For colleges, collaboration is the future
Of the 1,687 private colleges in the U.S., it is estimated that up to one third are at risk of closing or merging. This is especially true for some of the 800 that enroll fewer than 1,000 students, are located in less populated areas, are highly dependent upon tuition, and have little public recognition. Among the concerns is a projected 15 percent decline in enrollment this fall.
Instead of lamenting the prospects, we in higher education should be reshaping our plans and strategies. Instead of trying to be “all things to all people,” we should focus on what we do best and do more to strengthen student retention and graduation.
In New York, there are more than 100 private colleges and universities ranging in size from more than 57,000 to as small as 89. Sixty percent enroll less than 2,000 students; a few dozen enroll fewer than 1,000 students. These institutions are located in New York City and Rochester as well as in towns as small as Aurora. Forty percent of the 1.2 million college students in New York are enrolled at private institutions that employ more than 185,000 faculty and staff. They also support more than 14,000 construction jobs and nearly 215,000 other workers. Most of these institutions are also the anchor employer in their communities, with an economic impact estimated at nearly $90 billion.
Many private colleges were already vulnerable because of declining numbers of high school graduates, a projected 25 percent reduction in international students, the discounting of tuition in order to provide scholarships, and increased competition from state institutions. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated these challenges by the increased cost of safety measures, the canceling of summer programs, and reduced tuition revenue because of concerns about cost and whether campuses will open. The rise in unemployment and salary cuts has caused families to reconsider whether college is affordable, even though these New York colleges distributed more than $6 billion in financial aid.
COVID-19 is just the latest in a series of blows to private higher education’s stability. Surveys of the general public indicate a decline in trust that institutions put the interests of students first. Some allege that campuses are more interested in rankings and prestige than in student success. After all, the six-year graduation rate overall is only 60 percent.
The present moment also includes stories about administration-faculty conflicts and board-president tensions. Less than 10 percent of college and university trustees have professional experience in higher education governance. It is hard to imagine a tech company or major bank declaring the 90 percent of its directors were unfamiliar with the characteristics and economics of the enterprise.
In addition, the economic model of most colleges relies on relatively high tuition and big discounts in order to provide scholarships that institutions cannot fund from endowments. Many institutions attempt to manage their financial challenges by relying on part-time faculty and underfunding facilities maintenance, leading to lower graduation rates and deferred maintenance.
Unfortunately, there is a lack of alignment among the important variables of mission, goals, strategies, resource allocation, rewards such as released time from teaching for full-time faculty, and the results desired. With boards unfamiliar with higher education and presidents often thinking of money and markets to the exclusion of mission, there can be a lack of alignment between purpose and results.
The goal for higher education is to prepare ethical citizens for a democracy as well as for careers and commerce. Our objective as educators is to prepare students to learn on their own and in groups through the transformative process of teaching and learning, not the transactional process of training. We aspire for them to become even more inquisitive and reflective.
However, the lure of distinctiveness and recognition leads many institutions to ignore their mission and to invest in activities that are more superficial than significant. While in previous decades we needed greater coordination of institutions that were growing, perhaps now we need greater coordination for consolidation, closures, and the more effective and efficient use of resources.
We in higher education espouse national priorities for access, affordability and accountability, but generally pursue campus goals independently. We need to reimagine university governance, including the roles and responsibilities of boards, presidents and faculty. The decline in resources from tuition, cutbacks in state and federal government programs, reductions in private donations as a consequence of the stock market’s decline, and the change in focus of foundations toward public health and social justice should prompt colleges and universities to do more together.
More institutions could work cooperatively with others in workforce development, research, community outreach and collaborating with local school systems. We have examples to emulate, but they are too few. Working in concert, institutions will have a better chance to fulfill national priorities in strategic as well as individual ways. This is an opportunity for a radical shift in focus and a renewed commitment to serving society in ways that support students, college towns and colleges.