FAQ

There are no plans for staff layoffs at this point. We are being transparent about our expense reduction goals so we can collaboratively identify and work toward lowering costs. We need everyone to contribute and consider how we can operate more efficiently across the university. 

No. Neither President Morrison-Shetlar nor any executive leadership member has discussed post-University employment with Rize or any consultant involved in these initiatives. This would be inappropriate and contrary to our fiduciary duties.

We want to be clear: there are currently no plans to reduce staffing levels. We recognize that uncertainty creates anxiety, and we're committed to exploring every avenue, including the voluntary faculty separation program, operational efficiencies, and new revenue initiatives, to avoid that scenario. Your contributions matter to the University, and we will communicate any significant changes transparently and as early as possible.

I won’t presume to speak for the Board. I can say yes, the Administration supports tenure. The voluntary buyout is designed specifically to reduce instructional expenses in a way that supports our colleagues who have earned tenure here or who were hired in a tenure-track. Tenure protections remain fully in place. If the goal were to eliminate tenure, there are far more direct approaches. This is about addressing budget and operational realities while honoring existing commitments.

At this time, we do not have plans to offer a voluntary separation program for staff members. The current program is specific to tenured and tenure-track faculty.

Schedules will be a factor in the decision-making process about who is selected for the voluntary separation program and when they are offered to separate. We won't make any decisions that negatively impact students' schedules in the spring semester. 

Right now, the voluntary separation program is open, and we are actively monitoring the process. We can't speak to changes at the end of the process yet because we don't know how this is going to pan out. Any additional changes that need to be discussed will be done so openly and with the appropriate departments. 

Voluntary separation decisions will be made by academic leadership and may require conslutation with program directors. 

The 3+1 program has not been abandoned. Our initial submission to launch 96-credit-hour degrees was denied by SACSCOC. We revised the program based on their feedback and resubmitted this fall. They will review our submission in the December/January timeframe.  

A guiding principle of the voluntary seperation program decisions is that they will not negatively impact students. Closing programs would negatively impact students and is not under consideration. What will be considered in every case is how a program will operate moving forward. The cases where we can clearly maintain or enhance a program's quality for our students, while recognizing financial savings, are the ones we are looking for. 

I want to challenge the framing of this question on two levels.

First, regarding "outsourcing": Many aspects of higher education (including here) already involve external partnerships without diminishing quality: library databases, learning management systems, accreditation processes, study abroad programs, and research collaborations. The question isn't whether we ever partner externally, but whether partnerships serve our mission and maintain academic standards. Faculty governance over curriculum and academic quality is what prevents academic partnerships from becoming problematic outsourcing. Acadeum serves as a good example of this type of partnership that went through the faculty approval process.

Second, regarding the purpose of external partnerships: Here's what we're actually trying to accomplish: We want to build a model that leverages our current academic structure alongside carefully selected partners who can do things we cannot do internally. Acadeum illustrates this perfectly. It allows us to enroll students in courses they need to graduate when we're not offering those courses internally. Conversely, we serve as a provider for Acadeum, allowing other institutions to meet their needs with our courses. There are many other online higher education partners that serve different purposes and fill different gaps in what we can offer. 

Let's start with the ethical imperative: we have an obligation to operate with transparency about what we offer students and what they're paying for. That transparency is non-negotiable.

To answer the first question, we will need to define what an “on-campus educational collegiate experience” means. Does this mean students have no online components of their education? If that’s the case, we haven’t offered a true “on-campus educational collegiate experience” in a long time. Most on-campus students use learning management systems, participate in online discussions, access digital libraries, and engage with course content delivered through technology. Faculty hold virtual office hours. Students collaborate on projects remotely. The internet is woven throughout modern collegiate education, on-campus or otherwise.

If “on-campus educational collegiate experience” means that students live here, learn here (regardless of modality), and go through an intentionally designed development process with us, then we should continue considering the best ways to evolve that experience. 

I’ll challenge an assumption embedded in the last question: that offering online or hybrid curricular experiences somehow constitutes a "foreshortened" collegiate experience. This assumes that a complete on-campus education exists in isolation from digital and online tools.

The relevant question isn't whether instruction happens online. It's whether the education is rigorous, whether students develop the skills and knowledge they need, whether they have meaningful faculty relationships and peer collaboration, and whether the experience prepares them for their futures. Those outcomes can be achieved through various delivery models, and increasingly, they require a blend of modalities. These are things we already do well. We simply need to consider how to continue evolving and improving the experience we offer. 

It’s important to note here that what we are exploring is intentionally designing the residential experience to potentially contain a small percentage (20% or less) of their coursework online. We aren’t talking about a wholesale shift to online courses. 

