Forbes: Higher Education Needs A Clearer Message: How Institutions Can Adapt

Managing Principal and President, Brian Mitchell, recently published an article in Forbes detailing how institutions of higher education can clarify their message. The article includes guidance on factors to consider in message development including implications of the broader macroeconomic environment. The full article can be found below and on the Forbes website.

The early development of higher education placed scholars at the center of learning, attracting students through their knowledge and personal reputations. As higher education continued to develop, facilities and programs burnished scholarly reputations as modern universities emerged in cities like Paris and Bologna.

Today, the American higher education system is a complex, amorphous mix of colleges and universities linking people, programs and facilities in a decentralized system of nonprofit, for-profit, online, private and public institutions at two-year, four-year, graduate and professional levels offering degrees, certificates and other options.

In 2021, more than 20 million people participated in higher education in the U.S., whose system is regulated by local, state and federal governments that help pay its bills and by accreditors who regulate and legitimize the institution’s offerings. For many students and their families, however, it’s a confusing mix of academic options driven increasingly by these families’ calculations of their return on a potential college investment. At some institutions, the sticker price is approaching almost $100,000. And therein lies a challenge that American higher education must meet.

Challenges Facing Higher Education

Higher education is at a point of inflection. Colleges are internally governed by trustees, faculty and staff, who can be at odds with one another over priorities. In my experience, higher education often operates more as a group of competing interests than as corporate enterprises shaped by their roles in their marketplace. Institutions have different missions. With the best intentions, however, campus constituencies can sometimes slow-walk strategic initiatives in seeking the perfect over the good. Much of their guidance evolves from consensus building, shifting revenue sources, even within their tuition base, and “best practices” and business models that change frequently over time. This can limit a rapid response to the challenges faced on campus.

And that’s part of the problem. Higher education institutions are not corporations and should not behave as though they were. That said, I believe many institutions have failed to link their strategic direction to consumer and marketplace demands in a way that’s explainable and understandable to students; families; consumers; local, state and federal elected officials and accreditors.

Specifically, I’ve found they often fail to integrate and finance their development of people, programs and facilities to meet defined needs that offer them a market advantage. What separates them, for instance, from their peers and aspirant institutions? It’s often difficult to tell. While categories of competing institutions—private colleges, public regional universities, community colleges and research universities, for example—offer choice by their mission, the specific programmatic advantages are often unclear at many institutions.

How To Clarify Higher Education’s Message

Messaging challenges may happen in part because many colleges have historically fallen back on their historic underpinnings as liberal arts institutions. Some perceive “liberal arts” as a political term, but “liberal” in this sense does not refer to a political ideology, nor are colleges exclusively about the “arts.”

Higher education needs to sharpen its public image with a clearer message. One possibility is to promote a broader view of the liberal arts. This argument is simple and appealing. The liberal arts teach students to articulate, write, apply quantitative methods, use technology and work in a collaborative setting. Arguably, these are learned experiences that can make students successful professionally in a competitive job market. From my perspective, the liberal arts, redefined more pragmatically, should continue to form the historical foundation upon which the justification for higher education programs is built. But the liberal arts must be more explainable to Americans.

At the same time, colleges and universities should build out the case for higher education further. There are at least three immediate steps to take.

1. Recognize the difference between a mission statement and a strategic plan.

A mission statement is an explanation of the founding principles upon which an institution is built, while a strategic plan is a statement of where it intends to head. A college’s strategic plan needs to find its cultural home in the mission statement but not be constrained by it. The plan must acknowledge the institution’s founding principles that explain why it exists and the value it provides; it must also reflect the broader changes in the evolution of American society and the role that a vibrant, dynamic institution plays in shaping that society and meeting its needs.

Once this groundwork is established, however, two additional steps must occur.

2. Look carefully at academic and student life programming.

Even the largest research universities cannot be all things to all students. At residential liberal arts colleges, for example, institutions should offer balanced, robust academic programming that is well-supported financially and surrounded by a comprehensive residential student experience. This will require internal adjustments to mindset, programs, facilities and staffing.

There should also be academic program standouts across the field of academic offerings upon which the branding of the institution will depend. This helps differentiate institutions.

