One of the challenges faced by people associated with branch campuses is the lack of literature or other obvious resources to help identify best practices, mistakes to avoid, or typical challenges. As a result, branch campuses come in a wide range of "flavors," around structure, programs, budgets, and mission. I hope this blog and the conferences organized by NABCA and RBCA help provide a sense of connection for people in the branch campus world.
In this context, I thought it would be worthwhile to draw attention to my impression that the number of branch campuses is growing, not only in the United States, but around the world. To be sure, there are the well publicized examples of American institutions launching international branches, usually in Asia or the Middle East. However, I am most interested in the simple reality that universities and colleges around the world often create branches, within their own country, in a manner that appears to be very similar to what happens in the U.S.
I have been fortunate to visit branch campuses in Mexico, Canada, Russia, and Hong Kong, and I have met individuals from Australia, Mexico, and other countries, who attended NABCA or RBCA. The issues faced in those countries seem similar to issues that arise here, but I don't know that to be a fact. There's a nice research opportunity for someone doing a thesis or dissertation: Comparing main campus and branch campus operations in different countries!
Recently, I visited campuses of the University of Northern British Columbia. It was an outstanding experience. There weren't any stunning surprises, during my visit, but the differences from my own experience were enough to be both interesting and engaging. Like most institutions, the UNBC story had unique elements, particular challenges, and highly recognizable points of view, both from branch and central campus folks.
Beyond supporting the general call for more research on branch campuses, I want to suggest that one might get especially interesting perspectives, by looking at branches in different countries, while "controlling" for as many dimensions, as possible: How would a branch in Mexico be similar to or different from one in the U.S., if the institutions are of similar size, in similarly populated areas, and so on. Are there differences in how they use technology? Do they attract similar or different student markets? Are main campus-branch issues similar? Can we learn things that will help us be more effective at our own campuses?
A quite different idea would be to partner with a branch in another country on courses or programs. A business course could use technology to have students in both countries working together on an international business problem. Guest lectures could be provided from both locations. Study abroad opportunities, often a challenge for branch students, could be relatively brief and intensive, with students and faculty members interacting by technology, both before and after the visit. I'd guess that branches from different countries could have a lot of fun, through partnership, as well as create outstanding learning opportunities and grow in cultural awareness. I know these things have happened, and sometimes they have been difficult to make work, but it seems well worth the effort.
In other aspects of my work, I've had some wonderful opportunities in the international arena, and they have enriched my life, enormously. In today's world, not only is it important to develop a global (heck, just a nonparochial) perspective, but technology can make it possible to do things that could not have been done effectively, just a few years ago.
Branch campus faculty, students and administrators have a natural platform to initiate a relationship. Go for it! Then, let me know how it works out. Or, better yet, come to NABCA or RBCA and tell everyone about it.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
On Generations and Opportunities
I've gotta say, I feel really good about being a Boomer, at this point in my life. I am enjoying a sense of opportunity and energy, as well as self-discovery, that is bringing me closer to values and goals that were important to me years ago. I can afford to make some work and lifestyle choices that would have been more difficult in the past, and I am better able to accept certain things and simply refuse to accept others.
As I wrote in my last post, I'm also enjoying the work and personal connections I have with younger people. Maybe it is drawing on the teacher in me, but I also feel as if I learn a lot from them, and as if we have considerable fun. I'm encouraged about the workplace of the future, because I see an interesting alignment of values that, if properly managed, should yield highly effective organizations.
I haven't yet figured out how to articulate the potential I see, but I can point to some elements of the opportunity. Younger generations seem to have a better sense of work-play balance than Boomers have had. Given that many Boomers now want to find a more flexible approach to work and life, perhaps we can see the wisdom of younger perspectives. Effective cross-generational work teams had better make time to laugh and play!
An interesting aspect of "flexibility" ties to work hours. Many Boomers want to work part time or seasonally. Project work may be attractive to some, but for me, I'm more interested in the social connection and the pleasure that comes with continuing work relationships. I want to be somewhere warm in the winter, and I want to take great vacations from time to time. I've never made a huge distinction between work and other interests, and that quality is serving me well. The opportunity to set my own hours, whether early in the morning (not likely) or late in the evening is very attractive, as is the idea of working like a demon for a few weeks, then heading off on some personal adventure for a few more.
Young people tend to share aspects of my attitude. The old "8-5" is tough on younger folks. It isn't that they are unwilling to work hard, but they want to have as much control as possible over exactly when, where and how they work. In fact, "control" is a big part of what both Boomers and Millenials are looking for, but it is control over their own choices about time and projects.
Millenials, especially, are motivated more by a sense of passion for whatever they are doing than by direction or instructions from higher up. I like that, and I've seen both Generation X-types and Millenials work with a level of commitment that I find impressive. Working with passion! That seems like an excellent way to live.
In the reading I've done, and the limited personal experience I've had, I'm struck by the notion that Millenials are looking for respect and for people to listen to their ideas. Sound like the 60's and 70's generation? Sharing ideas and building powerful group energy around important projects that people care about sounds terrific, as well.
Boomers can bring their stories and experience, but we also can lose our accumulated doubts and cynicism in the presence of young people who still believe they can change the world. Note that community is hugely important to young people, both their work "community" and the larger community within which they live. So that aspect for some Boomers, of wanting to change directions and become engaged in volunteer or part-time work connected to social service agencies and the like, is entirely consistent with how Millenials view community development. It is less about title, hierarchy, or even pay than about making a difference.
