Trusteeship magazine starts out the new year with a bang, answering the question of why academic institutions should be doing annual and comprehensive periodic evaluations of their presidents. You'll want to read Rich Morrill's article, and his forthcoming book on presidential assessment, to be published this spring by AGB. The pitfalls and possibilities of closing academic programs, and what trustees need to know about it, are covered in depth by Peter Eckel. With 75 percent of today's college students considered "non-traditional," Patricia McGuire takes on the issue of how to measure success for the real majority. Is a hybrid model, that combines both non-profit and for-profit strategies, right for your institution in today's economic climate? Michael Goldstein looks at the pluses and minuses. And finally, Robert Moore provides the board's perspective on how to manage the college or university brand.
An evaluation of the president takes the board inside each of the critical leverage points within the institution. In evaluating critical performance areas such as finance, fundraising, and enrollment, and in reviewing critical processes including strategy and collegial decision-making, the board has the chance to gain an integrated view of the president's work as a central part of an integral leadership process. The board should come away from the evaluation with a sharper sense of its own agency in shaping the future through its support of the president's efforts to improve the work of the office and the institution.
As predictable as hand-wringing in difficult financial times, the idea of closing academic programs is back on the table at some institutions. It is clear that program closure has appealed to administrators coping with difficult financial circumstances in years past. However, the strategy is difficult to carry out well in practice; even raising the idea can cause unexpected ripples through the most previously calm campuses. Poorly executed, this strategy can result in votes of no confidence in administrative leaders during times when institutions can ill afford such turmoil. And yet there are times when the step makes sense and, if handled well, can actually improve a campus's focus and mission.
U.S. Department of Education studies reveal that, by various measures, almost 75 percent of college students today are "non-traditional"--in that they are paying for college themselves and not relying on parents (more than 51 percent of college students are "independent" financially); are attending college part-time (about 48 percent of college students); are delaying when they start college after high school (about 46 percent); are commuting rather than residing on campus (about 80 percent); are holding full-time jobs while working on their degrees; or are supporting children and other dependents.
In response to severe financial stresses, some institutions are considering moving to a "hybrid" model that allows them to take advantage of the interest of financial investors in the higher-education market.
A new responsibility--"brand management"--has developed for some boards as competition for high-achieving students and various types of resources has intensified.
Printer-friendly version
Share via e-mail