3. Consider the economic role the institution plays.

Finally, I’ve found higher education institutions often diminish their important role as economic engines by focusing almost exclusively on their academic stewardship. Whatever the outreach to the public, colleges and universities are not isolated cities upon a hill. They serve their region and, more specifically, its economic development and workforce preparation.

For institutions to be relevant, they should link their academic programs to meet the needs of their environment, which also shapes them. Students are more likely to attend when they see that a degree will translate into employment in the world they’ll enter after graduation. This last prerequisite might encourage colleges and universities to reclaim their relevance among families, students and consumers. It answers their question: What’s in it for me?

Consumers seek clarity of purpose and proof of excellence. This is a reasonable request and a fair expectation. But college marketing efforts must not preach to a world that many on a campus wish existed. Colleges and universities have an extraordinary story to tell, but they need to adjust the focus, think about their audience and sharpen and reshape their message before outside groups do it for them.

Managing Principal and President, Brian Mitchell, recently published an article in RealClear Education which describes the difficult set of circumstances many institutions of higher education currently face. “Many institutions are tuition-dependent, lack endowment drawdowns of any scale, and offer financial aid discounts that now average 56%,” says Mitchell.

While some institutions plan to weather the storm by cutting programs and potentially closing or merging their operations, others are encouraged by these macro trends and have created or modified programs and majors to attract prospective students and meet local and regional employment needs. You can read the full article on RealClear Education. 

“This tsunami of confusing and potentially catastrophic trends affecting American higher education presents a dilemma for colleges and universities, whether public or private. On the one hand, many of these institutions seek to weather the storm by cutting programs and potentially closing or merging their operations. On the other, these same trends encourage colleges to create or modify programs and majors to attract prospective students and meet local and regional employment needs. While Fitch Ratings concludes that further college closings and consolidations seem ‘inevitable,’ institutions must think strategically over the longer term to create new programs, approaches and initiatives that meet their organizational and strategic goals. What is the logical path for faculty, staff and trustees to follow?”

Managing Principal and President, Brian Mitchell, recently published an article in Forbes which describes the challenges higher education will face this year including impacts of the upcoming election, the looming financial crisis, the role of athletics and more. You can read the full article on Forbes. 

“Higher education does not operate in isolation. Many of the ongoing challenges faced by American society are also sweeping over the higher education community.

Some will have a dramatic effect on how higher education does business. Many are long-term issues and include but are not limited to immigration, geopolitical instability and climate change. But there are also a good number of short-term challenges, many of them unique to higher education, that will likely emerge more starkly in 2024.

Now is the time to make the first critical decisions on how to handle them. After discussion with colleagues at all levels across higher education and the media, here are some areas that are likely to become front-burner concerns for leaders in higher education.”

Managing Principal and President, Brian Mitchell, recently published an article in Forbes about steps institutions of higher education can take to better prepare themselves for challenging and uncertain times. You can read the full article on Forbes. 

“To me, the conclusion is painful but obvious: American higher education faces an existential crisis. Boards, administrators and faculty must wake up to the new realities that they face. For trustees, it may be too late to use an incremental band-aid. If the wounds are too deep, boards have a fiduciary obligation to plot a new strategy in an era of rising deficits to modify what the college offers, locate new revenue, seek new partnerships and affiliations, and merge or close. The goal must not be to postpone planning until the institution’s value is reduced to a real estate sale.”

Managing Principal and President, Brian Mitchell published an article in Forbes on better governance in higher education. You can also view the article on Forbes here.

Higher education is the repository of America’s intellectual capital, an engine for its workforce development and a big business. In 2023, it employed over 2.9 million people., according to IBISWorld. 19.4 million students attended colleges and universities in 2020, down about 10% from its peak of 21.6 million in fall 2010. How its leadership handles the scale and size of higher education could have an enormous impact on the American economy and the ability of the American economy to adapt strategically to the demands of the second quarter of the 21st century.

Higher Education’s Governance Model
Governance is critical in higher education because few understand how it works. Colleges and universities are not corporations when measured by how they govern. Among numerous stakeholders, there are three time-honored participants—the board of trustees, the faculty and the senior administration. There is a natural tension among these groups that is meant to ensure a kind of checks-and-balances system to produce thoughtful outcomes. If an imbalance occurs, the institution suffers, especially during times when critical inflection points determine their direction—both locally and across higher education. I believe America has arrived at one of these inflection points, fueled by the Great Recession, Covid-19, persistent inflation and an upcoming demographic cliff as enrollments decline.