I wonder if this also connects to our expanded lifespans? A friend who just turned 60 talks about choosing direction for the "second half of her adult life." If we are going to be around for 100 years, then the sense of time urgency should change. Why retire at 60, or even 70, if you feel young and vital and expect to be around for awhile, yet? By the same token, if you are 25 or 30 and expect to have another 70 years or more to go, why be in a hurry about education, career, or relationships? Maybe we can all make better choices if we see our lives unfolding over longer periods of time.
So much of what is written about younger generations is negative. For example, just thinking about the previous paragraph, some are talking about "extended adolescence" in Millenials and the need to press them to "grow up." Really? Is it extended adolescence or simply an awareness of more time to live, allowing less urgency to "get on with it"? (I'm not sure on this one. There are times when I do feel as if young people are remarkably superficial, moments away from when they impress me with their knowledge and poise, when it matters.)
I haven't tried to tie this post specifically to branch campuses, but it is easy enough to see the implications, wherever you choose to look. Branches are historically very engaged in community, and there are opportunities here to help build community connections, effective cross-generational teams, and the like. There are possible implications for how we staff campuses and meet demand for instructors. Credit or noncredit certificate programs could be built around cross-generational opportunities, and so on.
We actually have very little choice but to find ways to work together. Boomers aren't ready to leave the stage, but we need the Millenials and Xers to make things run. I've got a feeling that some organizations and communities will figure out how to make it soar and others won't. Just as occurs in disruptive environments, there will be winners and those who don't know what hit them. I've got to admit, I like that idea. I plan to be one of the people having a great time and contributing what I can.
As I wrote in my last post, I'm also enjoying the work and personal connections I have with younger people. Maybe it is drawing on the teacher in me, but I also feel as if I learn a lot from them, and as if we have considerable fun. I'm encouraged about the workplace of the future, because I see an interesting alignment of values that, if properly managed, should yield highly effective organizations.
I haven't yet figured out how to articulate the potential I see, but I can point to some elements of the opportunity. Younger generations seem to have a better sense of work-play balance than Boomers have had. Given that many Boomers now want to find a more flexible approach to work and life, perhaps we can see the wisdom of younger perspectives. Effective cross-generational work teams had better make time to laugh and play!
An interesting aspect of "flexibility" ties to work hours. Many Boomers want to work part time or seasonally. Project work may be attractive to some, but for me, I'm more interested in the social connection and the pleasure that comes with continuing work relationships. I want to be somewhere warm in the winter, and I want to take great vacations from time to time. I've never made a huge distinction between work and other interests, and that quality is serving me well. The opportunity to set my own hours, whether early in the morning (not likely) or late in the evening is very attractive, as is the idea of working like a demon for a few weeks, then heading off on some personal adventure for a few more.
Young people tend to share aspects of my attitude. The old "8-5" is tough on younger folks. It isn't that they are unwilling to work hard, but they want to have as much control as possible over exactly when, where and how they work. In fact, "control" is a big part of what both Boomers and Millenials are looking for, but it is control over their own choices about time and projects.
Millenials, especially, are motivated more by a sense of passion for whatever they are doing than by direction or instructions from higher up. I like that, and I've seen both Generation X-types and Millenials work with a level of commitment that I find impressive. Working with passion! That seems like an excellent way to live.
In the reading I've done, and the limited personal experience I've had, I'm struck by the notion that Millenials are looking for respect and for people to listen to their ideas. Sound like the 60's and 70's generation? Sharing ideas and building powerful group energy around important projects that people care about sounds terrific, as well.
Boomers can bring their stories and experience, but we also can lose our accumulated doubts and cynicism in the presence of young people who still believe they can change the world. Note that community is hugely important to young people, both their work "community" and the larger community within which they live. So that aspect for some Boomers, of wanting to change directions and become engaged in volunteer or part-time work connected to social service agencies and the like, is entirely consistent with how Millenials view community development. It is less about title, hierarchy, or even pay than about making a difference.
I wonder if this also connects to our expanded lifespans? A friend who just turned 60 talks about choosing direction for the "second half of her adult life." If we are going to be around for 100 years, then the sense of time urgency should change. Why retire at 60, or even 70, if you feel young and vital and expect to be around for awhile, yet? By the same token, if you are 25 or 30 and expect to have another 70 years or more to go, why be in a hurry about education, career, or relationships? Maybe we can all make better choices if we see our lives unfolding over longer periods of time.
So much of what is written about younger generations is negative. For example, just thinking about the previous paragraph, some are talking about "extended adolescence" in Millenials and the need to press them to "grow up." Really? Is it extended adolescence or simply an awareness of more time to live, allowing less urgency to "get on with it"? (I'm not sure on this one. There are times when I do feel as if young people are remarkably superficial, moments away from when they impress me with their knowledge and poise, when it matters.)
I haven't tried to tie this post specifically to branch campuses, but it is easy enough to see the implications, wherever you choose to look. Branches are historically very engaged in community, and there are opportunities here to help build community connections, effective cross-generational teams, and the like. There are possible implications for how we staff campuses and meet demand for instructors. Credit or noncredit certificate programs could be built around cross-generational opportunities, and so on.