What matters is educational quality and student outcomes, not whether every class happens in a physical classroom. And what matters ethically is being transparent with students about exactly how they can learn with us.

I'd like to reframe this question to arrive at a more suitable answer. How do we strike a balance between giving students the flexibility they're asking for and the support structures they need to be successful? That's an andragogical design question we should explore, examining what works and what doesn't across different modalities and student populations.

There is an assumption embedded here: that face-to-face delivery is inherently more supportive for helping students meet deadlines, complete assignments, and seek help. This may be true, but we should look at the evidence base rather than assume it. Research on online learning suggests that well-designed courses with intentional support structures (e.g., regular check-ins, early alert systems, embedded tutoring, mandatory orientations) can help students succeed even when they struggle with self-regulation. The format itself may matter less than the intentional scaffolding built into the course. 

I’m not trying to deflect from answering the question. It’s a good point of consideration. Virginia high school students are now required to take at least one online course as part of their graduation requirements. I mention this simply to indicate that this is a consideration at all levels of education, and that we should continue to monitor students' preparatory experiences as they enter our university.  

Thank you for raising this. It's an insightful observation, and one we have actually recently discussed.

A four-day course week could give students more flexibility for work and study. When we looked at how other institutions have implemented this model, the results are mixed. Many institutions that have tried four-day class weeks have ultimately reverted to traditional five-day schedules because the model created unanticipated challenges, whether related to scheduling constraints, student outcomes, or faculty course loads.

That said, some institutions have made it work. Randolph College, our sister institution across town, is a good example. But here's a critical point: they didn't simply eliminate a day of classes. They combined the four-day course week with a comprehensive curricular redesign, their Take 2 program. This wasn't just a scheduling change. It was a wholesale reimagining of how courses were structured, sequenced, and delivered.

What this tells us is that a four-day class week isn't a simple scheduling fix. It requires systemic curricular redesign to be effective.

This is exactly the kind of andragogical innovation that should be explored through faculty governance. Scheduling structures that support student success while maintaining educational quality are academic policy decisions that should be led by faculty. It represents creative thinking about how to support students.

A working group could further develop this concept, examining its feasibility, impacts across different programs, and outcomes at institutions that utilize this model. This doesn't have to be either/or with our other initiatives. Online courses represent another approach we need to explore, and they may develop on a different timescale. Multiple approaches to supporting student success can coexist to move in the direction of supporting our students’ learning.

I’m going to reframe the question again: how is interpersonal interaction, with both peers and instructors, structured into a course? That's distinct from the modality itself. A face-to-face lecture course with minimal discussion, no group work, and limited office hour engagement offers little opportunity for interpersonal development. Conversely, an online course can be designed with required synchronous discussions, collaborative projects, regular instructor feedback, peer review, and structured interaction that develops exactly the skills you're describing.

The concern shouldn't be "face-to-face versus online" but rather "how much meaningful interaction with peers and faculty is built into the course design?" That's an andragogical question faculty should answer when evaluating any course, regardless of format.

If we're considering expanding online offerings, faculty governance should establish standards for interaction and engagement that courses must meet. Poor andragogy produces poor outcomes in any modality.

Online programs can offer operational efficiencies and expand our market reach to new student populations, which helps address enrollment challenges. Courses will be taught by our own faculty through our partnerships, such as our current partnership with Acadeum, maintaining academic quality and institutional control. Tuition pricing will be evaluated strategically based on market rates for comparable programs. Offering online courses doesn't directly equate to cheaper tuition, as pricing decisions always depend on multiple institutional factors and competitive positioning.

Thank you for this important question. I would like to clarify our approach to faculty-created online courses and Rize, as these initiatives have the potential to be complementary rather than competitive.

Faculty-created and -taught online courses will remain central to our academic offerings. When Dr. Walton mentioned that faculty would be welcome to create and teach online classes, that reflects our genuine commitment to faculty-led curriculum development. These courses will go through our standard curricular approval processes, as they currently do. Changes to the modalities of existing courses will go through the existing review process with TLRC. 

Rize offerings can be explored as an additional tool to integrate into our academic portfolio, rather than as a replacement for faculty-created offerings. The decision about which courses to move forward will be based on andragogical fit, accreditation requirements, and alignment with our strategic priorities, rather than solely on cost considerations.

To help everyone understand how this partnership might work and how we might consider it for our curriculum, we plan to hold an information session on Rize in the near future, where faculty can learn more about the company, ask questions directly, and gain a clear understanding of how we will evaluate these opportunities.

A helpful precedent here is Acadeum, which we've already successfully integrated into our academic offerings. Just as we underwent a thorough approval process with Acadeum to ensure it aligned with our institutional mission and academic standards, Rize will undergo the same process. Outside entities or tools are evaluated based on whether they genuinely enhance our educational quality and serve our students, both current and future, rather than solely on whether they're cheaper.