In our book, How to Run a College, Dr. Joseph King and I argue that in a system of shared governance, the board has three basic obligations. The first is to steward the policy of the college. The second is to pass a budget. And the third is to hire, support, nurture, retain and when necessary, fire and replace the president. Fairness and due process must always override naked political will. The board is often the most inclined among the three groups to overreach, mistakenly confusing its overarching stewardship responsibility for day-to-day management across the campus. The weakest boards often nominate committees that either try to fill new board seats by duplicating themselves or by overbalancing membership based on a set of shifting priorities. They are often also too large and cumbersome to be effective. The result can be debilitating, with the most deleterious effect on the role that they have to approve long-term strategy and direction.

The faculty contribute as “keepers of the flame” and, ideally, focus on the academic program and related issues, including occasionally offering their perspective on student life. There is always a pull-and-push going on with the administration and trustees who want them under the academic tent but typically not moving beyond their historic responsibilities and duties. Faculty often do not trust board members whom they consider too business-oriented and male-dominated or deeply rooted in past affiliations like athletics and Greek life. Further, faculty are keenly aware that trustees approve salaries and benefits.

The administration manages the campus, serves as the liaison between other stakeholders and the board, and maintains the public face and outreach beyond the campus gates. As Dr. King and I note in our most recent book, Leadership Matters, there are three types of presidents: presiders, change agents and strategic visionaries. Any of them can fit the “moment” when selected depending upon the needs of the institution. In my opinion, successful administrations work well only if the search produces candidates with good management skills who represent what the college needs rather than aspiring to what the campus community might want. Once selected, the administration must establish a basis of consensus, heightened levels of transparency, and arms-length distance from faculty, trustees and key stakeholders. Presidents share two risks. The first is to assume that they are cardinals among bishops, becoming more authoritarian over time. The second is to survive politically by allowing either trustees or faculty to overwhelm them.

Reviewing And Improving Governance Practices
The end game in good governance is strategy. If the trustees, faculty and administration can find common ground, a good strategic plan can provide a blueprint for growth and sustainability in a market now as competitive as any industry. With the looming crises facing higher education, governance practices are often unprepared and unexamined centers of cultural inertia.

Good governance is the foundation upon which a lasting strategic blueprint should rest. Colleges and universities are both academic centers and economic engines. Each institution should balance both features to find a solution to what they face. Yet American higher education has a long distinguished history to guide it upon which college leadership can draw. To do so, they should begin with a review of whether their governance practices serve them well.

To begin, those involved in shared governance must commit to a reasonably and regularly reviewed assessment plan, transparency and tactics tailored to build momentum for the institution’s strategic plan. l It is fundamental to ask both the right and the hard questions with a commitment to act on outcomes, however surprising or disheartening some aspects of these findings might be. Good institutions adopt best practices they develop from a working knowledge of their peers. Any commitment should start based on direction from the board chair, with the support of faculty leadership and the president. Institutional leadership should recognize at the outset that this is not a rationing exercise or an expense audit but an effort to become more responsive, creative and efficient.

In my experience, the only way to determine if an institution’s governance practices are effective is to challenge their rationale, the size and scope of governing bodies and the premise upon which they were built. In the end, it’s about whether the process that shapes decision-making works, and there is wide variation among institutions. Effective governance in a highly competitive higher education environment is one of the best ways to compete and be true to tradition, mission and strategy. Absent good governance practices that are regularly reviewed and driven down across all levels of the campus, colleges and universities may simmer in a kind of cultural inertia that can dramatically diminish their ability to compete. This could have negative effects on America and its intellectual capital.

One definition of a college president is that he or she lives in a big house and carries a tin cup to search for money. A more accurate analysis might be that a president has a corporate title working as a 19th century political boss trying to manage a medieval craft guild.

A senior official at a large foundation asked me recently why college and university presidents fail to exert their influence as opinion makers in American society. It is a good question and an important one. Why do higher education leaders govern but seldom lead?

One definition of a president is that they live in a big house and carry a tin cup to search for money. A more accurate analysis might be that presidents have a corporate title working as a 19th century political boss trying to manage a medieval craft guild.