We actually have very little choice but to find ways to work together. Boomers aren't ready to leave the stage, but we need the Millenials and Xers to make things run. I've got a feeling that some organizations and communities will figure out how to make it soar and others won't. Just as occurs in disruptive environments, there will be winners and those who don't know what hit them. I've got to admit, I like that idea. I plan to be one of the people having a great time and contributing what I can.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Encore Careers May Provide Excellent Opportunities for Branch Campuses
I think it is time to change directions. In the disruptive environment that I believe higher education faces, an important question goes to how we can best position our institutions for success. The good news is that there are relatively new ways of thinking about organizations and organizational change that may be entirely consistent with the impact of technology, a higher proportion of adult learners, and concerns about the cost of traditional education.
These new ways of thinking emerge from positive psychology, an approach that focuses on individual and organizational strengths, rather than deficits, with the goal of thriving or flourishing, not simply surviving or enduring. There are a number of topics I can explore here, but I want to start with something that is close to my own heart: The implication of the Baby Boomer Generation, as it moves past 60 and toward what we think of as "traditional" retirement age. Some of what I will share can be explored in greater detail in an excellent book, by Marc Freedman (2007), called Encore: Finding Work that Matters in the Second Half of Life.
A key point is that the idea of "retiring to leisure" is a relatively new notion, tied to the creation of Social Security and corporate pensions. Before, say, the 1930's, most people simply worked until they died, and they tended to die at a younger age than most of us, today. Bluntly, many Boomers can't afford to retire, and many of us who can, don't want to. It is important for us to feel productive, although how we want to approach work may change.
I won't go into more detail on the attitudes and needs of Boomers, when it comes to work, but I do want to share some potentially good news: Employers need us to stay engaged. The immediately following generation is too small to adequately fill employment needs, and the generation after that, although large, is not yet experienced enough for some roles.
Boomers looking at so-called encore careers may want to work in roles similar to the ones they've filled in the past, or they may want to change directions. Almost certainly, they will put a premium on flexibility, working part-time, seasonally, as consultants or project specialists, etc. Consider, for example, a professor, who may not want to teach full-time or serve on deadening committees, but would love to teach part-time and, perhaps, do some writing.
Boomers bring experience, wisdom (one hopes), and love to tell their stories. It turns out that the generation just entering the workplace, often called Generation Y or Millenials, enjoy hearing our stories, value flexibility, and share many of the social values of the Boomer generation. (Not really a huge surprise. Millenials are our kids!)
How might an appreication of generations impact an institution of higher education, and most especially, a branch campus that excels at serving adult learners or provides a wide range of certifications, online and blended courses, and highly competitive tuition?
First of all, there are "business" opportunities here. Many Boomers will seek education and training to develop skills or pursue long-delayed interests in learning. Because they value flexibility, they will be attracted to blended or hybrid programs that allow them to travel, be somewhere warm in the winter, or whatever suits their lifestyle. How we package courses and use technology for delivery will be important. (Note that the Millenials are digital natives and this is their natural environment, already.)
Although the personnel office might classify a retired professor, teaching part-time as an adjunct, it isn't quite what we usually think of as an adjunct. Their experience and approach to the classroom may be quite different, and we have found that many of these faculty members also embrace technology in their teaching, for the flexibility it provides. Retirees from other fields may enjoy teaching, as well. So staffing scalable types of courses that reach out to new audiences may be less difficult than a lot of people imagine.
Retired administrators and faculty members may be very interested in working on special projects or returning to work at especially busy times of the year, reducing cost to the institution, while retaining needed expertise. Mentoring programs with younger colleagues may pay huge dividends, as well.
My point here is that there is still a lot of juice in Baby Boomers. Most of us have far too many years yet to live to retire to leisure. Designing jobs or roles and providing appropriate educational preparation may be a wonderfully welcome opportunity.
There is one more point I'd like to make: I have found working with younger staff to be energizing and fun, for me. If we think of generational differences as another example of diversity, there is much for all of us to learn and to celebrate. There is a compatibility that suggests building cross-generational work teams may be a powerful way to engage faculty and staff, yielding a dynamic, enthusiastic, creative force that will powerfully affect an institution's competitiveness in a disruptive, rapidly changing environment.
These new ways of thinking emerge from positive psychology, an approach that focuses on individual and organizational strengths, rather than deficits, with the goal of thriving or flourishing, not simply surviving or enduring. There are a number of topics I can explore here, but I want to start with something that is close to my own heart: The implication of the Baby Boomer Generation, as it moves past 60 and toward what we think of as "traditional" retirement age. Some of what I will share can be explored in greater detail in an excellent book, by Marc Freedman (2007), called Encore: Finding Work that Matters in the Second Half of Life.
A key point is that the idea of "retiring to leisure" is a relatively new notion, tied to the creation of Social Security and corporate pensions. Before, say, the 1930's, most people simply worked until they died, and they tended to die at a younger age than most of us, today. Bluntly, many Boomers can't afford to retire, and many of us who can, don't want to. It is important for us to feel productive, although how we want to approach work may change.
I won't go into more detail on the attitudes and needs of Boomers, when it comes to work, but I do want to share some potentially good news: Employers need us to stay engaged. The immediately following generation is too small to adequately fill employment needs, and the generation after that, although large, is not yet experienced enough for some roles.
Boomers looking at so-called encore careers may want to work in roles similar to the ones they've filled in the past, or they may want to change directions. Almost certainly, they will put a premium on flexibility, working part-time, seasonally, as consultants or project specialists, etc. Consider, for example, a professor, who may not want to teach full-time or serve on deadening committees, but would love to teach part-time and, perhaps, do some writing.
