“In the quest of excellence, prestige, and influence, there is virtually no limit to the amount of money an institution could spend for seemingly fruitful educational ends.”
The late noted economist Howard R. Bowen posited this “law” of higher education costs, which is arguably the basis for many of the challenges colleges face today. American higher education is on a non-sustainable path of greater costs, rising tuition, and unrealistic expectations—much of it reflecting an “arms race” brought on by competition for students, higher rankings, and prestige. We need only scan the daily news for examples: $100-million hockey facilities, convocation centers that can accommodate entire communities, the ubiquitous climbing walls of elaborate recreation centers, and so forth.
Boards must help institutions find the path to disarmament. The measure of institutional success must change from “more this” and “expand that” to a sustainable future focused on core mission, student success, and operational efficiency.
Core Mission. Institutions looking “up the rankings,” or what Clayton Christensen, co-author of The Innovative University (Jossey-Bass, 2011), calls “climbing the Carnegie ladder,” seek to emulate their aspiration group and in the process violate their own distinct mission and ultimately the public trust. Such mission creep has been openly discussed, but rarely are unrealistic ambitions stifled. This is where trustees and top administrators must work together to check their personal and institutional egos at the door.
Student Success. We in higher education often answer the question of “How can we improve educational quality?” by answering with a focus on inputs: “Improve the profile of entering students.” But such thinking is no longer practical given the confluence of demographic trends, market competition, and the demonstrated need for a significant increase in the number of adults with post-secondary credentials. The economic and social prosperity of America depends on more students completing college by 2025, yet there simply aren’t enough of those “highly desired” students out there. Colleges will be better served by concentrating on improving educational quality and outcomes—the students who attend and graduate—rather than on the characteristics of the students they hope to enroll.
Operational Effectiveness. Savvy chief operating officers have shaved millions off costs with practices such as consortia purchasing and utility upgrades. But to achieve real efficiencies, higher education must now turn to academics. We can start by taking a hard look at policies that are defended as “ensuring quality” but are often just vestiges of protecting traditional faculty work. For example, acceptance policies for transfer credit and prior learning assessments should be based on what students have actually learned—not how many credit hours they’ve logged. And the growth of online courses and programs, increasingly at the most-prestigious institutions, is an example of the new opportunities for operational effectiveness that disruptive technologies can provide.
Within these three domains, trustees must provide the leadership and policy direction to ensure that their colleges have defined institutional success appropriately. If all strategies, goals, and resource allocations do not support mission, student success, and operational effectiveness—but instead simply reflect the pursuit of greater prestige—trustees should work with institutional leaders to recalibrate. Parents, students, state lawmakers, and business leaders are demanding such change and unless we move in this direction on our own, they will force us towards it.
Share on LinkedIn