And therein lies the problem — the job has evolved but the national imperative for presidents to lead as well as govern remains constant. And presidents — who preside over universities that are America’s incubators of ideas — are ideally positioned to make a significant contribution.

There are obstacles. Higher education leadership trains for the technical and is spotty, episodic, and inconsistent. There is no farm league from which to pull promising candidates into the majors. New presidents are drawn from an increasingly wide field of applicants, and there is little evidence of trustee initiated succession planning. The system under which American higher education operates — shared governance — values process and consensus over outcomes.

Presidents live in a highly charged political environment in which passion flares even when the issues are small. One humorous story told about a major research university is that that although there was no decision on the issue the faculty were still pleased because they were certain that they had won the debate. Further, presidents report to trustees, faculty, parents, staff, alumni, students and donors — each with a different perspective and agenda.

Twenty-four hour print, electronic and social media make transparency a full-time job, even when dealing with the most sensitive issues that often require discretion and confidentiality. Full transparency is exhausting and seldom sufficient. In short, it is easier — and safer — to govern.

person looking through binoculars between two stacks of books

American higher education is facing an extraordinarily difficult academic year as the economic crisis sparked by the global pandemic calls into question how colleges and universities operate. The pressure will put many residential liberal arts college in deep distress from which a significant number will not recover.

Facing an existential crisis, governing boards of trustees should ask whether they have the right leadership to weather these challenges. Does their current leadership have the right mix of strategy, operational knowledge, and financial expertise to shepherd the college or university through this crisis?

If the answer is no (or their president has recently resigned or retired), they should be taking immediate action to secure the leadership that can save them.

Time, tradition, precedent not on colleges’ side

Higher education must quickly adapt to the remarkably different environment caused by the pandemic. One immediate change must be in how they handle the elongated presidential search process. Who and how they choose may be the most important decisions that boards can make in the near future. Time, tradition, and precedent are no longer on their side.

The tradition-driven, consensus-building presidential search process — usually undertaken over 12 to 15 months and involving in-person stakeholder consultation and interviews — no longer serves colleges and universities that cry out for new vision and strategy to adapt and survive as their financial and enrollment needs collapse around them.

***

This article a synopsis of “The Responsibility of Choosing a College President in Times of Crisis,” written by Brian C. Mitchell and published in the July-August 2020 issue of Trusteeship, the magazine of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. The article is available to subscribers on the AGB website. If you would like a copy, please email your request to Brian. 

LinkedIn, Brian C. Mitchell

 

American higher education is facing an extraordinarily difficult academic year as the economic crisis sparked by the global pandemic calls into question how colleges and universities operate. The pressure will put many residential liberal arts college in deep distress from which a significant number will not recover.

Facing an existential crisis, governing boards of trustees should ask whether they have the right leadership to weather these challenges. Does their current leadership have the right mix of strategy, operational knowledge, and financial expertise to shepherd the college or university through this crisis?

If the answer is no (or their president has recently resigned or retired), they should be taking immediate action to secure the leadership that can save them.

Time, tradition, precedent not on colleges’ side

Higher education must quickly adapt to the remarkably different environment caused by the pandemic. One immediate change must be in how they handle the elongated presidential search process. Who and how they choose may be the most important decisions that boards can make in the near future. Time, tradition, and precedent are no longer on their side.

The tradition-driven, consensus-building presidential search process — usually undertaken over 12 to 15 months and involving in-person stakeholder consultation and interviews — no longer serves colleges and universities that cry out for new vision and strategy to adapt and survive as their financial and enrollment needs collapse around them.

This article is a synopsis of “The Responsibility of Choosing a College President in Times of Crisis,” written by Brian C. Mitchell and published in the July-August 2020 issue of Trusteeship, the magazine of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. The article is available to subscribers on the AGB website. If you’d like a copy, please send me a LinkedIn message or email. 

Inside Higher Ed, Brian C. Mitchell and Richard K. Gaumer

Colleges must immediately develop flexible financial planning that accounts for what happens in the spring and what might occur in the fall, write Brian C. Mitchell and Richard K. Gaumer.

 

As the pandemic deepens, higher education has been fairly uniform in its response. Most colleges and universities have closed. Where they can, many of those institutions have pledged to convert to an online platform to complete the semester’s remaining coursework.