Boomers bring experience, wisdom (one hopes), and love to tell their stories. It turns out that the generation just entering the workplace, often called Generation Y or Millenials, enjoy hearing our stories, value flexibility, and share many of the social values of the Boomer generation. (Not really a huge surprise. Millenials are our kids!)
How might an appreication of generations impact an institution of higher education, and most especially, a branch campus that excels at serving adult learners or provides a wide range of certifications, online and blended courses, and highly competitive tuition?
First of all, there are "business" opportunities here. Many Boomers will seek education and training to develop skills or pursue long-delayed interests in learning. Because they value flexibility, they will be attracted to blended or hybrid programs that allow them to travel, be somewhere warm in the winter, or whatever suits their lifestyle. How we package courses and use technology for delivery will be important. (Note that the Millenials are digital natives and this is their natural environment, already.)
Although the personnel office might classify a retired professor, teaching part-time as an adjunct, it isn't quite what we usually think of as an adjunct. Their experience and approach to the classroom may be quite different, and we have found that many of these faculty members also embrace technology in their teaching, for the flexibility it provides. Retirees from other fields may enjoy teaching, as well. So staffing scalable types of courses that reach out to new audiences may be less difficult than a lot of people imagine.
Retired administrators and faculty members may be very interested in working on special projects or returning to work at especially busy times of the year, reducing cost to the institution, while retaining needed expertise. Mentoring programs with younger colleagues may pay huge dividends, as well.
My point here is that there is still a lot of juice in Baby Boomers. Most of us have far too many years yet to live to retire to leisure. Designing jobs or roles and providing appropriate educational preparation may be a wonderfully welcome opportunity.
There is one more point I'd like to make: I have found working with younger staff to be energizing and fun, for me. If we think of generational differences as another example of diversity, there is much for all of us to learn and to celebrate. There is a compatibility that suggests building cross-generational work teams may be a powerful way to engage faculty and staff, yielding a dynamic, enthusiastic, creative force that will powerfully affect an institution's competitiveness in a disruptive, rapidly changing environment.
Friday, May 15, 2009
2014
If you are willing to accept what I've written about changes coming to branch campuses, then what should you do to make sure that your campus thrives? Timing is important here, as part of a strategy to respond to emerging competition.
So, let's start with a target year, in which I believe most adult learners, at least, will be choosing online and blended programs over traditional, campus-based programs. That year will be 2014, five years from now. How do I know that? Well, I don't, to be honest. Christensen mentions 2014 as a tipping point for online education, but in a different context. I've seen other references to that approximate time, and it simply feels about right to me.
The most important reason to choose 2014 is that it is far enough away to allow responsive institutions to make adjustments, but it is close enough to (I hope) raise anxiety, if you aren't engaging, yet. A good friend, with good judgment, said to me recently that he believes online education will be the dominant mode of delivery for adult learners in about 10 years. I think that is definitely much too far out. If you agree with my friend, please let me know. I want to come after your students!
I have also heard a number of people say things like, "We just aren't ready, yet. We can't afford to develop the classes, our faculty are resistant, and our audience prefers traditional classes." I understand that reaction, and most of it may even be valid, but it could indicate that your campus is going to be in trouble, by 2014.
To me, 2014 suggests that there is still time to start development of courses and programs in a strategic way. If you aren't active, yet, it will take you two or three years to get things rolling. A lot of institutions are ahead of you, but a lot aren't. The days of just putting something out there and generating lots of revenue are over, anyway. The "second wave" is coming, which will be much more niche oriented, focusing on high quality services, using technology in ways that are engaging and highly supportive, and making use of new business models that are keyed to this disruptive environment.
If you wait two or three years, then start development, you will be out of luck. Other providers will be in your market, and if they are providing the right programs and services, at an attractive price, there is no reason for students to switch. Most recruiting will occur by word of mouth and other low-cost marketing strategies, making it difficult for you to attract attention, especially from current nonconsumers.
Here is my advice: If you are just getting started in the development of online and blended programs, then create a team that will get up every day thinking about the audiences, programs and services that need to be developed. Study other institutions, to consider how they are approaching things. Spend a lot of time on the Internet, just looking at sites, mining them for ideas.
Continue being a cheerleader for your existing programs. Institutions don't necessarily need a lot of money to make this transition, but I strongly advise reinvesting any new revenue from outreach or branch programs in the further development of those programs. Further, you need a revenue sharing model that provides incentives for academic units to participate. If you can keep some staff focused on taking care of your current students, and on prospective students who resemble them, then you will be giving yourself time to develop the new programs and services that will attract nonconsumers.
Make sure you and all the other people involved in new program development are concentrating on nonconsumers. It isn't the students you currently serve and understand that are key. It is the students who are going to competitors or not enrolling at all that are the long-term target. As part of this focus, make sure you understand which programs cause the ears of nonconsumers to perk up, as well as which services they find valuable and how they want to engage with you (through email, IM, telephone hot line, etc.).
I'm expecting services to be even more important in the future, because you have to be very cost conscious and prepared to pass reduced costs on to students. No stadiums, no library, no health center, no student union, if your target audience isn't interested. If your existing students value these things, then that's great, but for the new audiences, you are seeking to be competitive on cost. These folks are much less likely to believe that your program is better than someone else's because it costs more. On the other hand, if your program is a better fit for their interests, and your services have a reputation for excellence, then they probably will pay at least a little more than competitors charge.
