God initiated, and one he didn’t. And also, what makes a church work is often quite different from what makes a college work, even a Christian one. Certainly, we wouldn’t accept the model of an “online-only” church, even if the church has an online presence to minister to shut-ins, missionaries, etc. However, the main goals of a college are not evangelization, preaching, celebrating the ordinances, admonishing one another, etc., even if some of these occur as a by-product of a Christian college. Hence, how to “do college” well likely has nothing at all to do with how to be a biblical church.

I’m not saying that really big is the answer, but certainly, there need to be enough resources to accomplish the mission well. Certainly, colleges like Northland and Clearwater worked for years with way less than ~20,000 students. BJU was pretty healthy at around 4800 (plus academy and grads). However, as enrollment drops into the hundreds at some colleges, there simply isn’t enough money to support the resources necessary to do their job well, which eventually results in even fewer students. Without either more money or more students or both, closure will follow.

If Christians decide that good Christian colleges aren’t really necessary, then they will eventually go away anyway. If we want them to stick around, we have to make whatever changes are necessary for them to stay financially viable (without compromising on biblical principle of course). That may mean giving up some cherished traditions, including even ideas about “the way college was when we were there” being the one right way.

I agree. I was trying to go for a simple basic answer, to me at least, perhaps it is too simple.

Churches and colleges are definitely not the same, but I was trying to make a point that bigger isn’t always better, but (as you pointed out) it isn’t always bad either. Just like smaller doesn’t always mean something is wrong, but sometimes there is. I think this basically true for a lot of things.

One reason Liberty is flourishing has to do with finances. Jerry Fallwell left $29 million to the school when he died (and it was already financially stable before that) which paid all debts and is funding the current construction. I dare say if someone wrote such a check to Northland two years ago, they would be doing fine as well.

Christian colleges are (with some exceptions) terrible at fundraising (if they even bother to try). Contrast this with secular colleges, whose results can be astonishing:

Institutions That Raised the Most, 2013

Amount Raised:
Stanford U. $931,570,000
Harvard U. $792,260,000
U.of Southern California $674,510,000
Columbia U. $646,660,000
Johns Hopkins U. $518,570,000
U. of Pennsylvania $506,610,000
Cornell U. $474,960,000
New York U. $449,340,000
Yale U. $444,170,000
Duke U. $423,660,000

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/02/12/donors-gave-34-billion-colleges-2013

–––––––––––––––––––-

My undergraduate alma mater, the University of Minnesota, has raised nearly $300M in donations in some recent years. Do they work hard at it? You’d better believe it! And if & when they get me to contribute to the annual fund, my employer (and many employers) will match contributions up to a certain threshold, since the U is regionally accredited–another reason for Christian colleges to seek accreditation.

–––––––––––––––––––—

In contrast to some other Christian colleges, Liberty works hard at soliciting donor support:

http://www.liberty.edu/index.cfm?PID=18702

[Ron Bean]

I would speculate that the schools listed have a higher percentage of graduates who are intensely loyal to their alma maters than do Christian schools. (NOTICE: Pitiful attempt at humor following.) Let’s face it, there aren’t many Stanford University Survivor Facebook pages.

I believe this to be true. I certainly encounter many alumni of Christian colleges who are (or at least appear to be) quite apathetic when it comes to their alma maters. Why is this?

[Larry Nelson]

I believe this to be true. I certainly encounter many alumni of Christian colleges who are (or at least appear to be) quite apathetic when it comes to their alma maters. Why is this?

I certainly am in that category but my question is sort of the opposite. Why should I be worrying too much about my alma mater two decades after leaving? Yes, it was an important part of my life but only a small part in the scheme of things. There were certainly a few more important periods of my life.

In regards to my alma mater (a large well-known Christian college), I don’t agree with them on much and can’t really endorse a lot of what they do. I enjoy going back once in a while but really feel no obligation to worry too much what they are doing and I am not going to send them money.

So, yes I am apathetic and really don’t think that is a big problem. I am apathetic about being apathetic :)

[Ron Bean]

​I would speculate that the schools listed have a higher percentage of graduates who are intensely loyal to their alma maters than do Christian schools. (NOTICE: Pitiful attempt at humor following.) Let’s face it, there aren’t many Stanford University Survivor Facebook pages.

You’re right, Ron. It was pitiful. Why aren’t there any? There have been exponentially more rape crimes committed at Stanford than at certain other institutions of higher learning that have seriously embittered alumni/former faculty whose main purpose in life is to unearth any reason to bash the school. From SFGate.com:

“According to an independent report by a Stanford law professor, just four of 175 reported sexual assaults between 1997 and 2009 were formally adjudicated, with two of the alleged attackers held responsible.”

175 sexual assaults!! In just twelve years!! Just 2 “alleged” (what you mean, “alleged?” There’s no such thing as merely “alleged” when it comes to sexual assault. They’re all guilty.) attackers held responsible?!? Stanford University is NOT SAFE!!

Just think of it. GRACE would have a field day! Although, Stanford probably espouses a mainstream psychology approach to counseling, so they’d get a pass for that.

Perhaps a bigger impact could be made by certain unemployed, former faculty grievance-mongers if they moved to Palo Alto and took up the cause there. Alas, the difficulty of keeping up with the Greenville gossip way out on the Left Coast and no axes to grind with the Stanford admin make this scenario highly unlikely. Too bad.

Sorry, Ron.

I’m not so sure the definition of Survivor has been co-opted, seeing that one of the original “Survivors” is also the lead axe grinder.

Perhaps I was just confused by the warm reception that your post received by the leader of the axe grinder cabal.

Then again, maybe I was confused when you recognized her as one which had been addressed in the context of the Survivor’s group (which is how she and her minions took it - and you did nothing to correct that notion), vis-a-vis “It’s nice to see that you and your small group are reading things written by and about you in other places.” This is a woman whose clear objective is the complete destruction of a Christian institution.

I doubt that your reference to “axe grinders” will be received quite as warmly, as it appears that the bus got hastily thrown into reverse. Perhaps this is a poor example of trying to be all things to all men (and women).