The solutions adopted make good sense to most observers. But clearly no one, including America’s college leadership, prepared fully for what the country is likely to face. In the stimulus package, higher education leaders requested $50 billion in federal relief but will receive only $14 billion, far short of the support needed. Many of them will confront a severe cash-flow crunch that may cause some colleges to collapse. With most students gone, now is the time to look at the damage done, plan for what to do and anticipate ways in which the crisis can be managed effectively.

First, the coronavirus pandemic has laid bare the fragility of the tuition-driven revenue model at most institutions. Many higher education leaders have pledged to prorate the second semester’s room and board fees for their students. In Boston, for example, local colleges and universities might refund up to $670 million in unused room and board. There are, of course, numerous ways to do so.

But brick-and-mortar institutions are highly labor and land intensive. At some point, the bills must be paid. Using room and board credits applied to the fall semester, insurance triggers that prompt reimbursements and refunds from food service contracts, as well as shifting money from other accounts or the unrestricted portion of the endowment, may work for many of them. But the effects on the overall financial picture will be serious and even dire.

Colleges must immediately develop flexible financial planning that accounts for what happens in the spring and what might occur in the fall. If the fall semester is delayed or canceled, the implication will move beyond the immediate financial bottom line to a question of institutional sustainability. Should students no longer fill available seats over the next six to 12 months, mergers, sales, closures and acquisitions will increase as part of a general shakeout across American higher education.

One internal political solution is to look at where efficiencies and economies of scale can be created that do not diminish the rationing pie jealously guarded by campuses invested in the status quo. There may be ways to adjust the bottom line. One example is, for instance, to determine whether prescription drug benefits might be lowered for self-insured colleges and universities and those that participate in larger self-insurance pools. The savings produced, which can start almost immediately, will cover some of the unanticipated shortfalls and provide discretionary money to undertake needed short-term steps, like online programming.

To put a Band-Aid on the immediate crisis, many institutions have pledged to convert to an online platform to finish this semester’s instruction. Shifting to online programming presents obstacles. First, many colleges do not support a robust platform that can be adapted to scale. Second, there are unspecified additional costs in training, technology upgrades, facilities, needed bandwidth and faculty and support personnel. Third, not all faculty may be willing to participate in online programming. Additional numbers of them are untrained. And will this cobbled-together online format produce a high-quality education for students?

For many institutions, it may be far better to work out a blended arrangement with groups like Coursera for Campus, which enable any college or university to offer existing courses and certificates to their students. Coursera recently announced that they are making Coursera for Campus available at no charge through July 31 to any college or university impacted by the coronavirus. Other providers, like Podium Education and the Foundry College, might also provide some adaptable assistance. In the post-coronavirus world, one outcome for colleges to consider is whether closer relationships with ed-tech providers might actually reinvigorate their existing curriculum while simultaneously preserving it. This approach ties the strength of traditional pedagogy to the needs of the 21st-century workforce.

This is also an opportunity for colleges to evaluate and improve campus services. Students and their families need assurance that critical services affected by the coronavirus will be provided. All services must be seamless, readily available and meet the needs that are challenged by the virus. TimelyMD, a telehealth company focused on transforming health care in higher education, is a good example of how colleges can improve existing campus services during the coronavirus crisis. It provides 24-hour access to telemedicine and counseling services that can support initiatives like social (physical) distancing. Additionally, counseling services delivered via telehealth improve access to mental health support for students facing increased anxiety and stress. These types of services enable colleges to have a clear value proposition for students returning to their campuses. Students might otherwise consider transferring closer to home or completing their education online.

And that’s the point for colleges and universities in the midst of an unprecedented disruption. This can either be a time to hunker down and fix the finances — at least temporarily, with financial parlor tricks — or an opportunity to understand how it can be used to plan for a sustainable future. If the disruption is an opportunity to become more adaptable, we may find a silver lining amid the panic and chaos of the moment.

Boston Globe Magazine, Brian C. Mitchell and W. Joseph King

Boston’s economy has thrived because of ‘eds and meds’ — education and health care. But that status is under threat.