Finally, rethink geography. Branches often have a defined service area for their traditional programs. With online and blended programs, however, distance is less of a barrier. If most commuter students see 30 miles as approaching the limit of how far they will drive, 50 or 100 miles is no big deal for courses that meet on a limited number of occasions, during the term. One might think that fully online programs have no geographic limitations, but in my opinion that probably does depend on brand recognition and the uniqueness of your program. It may be difficult, for example, to differentiate your online AA degree from someone else's, when so many are available, at comparable prices.
So, let's start with a target year, in which I believe most adult learners, at least, will be choosing online and blended programs over traditional, campus-based programs. That year will be 2014, five years from now. How do I know that? Well, I don't, to be honest. Christensen mentions 2014 as a tipping point for online education, but in a different context. I've seen other references to that approximate time, and it simply feels about right to me.
The most important reason to choose 2014 is that it is far enough away to allow responsive institutions to make adjustments, but it is close enough to (I hope) raise anxiety, if you aren't engaging, yet. A good friend, with good judgment, said to me recently that he believes online education will be the dominant mode of delivery for adult learners in about 10 years. I think that is definitely much too far out. If you agree with my friend, please let me know. I want to come after your students!
I have also heard a number of people say things like, "We just aren't ready, yet. We can't afford to develop the classes, our faculty are resistant, and our audience prefers traditional classes." I understand that reaction, and most of it may even be valid, but it could indicate that your campus is going to be in trouble, by 2014.
To me, 2014 suggests that there is still time to start development of courses and programs in a strategic way. If you aren't active, yet, it will take you two or three years to get things rolling. A lot of institutions are ahead of you, but a lot aren't. The days of just putting something out there and generating lots of revenue are over, anyway. The "second wave" is coming, which will be much more niche oriented, focusing on high quality services, using technology in ways that are engaging and highly supportive, and making use of new business models that are keyed to this disruptive environment.
If you wait two or three years, then start development, you will be out of luck. Other providers will be in your market, and if they are providing the right programs and services, at an attractive price, there is no reason for students to switch. Most recruiting will occur by word of mouth and other low-cost marketing strategies, making it difficult for you to attract attention, especially from current nonconsumers.
Here is my advice: If you are just getting started in the development of online and blended programs, then create a team that will get up every day thinking about the audiences, programs and services that need to be developed. Study other institutions, to consider how they are approaching things. Spend a lot of time on the Internet, just looking at sites, mining them for ideas.
Continue being a cheerleader for your existing programs. Institutions don't necessarily need a lot of money to make this transition, but I strongly advise reinvesting any new revenue from outreach or branch programs in the further development of those programs. Further, you need a revenue sharing model that provides incentives for academic units to participate. If you can keep some staff focused on taking care of your current students, and on prospective students who resemble them, then you will be giving yourself time to develop the new programs and services that will attract nonconsumers.
Make sure you and all the other people involved in new program development are concentrating on nonconsumers. It isn't the students you currently serve and understand that are key. It is the students who are going to competitors or not enrolling at all that are the long-term target. As part of this focus, make sure you understand which programs cause the ears of nonconsumers to perk up, as well as which services they find valuable and how they want to engage with you (through email, IM, telephone hot line, etc.).
I'm expecting services to be even more important in the future, because you have to be very cost conscious and prepared to pass reduced costs on to students. No stadiums, no library, no health center, no student union, if your target audience isn't interested. If your existing students value these things, then that's great, but for the new audiences, you are seeking to be competitive on cost. These folks are much less likely to believe that your program is better than someone else's because it costs more. On the other hand, if your program is a better fit for their interests, and your services have a reputation for excellence, then they probably will pay at least a little more than competitors charge.
Finally, rethink geography. Branches often have a defined service area for their traditional programs. With online and blended programs, however, distance is less of a barrier. If most commuter students see 30 miles as approaching the limit of how far they will drive, 50 or 100 miles is no big deal for courses that meet on a limited number of occasions, during the term. One might think that fully online programs have no geographic limitations, but in my opinion that probably does depend on brand recognition and the uniqueness of your program. It may be difficult, for example, to differentiate your online AA degree from someone else's, when so many are available, at comparable prices.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Looking to the Future
When I wrote the history of Ohio University's commitment to outreach, I was struck by the realization that we had changed our approach over time, as technology (especially) evolved. We used trains and street cars, paper-based correspondence, interactive television, etc. Eventually, we established our five branch campuses, each of which has its physical facilities, resident faculty, and strong student services. I think it is a proud history that demonstrates sincere commitment to expand opportunity.
What really made an impact on my thinking, however, was the recognition that my own career very nearly matched the history of branch campuses, in Ohio. Most of Ohio's campuses were created between 1966 and 1971; I arrived at Ohio State Mansfield in 1976. For me, the branches have always existed, but the fact is, as illustrated by the Ohio University story, they are a relatively recent part of a much longer history of outreach and access.
I don't know whether the history of other branch campuses can be placed in a series of progressive steps to create access, but the Ohio history does raise the question that, if there were vehicles for creating access before the development of branches, why couldn't new vehicles emerge in the future? It's about the mission, not the branch campus, per se.
Of course, faculty and staff working on a branch campus won't necessarily see it this way, because their careers and professional commitments are tied to the existance of the branch. Nevertheless, given the impact of new applications of technology and the preferences of adult learners, it is worthwhile to ask what might lie ahead. I believe branch campuses represent a "technology" that is changing, and some branches will seize the opportunity and do well, whereas others will deny that change is necessary and resist reasonable expectations of future students.
