By Matt Velez
Chestnut Hill College is celebrating its 100th anniversary, a monumental milestone that reflects both tradition and transformation. Banners commemorating the centennial flap in the spring breeze, the newly renovated Sugarloaf entrance sparkles with a fresh multimillion-dollar facelift, and most notably, excitement builds around the college’s newest investment: a nursing program designed to meet the region’s growing demand for healthcare professionals.
It’s an impressive list of achievements, no doubt. The new nursing program is rooted in research and strategy. According to the American Association of Colleges of Nursing, Pennsylvania is expected to add more than 7,800 registered nursing jobs by 2032, with a 13 percent growth projected, four points above the national average. The college describes this move as having an “immediate impact” on healthcare outcomes for underserved communities.
Yet for some students, “immediate” feels distant when they’re facing issues that affect their daily campus life today. Students are beginning to ask a bold, but necessary question: Where does the money at CHC go, and if they had a say, where should it go? That question has gained traction in dining halls, dorm rooms, and social media posts as many feel like bystanders in the decision-making process.
Primarily, the students want education: new technology, new classes, majors, and overall, just a revamped version of CHC, giving more accessibility to the students to indulge in their respective academic passions. For the present and the future of Chestnut Hilll College, these things are vital.
While multimillion-dollar projects unfold and announcements are made post-fact, students are left wondering why their voices aren’t more central in conversations about spending and improvement. Senior students like myself, for example, can name a long list of overlooked issues, from outdated dorm facilities to inconsistent cafeteria quality and broken classroom technology.
Another senior, whose accomplishments at CHC have been recognized, agreed. The student listed issues such as new smart boards and classroom seating.
While the idea of launching a forward-looking nursing program makes sense strategically, the lack of transparency and student inclusion in such large financial decisions feels frustrating. Many CHC students today won’t be able to experience the nursing program firsthand. I don’t know the exact amount spent on these initiatives, but I know the numbers run in the millions. At the same time, we’ve seen money poured into non-essential upgrades like the Sugarloaf lot, while daily student needs such as renovated dorms, better food, more student input, and upgraded facilities remain unaddressed.
I asked six students, four from Chestnut Hill College and two from Holy Family University, the same question: If they had control of $10 million in their college’s budget, would they invest in education or athletics? All six chose education. Their reasoning was rooted in practicality and purpose: education, they said, is what we came here for. Even student-athletes acknowledged that athletic pride doesn’t equate to a diploma.
All students interviewed also requested anonymity in order to feel comfortable to speak freely.
“Athletics are important, but they don’t get you a degree,” one student remarked. “We need real tools for the real world.”
One student suggested using funds to expand academic advising and mental health services, while another wished for more collaborative, interdisciplinary programs that connect students from different majors. These aren’t lofty ideas, they’re practical, student-centered improvements. The common thread? Every student felt they should have more of a voice in how their college functions.
This brings us to a recurring grievance: communication, or the lack thereof. Students often learn about major institutional decisions after they’re finalized.
“It’s like we’re here to fill seats, not to help shape the experience,” said one sophomore.
Others described how they found out about tuition hikes or policy changes through email blasts after decisions were made, rather than being consulted or involved beforehand.
On the staff and faculty side, the conversation is more complex. One staff member, who requested anonymity, explained that these large-scale decisions are typically guided by long-term goals, input from trustees, and external consultants. Still, they acknowledged room for improvement.
“We need to do a better job at involving students,” they said. “Student advisory councils could help create a bridge.”
One professor echoed that sentiment, emphasizing that true progress involves including those most affected by change.
“Students should be part of the conversation, especially when it’s their money on the line,” the professor said.
As Chestnut Hill College enters its second century, students hope the next 100 years look a little different: more collaborative, more transparent, and more focused on the voices of the students who walk these halls every day.
Take graduation, for example. Once again, the ceremony will be held indoors due to heat concerns and the lack of a tent. While understandable from a logistical standpoint, it highlights a frustrating disconnect: the college can renovate an entrance, but can’t provide the tent that would allow more families to celebrate this milestone with their graduates. It’s a detail that stings, especially for seniors, but it also underscores a deeper issue of misplaced priorities.
In the end, this isn’t just about money. It’s about power, purpose, and participation. If students are paying to be here, while faculty and staff are being paid, then it’s worth asking: shouldn’t the students have more of a say? We’re not just passengers in this experience. We’re the reason the experience exists in the first place.
