Comments

Coming in to Seton Hill, it was described as a liberal arts college. I expected to have some liberal art, and be in a wonderfully creative environment. Instead, I come to SHU and find that me and my roommate are the only two non-athletes on our floor. And that the emphasis on Griffin-sports is overwhelming. I have nothing against sports, and I understand that the college needs this to exist. But when I look at all of the scholarships and exceptions made for these athletes, and how its quite opposite with myself and other artists, I see that something is amiss.

However, SHU is viewed differently in the community. Friends of my family, and the wonderful people who recommended SHU to me, informed me that SHU is still viewed as that small liberal arts college on the hill. And that it's great that they are starting sports programs. They also told me that from what they could tell, the community as a whole still views SHU as the L-A college. I guess that's something to be happy about.

Things right now seem a little unbalanced, but this is most likely because SHU just started these programs. Instead of easing them in, they have decided to dive head first. Whether or not this is a good idea is something that wont be known for a while.

Yes. Head first. At least someone put the water in the pool before we dove in.

I don't think you should do something akin to CMU. Fees like that only benefit varisty sports. They do not help out the majority of students. I don't feel for their turf problems in the least. I played rugby fro U of Michigan as an undergrad. I played CMU every year. They don't even have a permanent field. Club sports are where your average student should see the benefit from athletics. That is where the old liberal-arts ideal that includes athletics come into play. Forget scholarships, club sports athletes have to pay to play. And guess what? We still made it to Nationals. Anyone can play. The teams compete competitively against other schools. That would have been a good way to start athletics slowly. At U of M, club sports were partially funded. We got 3k for the whole team. That covered ref dues, vans, fields, etc. The other expenses were left for our sponsors, or ourselves if we could not get sponsors to cover it all.

If you want to get more money for varisty sports: raise ticket prices (you should be charging more for non-student tix anyway), get more sponsors, hit up the alumni. When the burden for the varisty sports start to fall on the students, it is time to re-assess how you are running your athletic dept. CMU is a very bad analogy. Their administration is doing a very poor job of running that institution. Their athletics are great. The get people into the pros every year in most of their sports. If they can't get sponsorship deals, they aren't looking. They are a state school with a dedicated fan base.

As a recent graduate I would like to add some perspective on this issue. First I would like to say that I am new to the blogosphere but find it quite interesting to be a "peeping tom" of sorts in this "new world."

When I entered SHU, better known as Seton Hill COLLEGE in 1999, the school was known to provide students with a catholic, women's focused, liberal arts education. Looking at the Seton Hill website today that small phrase “women’s focused” has been removed from the school’s description of itself. I just wanted to make note of that before continuing.

Before receiving an onslaught of criticism please read the following: A few years ago I was disillusioned as most are when encountered with the terms "women's focused." Time and time again students have written their concerns of both male and female chauvinists-which is not what being women’s focused is all about.

While a senior in high school I felt honored to attend Seton Hill’s “Women in Science Day.” At that point I knew that Seton Hill could “grow” me into the person that I wanted to be as a woman and a professional. Even my parents noted that Seton Hill appeared to be an excellent school to build up women and give them the confidence to live out their dreams.

I understand the objection to a college being women’s focused. However, as a professional woman with a career I can appreciate the women’s focused education I have received at Seton Hill. My experiences thus far have taught me that outside of the walls of Seton Hill there are major differences between the way men and women in business are considered. My catholic, WOMEN-FOCUSED, liberal education has helped me to be a real competitor in the working world by showing me the many differences in men and women as studied in the class “Women at Work” taught by Cathy Giunta. If anyone would like to see statistics of women vs. men in the working world please contact me or take an equivalent class at Seton Hill.

Five years has changed Seton Hill quite a bit. Now a university with more men and more of an emphasis on athletics – men’s athletics even – Seton Hill appears to be somewhat different than what I remembered. Whether that change is positive or negative all depends on one’s perspective and position in life. All that I can contribute are my experiences and how my education has aided to the success in both my professional and personal life.

Eliminating the “women’s focus” is comparable to intensifying the focus on athletics. Both are changes that have been met with resistance from students. There really is no easy answer.

To succeed, all businesses must revolutionize themselves continuously. Seton Hill is looking into the future with the motto in mind “Hazard, Yet Forward.” No one really knows the long-term implications of the changes that are occurring at Seton Hill, but I am sure that the President and other leaders are doing their best to provide the best liberal arts education to all students. Have faith in your school leaders, but speak up when issues such as these are a concern. It only takes one voice to start a revolution!!!

Please email with any comments. I am here as an alumnae to assist you in any way.

Brian, I suggest that you publicize this excellent thread on the NMJ site.