More and more research is showing that adult learners prefer online or blended/hybrid programs, which give them the flexibility they require for maintaining family and job responsibilities. They also are value shoppers, seeking the program they believe will advance their careers, at a price that is attractive. New business models, such as I've described in earlier posts, that deliver high quality, scalable programs and focused services, but reduce overhead and marketing costs, could do well with tuition and fees that are much lower than is required to maintain a traditional campus, with its buildings, libraries, extensive services, and high personnel costs.
There is a saying about times of change that the train is leaving the station. You can be on the train or on the platform, but either way, the train is leaving. Change is happening in higher education, and those institutions that fail to understand the new dynamic will struggle more and more. Those that understand how to combine the advantages of a campus with the market demands of adult learners, study how to control costs and focus course offerings, and target niche opportunities that can grow virally, will do very well.
I believe this outreach train already is rolling. I'm excited about the possibilities, because there is enormous creative energy in many new initiatives. The tired complaints that online learning can never match face-to-face instruction is blown away by new programs that create highly engaging, challenging learning opportunities, while providing new ways for students to interact with each other and with their instructors. The potential to bring tuition down to levels that open doors for current nonconsumers promises to expand access in ways that can transform more lives than ever. Rewards will go to institutions that are creative and forward looking, and that suits me just fine. What a ride lies ahead!
What really made an impact on my thinking, however, was the recognition that my own career very nearly matched the history of branch campuses, in Ohio. Most of Ohio's campuses were created between 1966 and 1971; I arrived at Ohio State Mansfield in 1976. For me, the branches have always existed, but the fact is, as illustrated by the Ohio University story, they are a relatively recent part of a much longer history of outreach and access.
I don't know whether the history of other branch campuses can be placed in a series of progressive steps to create access, but the Ohio history does raise the question that, if there were vehicles for creating access before the development of branches, why couldn't new vehicles emerge in the future? It's about the mission, not the branch campus, per se.
Of course, faculty and staff working on a branch campus won't necessarily see it this way, because their careers and professional commitments are tied to the existance of the branch. Nevertheless, given the impact of new applications of technology and the preferences of adult learners, it is worthwhile to ask what might lie ahead. I believe branch campuses represent a "technology" that is changing, and some branches will seize the opportunity and do well, whereas others will deny that change is necessary and resist reasonable expectations of future students.
More and more research is showing that adult learners prefer online or blended/hybrid programs, which give them the flexibility they require for maintaining family and job responsibilities. They also are value shoppers, seeking the program they believe will advance their careers, at a price that is attractive. New business models, such as I've described in earlier posts, that deliver high quality, scalable programs and focused services, but reduce overhead and marketing costs, could do well with tuition and fees that are much lower than is required to maintain a traditional campus, with its buildings, libraries, extensive services, and high personnel costs.
There is a saying about times of change that the train is leaving the station. You can be on the train or on the platform, but either way, the train is leaving. Change is happening in higher education, and those institutions that fail to understand the new dynamic will struggle more and more. Those that understand how to combine the advantages of a campus with the market demands of adult learners, study how to control costs and focus course offerings, and target niche opportunities that can grow virally, will do very well.
I believe this outreach train already is rolling. I'm excited about the possibilities, because there is enormous creative energy in many new initiatives. The tired complaints that online learning can never match face-to-face instruction is blown away by new programs that create highly engaging, challenging learning opportunities, while providing new ways for students to interact with each other and with their instructors. The potential to bring tuition down to levels that open doors for current nonconsumers promises to expand access in ways that can transform more lives than ever. Rewards will go to institutions that are creative and forward looking, and that suits me just fine. What a ride lies ahead!
Friday, March 27, 2009
Branch Campus Life, Volume 2
I neglected to publish any posts here, since August! I taught a course in the fall term, but more importantly, I've been exploring more deeply some ideas that are mentioned in the last few posts I wrote.
I've also been considering my own professional interests and what my next steps might be, looking forward to an "encore" career, when I move on from my current position. It is interesting to be a relatively early "boomer," still with plenty of energy and ideas, but eager to do things that could take me in a new direction. In this post, I want to comment on my own perspectives.
First, when I think about what can most quickly get my creative juices flowing, I recognize that I most enjoy what I will call strategic change management. I'm not so big on formal strategic planning, although I can do it. Rather, I enjoy gathering information, talking with people, seeking connections, and bringing a strategic perspective to the change process.
Over the past six months, I've given several presentations that allowed me to explore the future, from a variety of perspectives. I've come to believe that demographic shifts, applications of technology in higher education, and the preferences of adult learners are going to profoundly change much of higher education. As a result, I've become more focused on adult learners and distance education, as well as newly emerging business models, to get a picture of what is coming.
As I've written before, I believe we are in what Christensen would call a "disruptive environment," and because of that, the solutions to our current challenges need to be quite different than what we've done in the past. It is exciting to consider the possibilities, and it is that excitement that makes me most want to stay involved in higher education. I don't want just to observe what goes on, but to be part of it.
A second area of emerging interest for me is the development of cross-generational work teams. More is being written about how boomers are likely to stay in the workplace and employers need them, if only because the generations behind us can't fill the demand for employees. As I've spent more of my time, in a more attentive way, with younger c0lleagues, I've begun to realize how much can be gained, if we appreciate each other's contributions. Finding ways to link younger and less-young people, in the same work group, and in a manner that encourages respect and creativity, may yield a competitive advantage for an organization.