The decision about which courses will be offered online will be determined by faculty. We encourage you to consider what makes the most sense for supporting the students you work with. This is an opportunity for faculty professional judgment to shape how we expand educational options.

Offering more online classes doesn't automatically reduce costs. The financial benefit depends on whether expanded online options attract and retain students who might otherwise choose another institution. If a more flexible menu of academic modalities makes us more competitive and increases enrollment, then it becomes financially beneficial. We're approaching this strategically, not simply moving classes online to cut costs, but to enhance our value proposition to students.

Restoring some level of retirement match is a clear institutional goal as we work toward financial sustainability. However, the timing and percentage will depend on our financial performance and strategic priorities. A 6% match on top of a 3% base contribution exceeds industry averages, so any re-implementation will need to be calibrated based on what our improved financial position can sustain. We'll evaluate this as part of our broader compensation strategy on an ongoing basis.

Yes, the $6.5M target includes bringing back some portion of retirement match. That exact number will have to be decided when we see where we end up, but that is the intent. Other reinvestments in employees that we would like to do include things like regular cost of living increases, more flexibility in giving merit-based raises, and more funding for professional development opportunities. 

The timing is driven by our university’s strategic plan, long-term planning processes, fiscal necessity, and the need to continuously evolve in today’s higher education landscape. As we have discussed, we have temporary supports in this year’s budget that need to come out moving forward (e.g., additional endowment draw, real estate sales). Simply filling in these budgetary changes doesn’t allow us to have the financial means to bring back retirement matching benefits or provide raises. These things can’t wait. 

Addressing financial needs cannot be deferred due to leadership transitions. However, we are being mindful of the presidential transition. There is almost always an acclimation period for any new president as they learn about the institution and begin setting a vision for the future. The work we are doing now will help support the next president by better positioning the university to be in a healthy financial place as they transition into their role. It is an excellent indicator for the new president that our community is innovative and willing to be nimble with the changing higher education environment. 

This may feel compressed, but the financial analysis underlying these decisions has been underway throughout the year. Our University Data, Analytics, and Effectiveness (UDAE) department has done tremendous work over the past couple of years to ensure we have clean, accurate data to analyze as we’ve transitioned multiple information systems (e.g., Colleague, PayCom). We're being deliberate, but we also can't afford to move slowly. We have a responsibility to stabilize the university's financial footing. There's a difference between moving fast and moving recklessly. We should all feel a sense of urgency here. Not panic, but urgency. A healthier financial position benefits everyone: more stable employment, better investment in academic programs, and a stronger institution. We're committed to transparency about both the 'why' and the 'how.’

It's hard to predict the likihood of a process that is actively open. That said, we wouldn't have offered the program if we didn't anticipate that the recurring savings would be helpful. 

What matters most in this partnership, or any partnership where there is potential for conflict of interest, is our independence and agency in the decision-making process. Several factors give us confidence in our ability to evaluate objectively:

First, the structure we are using protects our autonomy. Dr. McCoy, who has been central to facilitating this work, is not a Rize employee. Our data partners are also independent. This means the problem identification and analysis aren't being driven by someone with direct financial incentive in Rize's product sales. We're getting analysis from people whose interests align with getting us accurate data, not with making a sale.

Second, we're in control of the solution. Rize is offering a tool we may or may not choose to utilize. The burden of proof is on us to determine whether their offering fits into our solution. 

Third, we're doing the application of data analysis work ourselves. We're not outsourcing the decision-making. We're evaluating the data independently and forming our own conclusions about what solution, whether Rize's tool, something built internally, another vendor, or a different approach entirely, actually serves the university's needs and mission.

The potential conflict of interest is real and worth monitoring. But our process and governance structure allow us to acknowledge it and move forward with appropriate guardrails in place.

When we analyzed our instructional costs against peer institutions, we compared ourselves to several groups. First, our executive leadership team and UDAE conducted a comparative analysis using available data, much of it public. Second, in our work through the Google.org grant, we partnered with a couple of different data analytics organizations to deepen our analysis. It is important to note that both analyses, conducted independently, arrived at the same conclusion, providing an additional layer of data validation. You can look at this slide deck to see the institutions that were in some of those comparison groups. They all share a variety of characteristics with us (e.g., size, academic offerings).

The core issue is straightforward: our revenue has declined faster than our expenses, even though both have declined. Undergraduate enrollment has dropped more sharply than we've been able to adjust our cost structure. While employee benefits costs have continued to rise (which is part of calculating full compensation), the real driver is the mismatch between declining student revenue and the relatively stable expenses needed to operate the institution. It's why we've pursued more comprehensive approaches like the voluntary separation program and new revenue strategies.