In this issue of Trusteeship, we look at the economic crisis and its impact on college and university development programs. Our question: Is there a new normal? Continuing on the fundraising theme, we examine the sometimes fine line between donors' wishes and an institution's rights for use of major charitable gifts.
With health care so much in the news, Trusteeship asks whether there is anything universities can learn from the research-based changes some health systems have adopted. Moving on to U.S. college completion rates, three researchers discuss on the link between stagnant graduation rates and the huge disparities associated with socioeconomic status. Think just coming up with a strategic plan is enough? It's only the beginning, as E.B. Wilson tells readers.
Finally, Jill Biden looks to the future of community colleges and the important role they play in our higher education system.
The fall of 2008 was, by any standards, a bleak time for college and university leaders. While there was little doubt that state funding would be down for the foreseeable future and general agreement that endowments would take a long while to recover, no consensus existed about the potential impact of the financial crisis on college and university development programs.
What is the picture a year later?
The legal terrain regarding institutions' rights for use of major charitable gifts has clarified somewhat in recent months. While this may encourage institutional fundraisers, it is also clear that extreme care still must be taken about the acceptance and terms set for use of transformational gifts.
Financial problems plague both higher education and health care, two sectors that struggle to meet public expectations for quality services at affordable rates. A growing number of people cannot afford higher education, and many universities are cutting personnel, canceling capital projects, eliminating programs, and even turning students away. Health care has parallel problems. Access to care is a national issue, with resource shortages stressing both consumers and providers of health care.
William G. Bowen, Matthew M. Chingos, and Michael S. McPherson
Our study of 21 flagship public universities and four entire state systems (in Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia), published recently by Princeton University Press under the title above, demonstrates that if this country is to regain its leadership in higher education, it must fix two interwoven problems: (1) the stagnant level of overall educational attainment, as measured by baccalaureate completion rates that hover around 30 percent, and (2) the huge disparities in educational outcomes associated with socioeconomic status (SES) and race and ethnicity.
The process of strategic planning wears out institutions. Wide participation in the process means that faculty members serving on a planning committee must carve out large chunks of time from their teaching, mentoring, advising, and other campus-governance responsibilities. Staff members do the same thing: continue to operate and deliver results in their functional departments while participating in the time-consuming and energy-draining process that defines the college's strategic future. The president--the chief planning officer--works very hard to encourage bottoms-up planning, combined with top-down steering and guidance, all the while keeping day-to-day operations focused on the institution's mission.
At a recent board meeting, a trustee asked, "Why don't we talk about our product? If this were a company that produced orange juice, the board would spend a lot of time talking about the quality of that juice, our consumers' satisfaction with it, and how it could be better. Why don't we do that with our students' education?"
A recent AGB survey revealed that 86 percent of private and 92 percent of public institutions are conducting annual presidential performance reviews. This number has steadily increased over the past decade. Not everyone is doing them, but just about.
Notwithstanding the enactment of the more flexible Uniform Prudent Management of Institutional Funds Act (UPMIFA) in more than 40 states, boards of trustees remain on the hook for making prudent decisions when it comes to permanent endowment fund spending and investing.
The university presidency has evolved over the last three decades, from
a phenomenon of curiosity to a topic of serious study, not to mention a
popular focus of memoirs and self-help books. I recall the first such
book I read 25 years ago, the Power of the Presidency by James L. Fisher. It was heavily advertised and promoted.
These are indeed stressful times. Fewer people are looking to extend themselves either by joining a board that might be expecting financial support or by dedicating the valuable commodity of time to what they imagine will be endless meetings. However, since we must continue to have capable governance and inevitably will need to replace some current board members when their terms end or they relocate, we cannot allow this moment to reduce the quality of our boards.
The September/October issue of Trusteeship featured an article by Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education, addressing three seemingly competing challenges for higher education--the "iron triangle" of increasing access, improving quality, and controlling costs. Secretary Duncan identified many problems that need to be solved, including mission creep and smorgasbord curricula; alignment of curricula for K-12 and higher education; articulation agreements between two- and four-year institutions; need-based financial aid; and support and remediation of underprepared students. These problems touch the core of a college or university's mission, vision, and strategic plan.