Finally, related to the cross-generational teams, I've become very interested in positive psychology, especially in the form of what is called Appreciative Inquiry (AI). AI provides a way of approaching change processes that can yield a sense of possibilities that is quite different than traditional problem solving approaches to change. It changes how change occurs, and linking it to cross-generational teams may be especially rewarding.
So, for me, seeking a more positive, creative approach to working with colleagues of all ages, in an environment that demands new solutions, is encouraging. In higher education, as we look at applications of technology, especially to serve nontraditional learners in new ways, there are implications galore for branch campuses. My guess is that there will be winners and losers, in the sense that some institutions will understand the new environment and embrace it, whereas others will not understand and will resist. Thinking critically about new ideas, of course, is not the same as resistance to new ideas, and the risk involved is higher than in the past. I'd like to help interested people and campuses find ways to overcome the risk, expand their impact, and thrive in the new environment.
My intention is to publish posts more frequently, at least for awhile. I will try to maintain a context that is relevant to branch campuses, but honestly, my interests have become broader than branches, so I see them as part of a creative approach to the future, yet reflecting deeper changes that have other implications, as well.
I've also been considering my own professional interests and what my next steps might be, looking forward to an "encore" career, when I move on from my current position. It is interesting to be a relatively early "boomer," still with plenty of energy and ideas, but eager to do things that could take me in a new direction. In this post, I want to comment on my own perspectives.
First, when I think about what can most quickly get my creative juices flowing, I recognize that I most enjoy what I will call strategic change management. I'm not so big on formal strategic planning, although I can do it. Rather, I enjoy gathering information, talking with people, seeking connections, and bringing a strategic perspective to the change process.
Over the past six months, I've given several presentations that allowed me to explore the future, from a variety of perspectives. I've come to believe that demographic shifts, applications of technology in higher education, and the preferences of adult learners are going to profoundly change much of higher education. As a result, I've become more focused on adult learners and distance education, as well as newly emerging business models, to get a picture of what is coming.
As I've written before, I believe we are in what Christensen would call a "disruptive environment," and because of that, the solutions to our current challenges need to be quite different than what we've done in the past. It is exciting to consider the possibilities, and it is that excitement that makes me most want to stay involved in higher education. I don't want just to observe what goes on, but to be part of it.
A second area of emerging interest for me is the development of cross-generational work teams. More is being written about how boomers are likely to stay in the workplace and employers need them, if only because the generations behind us can't fill the demand for employees. As I've spent more of my time, in a more attentive way, with younger c0lleagues, I've begun to realize how much can be gained, if we appreciate each other's contributions. Finding ways to link younger and less-young people, in the same work group, and in a manner that encourages respect and creativity, may yield a competitive advantage for an organization.
Finally, related to the cross-generational teams, I've become very interested in positive psychology, especially in the form of what is called Appreciative Inquiry (AI). AI provides a way of approaching change processes that can yield a sense of possibilities that is quite different than traditional problem solving approaches to change. It changes how change occurs, and linking it to cross-generational teams may be especially rewarding.
So, for me, seeking a more positive, creative approach to working with colleagues of all ages, in an environment that demands new solutions, is encouraging. In higher education, as we look at applications of technology, especially to serve nontraditional learners in new ways, there are implications galore for branch campuses. My guess is that there will be winners and losers, in the sense that some institutions will understand the new environment and embrace it, whereas others will not understand and will resist. Thinking critically about new ideas, of course, is not the same as resistance to new ideas, and the risk involved is higher than in the past. I'd like to help interested people and campuses find ways to overcome the risk, expand their impact, and thrive in the new environment.
My intention is to publish posts more frequently, at least for awhile. I will try to maintain a context that is relevant to branch campuses, but honestly, my interests have become broader than branches, so I see them as part of a creative approach to the future, yet reflecting deeper changes that have other implications, as well.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Engagement of Branch Campuses and Communities
Communities almost always appreciate having a local branch campus of a university or community college. Just the existence of a branch campus has some economic development impact--companies considering locating in a community value having a local institution of higher education--and branches tend to offer more affordable access to courses and programs. However, some branches are perceived as being truly engaged in the life of their community, whereas others seem aloof and relatively unresponsive to needs that are specific to the local environment.
My own thinking about community engagement has evolved over the years. As a faculty member, my views weren't very different from those of my main campus colleagues: I enjoyed teaching and research; I preferred teaching brighter or more advanced students; I had my complaints and areas of satisfaction, but the theme was always about my own career.
As an associate dean, I became much more aware of the obstacles and occasional mistreatment that students experienced, and so I actually became much more student oriented. I also became increasingly involved in the community, and I discovered how enriching that involvement could be. I met exceptionally talented, committed individuals who valued team work and collaboration and who appreciated the need to leverage our time and talent, if we were going to improve the quality of life in our region. I also first began to realize that legitimate educational needs in our communities deserve to be addressed. If my university is unable or unwilling to address a need, then the community has a right to be disappointed and to seek a "better" partner.
These feelings of community responsibility only became stronger, when I served as a campus dean. In my particular town, which had experienced an economic turnaround in the years before I arrived, leaders credited the local branch as having taken a powerful leadership role in the turnaround. The campus was seen as not only responding to requests, but as having brought people together for dialog, listened to new ideas, and designed effective programs that made a difference, especially in the area of workforce development. That, I thought, was impressive and reflected meaningful engagement.
