This question was being considered at a panel discussion I attended last fall, and questions were being asked as to the questions we should ask when considering such a question. Ha! I know.
In the time between when I started this post and its publication the question has been answered: yes.
I concede that this question is relevant, valuable, and necessary to consider for the health of Calvin as it continues into the 21st century.
As an engineer I scream: "Calvin should not be a Liberal Arts University!!!!*"
*whatever L.A.U. means, and however you define it, which is still being worked out in earnest
Perhaps there is room for compromise: "engineering at Calvin should not be expected to expand into an R1 mode!!!!"
It feels like I'm deflecting from the question at hand, however I think the case of engineering maps reasonably well to the rest of the departments at Calvin.
Our engineering department is great at many things. We have dedicated, knowledgeable teachers who come from diverse industrial and academic backgrounds and disciplines. These women and men care deeply about engineering, love the discipline, and care for the health and edification of their students--faculty at R1 institutions also care deeply about their students, however their primary focus in many cases is facilitating excellent research programs, which is a beneficial yet fundamentally different aspect of education and the academy. The primary focus for Calvin faculty is not on grant applications and research program direction.
It's not about being approachable (the doors to faculty offices at R1's are open to students), but rather has to do with the focus of the faculty. Intention gets you far, but purpose is at the heart of Calvin's devotion to equipping students (recite it with me! with gusto!) to think deeply, to act justly, and to live wholeheartedly as Christ's agents of renewal in the world.
I loved the time I spent in graduate study at an R1 institution. It gave me an enormous appreciation for R1 institutions, and more so for the engineering program at Calvin College.
As a TA in engineering, it was clear that while undergraduate students were to be cared for, research was the focus and the important factor. I have never felt this sentiment at Calvin while as a student, nor while as a member of the teaching staff. We do excellent research here--it remains student-focused.
Calvin is good at letting students do any and all of the things they desire (though it may take a bit of time) because Calvin is hyper-permeable. Debra Rienstra, of the english department, made a great point about permeability in education, and allowing students the option to passionately study engineering and music, for example. This is so easy to do at Calvin--talented students do it often.
Personally I was able to pursue both chemical engineering and chemistry majors (a pairing that dovetails almost too easily) and felt integrated and welcomed in the chemistry department though my degree would ultimately be in engineering. I also personally know many students who have combined music with engineering, or public health, or literature--permeability!
The matter of purposeful student development is of real practical meaning and action to me. I taught at Calvin for a few years now and have found renewed purpose and academic redemption of sorts.
So what does Calvin gain? An excerpt from the official press release:
Le Roy says the rationale for Calvin becoming a university is strong, including Calvin’s strength, breadth, and depth of its academic programs; new opportunities for academic innovation; and the college’s increasing influence with students and higher education partners around the globe. The college also has a large international student population for whom “university” is more visible and better understood than “college.”The bulk of the argument seems to hinge on recognition from international students. I understand the idea that with declining domestic enrollment, it will be key to bolster international recruitment and admissions. But surely reputation and name recognition go beyond the distinction between 'university' and 'college.' Are we now relying on a prospective student or parent to perk up at reading 'Calvin University' on print material, when 'Calvin College' would have caused them to merely gloss over it and move on? This is a weak premise to hang our hat on. Since I've heard 'international recognition' repeated more than almost any other talking point, I don't think this is a mischaracterization.
Calvin leaders also see the university structure combined with increased collaboration as creating a more prominent platform for the institution to express its mission through opportunities and innovation within and across disciplines, professional programs, and centers and institutes.
“A move to a university with a liberal arts foundation both names what we already do and liberates us to do that work better,” said Kevin den Dulk, political science professor at Calvin College and executive director of the Henry Institute. “I’m especially enthusiastic about using the university structure to expand our global reach, which is already considerable yet has a lot of room to grow.”
I truly don't see what the university structure of colleges versus departments will do to facilitate "increased collaboration" and innovation. Innovation and cross department collaboration have been happening for years: ISRx a project melding biology and chemistry departments, and the various interims and summer programs that unite business, engineering, and german programs are two prominent examples that have paid enormous dividends for the departments in question.
Finally let's consider the professional programs. From the standpoint of engineering, I just don't see where the funding is going to come from to provide for post-baccalaureate educational opportunities. Our engineering building is already at capacity hosting senior design team efforts. Where are the research facilities going to appear from for students to do thesis research on one or two year master of engineering programs? Where is the lab space going to open up for chemistry or biology PhD work? No one is arguing for an immediate ascent to R1 status of course, but I also haven't seen a coherent vision of what Calvin University will mean for the different departments/colleges. Certainly such a vision would not need to be set in stone, but I haven't heard even a whiff of a plan for my department, and that concerns me.
Calvin seems to be doing just fine without a 'university structure.' I truly hope that this choice was not made for feathering caps, and prestige.
We'll see what visions develop.