Makeover raises questions

Over the next few years, the University of La Verne plans to renovate and transform the campus into something that would give “Extreme Makeover” a new definition.

Estimated at $42 million, the project is going to be financed out of a five-year fundraising campaign.

On the positive side, the University plans to create two parking lots and two parking structures.

Because this will require the removal of Stu-Han for the space, student housing will be built on what are now the tennis courts.
The SuperTents will be used for athletics only and a campus center with a plaza will be built.

ULV officials hope phase one will be completed by 2008.

The new campus center will sit beside the Old Gym. Also, Founders Auditorium will be expanded.

By 2011, ULV plans to close off C Street to make a walkway and replace the track and football field with academic buildings and classrooms.

In addition, they will remove Ben Hines Field and its parking to make a park and new dining hall.

Most athletic-related buildings and facilities will be located on Campus West, which is on Wheeler Ave.

This will not help the already problematically low turnout rate for games, if the games are to be moved farther away.

But more worrisome by far than the geography of it all is the expense. Particularly now.

Just this school year, the University experienced such a cash shortfall that many academic departments were asked to cut their operating budgets by 9 percent.

Is this really the time to be forging ahead with showcase buildings?

And if so, how is it that ULV can afford to embark on such a pricey mission, yet not have the dollars to keep its academic programs hearty?

Will any of next year’s 4.88 percent tuition increase go toward these building plans?

Currently, ULV uses 94 percent of its tuition for everyday functions.

What if enrollment numbers drop next year? Or we lose students, as we have this year?

Will there be enough students on campus to justify building these big new buildings?

We could end up having these gorgeous buildings to show, but will have no one to use them.

Maybe University officials should be focussing their fundraising effort on improving programs, on academics, or at least on keeping operating budgets at last year’s levels?

On a side note: Maybe enrollment will increase continually (maybe this year’s drop was an anomaly).

Even then though, is that what we want?

If enrollment increases too much, the University may lose the quality of its education.

Rather than smaller class sizes, they will be forced to depend on big lectures with less individual attention.

All this kind of makes the student take a second look at the priorities of the University.

Does the University have an exact plan as to how – and why – it is embarking on this extreme makeover?

Hopefully the University consulted with professional consultants to determine that this ambitious plan would actually produce the desired results, and is not just wishful thinking.

Have officials considered the costs – beyond the $42 million already projected?