Engagement implies more than simply being responsive to requests for programs or services. It implies coming to the table to listen and understand, then work with partners to co-create programs or other initiatives. A responsive, but perhaps not fully engaged institution might listen and offer solutions to problems that are within its existing programs or competencies, but I believe that deeper engagement with our communities should be the goal.
That said, I have often been frustrated by the number of times there was a perceived need, on my campus or in the community, to which we were not even able to respond. Typically, it was an issue of an academic department--sometimes a single faculty member--declining to make courses or programs available. There also were times that university processes simply didn't allow for a timely response, and there certainly were times when a needed academic option didn't exist at our university.
I've been equally frustrated, when community or business leaders came to me with what amounted to a demand that we provide whatever course or program they happened to want, without regard to whether their objectives and the programs they requested were aligned, not to mention our legitimate concerns for quality or even for adequate sustainable enrollment.
I believe our campuses should be open to new kinds of partnerships, perhaps involving more than one higher education institution. Why shouldn't a local branch offer necessary general education courses, let's say, and another offer the major courses in a program that is helpful to a particular community? Or, why shouldn't a branch provide student support services and, perhaps, selected courses, while facilitating access to online courses from another institution?
More importantly, branch campuses should be encouraged to engage with their communities to increase knowledge about trends, opportunities and threats, and to share their expertise in ways that support community development, enlist community leaders in support of learning experiences, and bring back information on community needs that can guide future program development. With real engagement, maybe even my own frustrations would be misplaced. It wouldn't be about matching our programs with some perceived community need. It would be about creative, innovative partnering to make our communities better places to live and work.
With increasing use of technology and greater expectations of policy makers that institutions of higher education will recognize their responsibility to serve, creative partnerships will distinguish the most highly valued institutions from the tired, aloof places that assumed communities should be grateful just to know that all those smart people are doing whatever it is that they do at colleges and universities. Engagement, going well beyond responsiveness, will strengthen bonds between campuses and community, build strong support for the things that are important to our institutions, and energize faculty and staff who are part of the new initiatives.
My own thinking about community engagement has evolved over the years. As a faculty member, my views weren't very different from those of my main campus colleagues: I enjoyed teaching and research; I preferred teaching brighter or more advanced students; I had my complaints and areas of satisfaction, but the theme was always about my own career.
As an associate dean, I became much more aware of the obstacles and occasional mistreatment that students experienced, and so I actually became much more student oriented. I also became increasingly involved in the community, and I discovered how enriching that involvement could be. I met exceptionally talented, committed individuals who valued team work and collaboration and who appreciated the need to leverage our time and talent, if we were going to improve the quality of life in our region. I also first began to realize that legitimate educational needs in our communities deserve to be addressed. If my university is unable or unwilling to address a need, then the community has a right to be disappointed and to seek a "better" partner.
These feelings of community responsibility only became stronger, when I served as a campus dean. In my particular town, which had experienced an economic turnaround in the years before I arrived, leaders credited the local branch as having taken a powerful leadership role in the turnaround. The campus was seen as not only responding to requests, but as having brought people together for dialog, listened to new ideas, and designed effective programs that made a difference, especially in the area of workforce development. That, I thought, was impressive and reflected meaningful engagement.
Engagement implies more than simply being responsive to requests for programs or services. It implies coming to the table to listen and understand, then work with partners to co-create programs or other initiatives. A responsive, but perhaps not fully engaged institution might listen and offer solutions to problems that are within its existing programs or competencies, but I believe that deeper engagement with our communities should be the goal.
That said, I have often been frustrated by the number of times there was a perceived need, on my campus or in the community, to which we were not even able to respond. Typically, it was an issue of an academic department--sometimes a single faculty member--declining to make courses or programs available. There also were times that university processes simply didn't allow for a timely response, and there certainly were times when a needed academic option didn't exist at our university.
I've been equally frustrated, when community or business leaders came to me with what amounted to a demand that we provide whatever course or program they happened to want, without regard to whether their objectives and the programs they requested were aligned, not to mention our legitimate concerns for quality or even for adequate sustainable enrollment.
I believe our campuses should be open to new kinds of partnerships, perhaps involving more than one higher education institution. Why shouldn't a local branch offer necessary general education courses, let's say, and another offer the major courses in a program that is helpful to a particular community? Or, why shouldn't a branch provide student support services and, perhaps, selected courses, while facilitating access to online courses from another institution?
More importantly, branch campuses should be encouraged to engage with their communities to increase knowledge about trends, opportunities and threats, and to share their expertise in ways that support community development, enlist community leaders in support of learning experiences, and bring back information on community needs that can guide future program development. With real engagement, maybe even my own frustrations would be misplaced. It wouldn't be about matching our programs with some perceived community need. It would be about creative, innovative partnering to make our communities better places to live and work.
With increasing use of technology and greater expectations of policy makers that institutions of higher education will recognize their responsibility to serve, creative partnerships will distinguish the most highly valued institutions from the tired, aloof places that assumed communities should be grateful just to know that all those smart people are doing whatever it is that they do at colleges and universities. Engagement, going well beyond responsiveness, will strengthen bonds between campuses and community, build strong support for the things that are important to our institutions, and energize faculty and staff who are part of the new initiatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)