 

High school students will soon be sending in their acceptance deposits to the nation’s colleges and universities. Many of the best and brightest from around the world will do so for Boston-area schools, whose excellence and variety make Boston a global magnet for students. Boston’s preeminence in “eds and meds” has made it one of the world’s most significant economic engines, despite its small population and compact size. Its ability to adapt to a changing global economy mirrors its greatest strength: the capacity to sustain and nurture a creative class. But cities from Atlanta to Pittsburgh to San Francisco are knocking at Boston’s door. To remain robust contributors of intellectual capital to the regional economy, Boston’s higher ed institutions need real adaptation and innovation. Here are some critical steps that local college and university officials must take now.

 

Collaborate more. Boston’s higher education institutions, public and private, have been powerful engines for the regional economy, despite being competitors. While Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are arguably the pistons of this engine, they cannot by themselves provide enough of a draw to bring Amazon and other heavyweights here. The city needs more efforts like the Colleges of the Fenway consortium (Emmanuel College, Massachusetts College of Art and Design, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Simmons College, Wentworth Institute of Technology, and Wheelock College), whose schools work together on new ideas and programs, and create economic efficiencies to contain costs (and tuition increases). Area universities should also work toward sharing career services. Collaboration will make them a more formidable force in shaping public policy and economic development.

 

Combine to prosper. Most American colleges and universities operate with an unsustainable financial model. Boston’s institutions of higher education are not immune to these problems, as we’ve seen with the University of Massachusetts Boston’s struggle to control costs and address rising deficits. Cash-strapped colleges may have to reduce offerings, which can lower their value to consumers, i.e., students, who may lose confidence in them. Mergers, such as that between Wheelock College and Boston University, can strengthen both schools, increasing the value of a degree at each.

 

Manage themselves more effectively. Colleges in general are run more like mom and pop shops than sophisticated purveyors of valuable knowledge workers. Boards of trustees are often insular and bloated, and will likely be ineffective at facing broad questions about responsible budgeting and stewardship facing today’s colleges, plus new consumer, state, and federal oversight demands. Faculty must play a much more significant role in governance to foster innovation in teaching and research across their campuses. Suffolk University’s recent debacle over leadership illustrates what can happen when governance fails.

 

Find new assets. Colleges must reduce their reliance on tuition and government research grants and subsidies. They must look for ways to use their existing assets, such as real estate, more efficiently. Can they forge cooperative partnerships with business and industry to yield new kinds of revenue? In cities such as Boston, can they create economies of scale with one another when retrofitting or designing expensive new facilities, while working with the city to improve the quality of civic life?

 

Remember the liberal arts. Many schools now tout job placement rates for graduates. But universities cannot respond to economic pressures by converting to trade schools. There’s a real value to trade schools, but we need broad, high-quality liberal arts schools more than ever. The liberal arts are neither liberal nor narrowly about the arts. They produce graduates who can write, speak, apply quantitative methods, use technology, and work in a collaborative setting. These are precisely the skills of the next generation’s workforce. Even engineers — perhaps especially engineers — need nontechnical skills. Rather than apologize, colleges should double down on the liberal arts.

 

Expand their student base. Most higher education institutions use enrollment models built for an entirely different demographic. Growing numbers of college students are older than and have different life situations than the traditional 18- to 22-year-old applicant pool. Schools such as Lesley University, Bentley University, and Merrimack College have responded to today’s changing workforce by expanding the breadth and scope of their programming, while still staying true to their history and mission. Today’s schools must also devise financial aid models to get the right support to the most deserving students, adapt student life to accommodate a wider range of interests, and bolster their career counseling networks — perhaps, as mentioned above, across school boundaries.

An era of relatively easy times for colleges and universities is ending. If Boston’s higher educational leadership reacts only incrementally, the city could lose its powerhouse position in the global economy. It’s time to protect the intellectual capital that built Boston. It starts by leveraging the historic strength of Harvard, MIT, and the region’s other research universities to create a coherent, fully integrated economic development policy across higher education. Boston’s future as an incubator of the creative class depends on it.

 

Brian C. Mitchell is a principal in Academic Innovators and past president of Bucknell University and Washington & Jefferson College. W. Joseph King is the president of Lyon College in Batesville, Arkansas. Their new book is “How to Run a College: A Practical Guide for Trustees, Faculty, Administrators, and Policymakers.” Send comments to magazine@globe.com. Follow us on Twitter @BostonGlobeMag.