Last week Inside Higher Education posted an article titled “Starting to Worry”. The article examined the steps that some elite liberal arts colleges like Smith and Middlebury are taking to prepare for the future in light of an uncertain economy and changing expectations for higher education in general. Financial stability and sustainability was a theme in many articles. When I first read this article last week I knew that it interested me. I just couldn’t figure how to articulate the why’s and how’s of what I found so interesting and important.
After spending a weekend immersed in conversations about the impact of the neo-liberal state and the marketization of higher education I think I am much better able to share my thoughts on the article in a more structured way. Much of the small group and large group conversations over the weekend focused on resources and money, and the impact that the shifts in funding and financial aid have had on higher education. Slaughter and Rhoades discussed the various winners and losers in higher education as a result of neo-liberal trends. We latched on to this concept as a group on many occasions, discussing how more funding would allow us to better meet the needs of students and society. Yolanda’s notching of dollar signs on her notes shows how much we connected with this idea.
We also brought up the concept of elite liberal arts colleges on several occasions. These institutions were used to illustrate the “cohesive academic experience” referred to in the Kuh article. We discussed the advantages that these schools have in terms of funding, class size, creating the "cohesive experience" and in addressing a variety of the challenges that we struggle with on our campuses. All in all it seemed that we felt that these schools did not face the same challenges and issues that most of us face.
The “Starting to Worry” article stands out to me in terms of the contrasting nature of their approach to planning for the future and our belief that they have so many advantages. While one cannot argue that a huge endowment ($1 billion for Smith) and small class sizes provide advantages that most of us cannot truly imagine, I find it telling that at least some of these institutions are beginning to plan for a future where that advantage no longer exists. I also found it telling (and somewhat concerning) to view the article with the neo-liberal lens applied. Smith and Middlebury are looking at how their current model meets the demands of students and parents. Will the market for their model and approach exist in the future? Will the cost to provide such an experience exceed the ability to fill admissions slots? These schools are realizing that students and parents are looking a price tag and financial support in a new way, one that often leads elite students to state institutions with lower overall costs of attendance. Hmmm… sounds like marketization to me.
Another concept that really caught my eye (and one we were told to be on the lookout for) was the approach that these schools are exploring to create “new revenue streams”.
To keep that second metric up, several colleges have started exploring alternative revenue streams to fund the academic core. While these initiatives tend to focus on shrinking administrative budgets, increasing the size and payout of endowments, and improving philanthropy, some college leaders have proposed alternative solutions.
Middlebury has taken several steps to generate new revenue streams. In 2010 it partnered with K12, an education company, to offer online language instruction. It also acquired the Monterey Institute of International Studies. The Smith report calls for a task force to explore post-baccalaureate educational offerings and other programs that enhance the college’s "reputation and revenue structure."
Wow. It seems that issues of revenue streams and funding are present across all of higher education. The article concludes that being “complacent” is the real risk facing all institutions, that we must adjust to the change that is coming. I have always found it interesting how closely complicit resembles complacent.
I happen to be studying the decision-making environment of women's colleges for my other class this semester, so this post caught my eye. While I agree that both Smith and Middlebury are likely dealing with the neo-liberalization of pseudo-market based funding models, I propose that Smith is also facing the decreasing interest in women's liberal arts colleges. In fact, Smith started an engineering sciences (B.S.) program and a degree in Engineering Arts (B.A.) several years ago, in response to expected changes it would face. If women's colleges want to survive, they need to adapt. And if they want to diversify their student base, they had better figure out how to offer their exceptional education without a continually increasing exceptional price tag.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Robyn. In order for any institution to survive they need to be able to provide services which will provide a real and equitable outcome or at least be a spring board to the next level of education. This is expected by students, parents and business' looking to higher college graduates. Professions, such as engineering, are in high demand and by adapting to the current market environment institutions of higher learning will not only draw new students to their school but also remain relevant and sustainable.
ReplyDeleteThis is not meant to detract from the humanities or a well rounded education. What needs to be done is those institutions whose provide degrees in the humanities need to work with their Career Services to further develop occupational and career links so a student in those fields have a better chance to find a position after graduation.