A Few More End-of-Year Thoughts About Branch Campuses

Continuing my end-of-the-year observations, I urge you to spend a lot of time studying your budget.  Take a close look at the gross revenue generated at your campus, as well as your direct costs of delivery.  (By direct costs I mean actual costs of instruction, local staff and facilities.  Do not include any overhead or other charges levied by the main campus.)  In most cases that I’ve seen, the net revenue per student credit hour is significantly positive.  In fact, generally, the net revenue is higher at branches than at a residential main campus, precisely because the branch has a more focused, limited mission.

Your main campus finance people may insist that you consider allocated costs from the main campus, such as for admissions and financial aid support, registrar, and so on.  For some purposes they are absolutely correct, but at the same time, you should know that the overhead you pay (or the branch income they keep) probably is free cash to the main campus.  Would the main campus really save money if your campus disappeared tomorrow?  Even if your instructional cost is buried in main campus academic budgets, I’ll bet the answer is no.

Your president and others may need help to understand that you are a profit center, but do your homework.  Ask your financial aid director how many positions could be eliminated if you disappear.  Ask your admissions director, head librarian, registrar and others.  The answer will almost always be “none.”  From an accounting perspective it may be legitimate to charge you a fair share of underlying costs at the institution, but from a business development perspective, I’ve found that branch-driven costs are almost always marginal.  That may be the real reason your campus is effectively a cash cow.

Finally, it is tempting to think that branches are an outmoded delivery method and that online programs can serve the same audience just as well and, perhaps, less expensively at scale.  But I argue that branches serve a different audience than either the main campus or fully online programs.  This is far too big a topic for a blog post, but I think many branches can make a compelling case for an aggressive growth strategy that will generate enrollment that neither the main campus nor online programs can attract.  Why shouldn’t an institution take distinct approaches in all three worlds and expect all three to perform well?

Here’s a little lagniappe:  Check out Marc Freedman’s piece in the Harvard Business Review blog on the opportunity presented by Boomers. (http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/08/universities-cater-to-a-new-demographic-boomers/?utm_source=Socialflow&utm_medium=Tweet&utm_campaign=Socialflow)  Please consider how you might create innovative programs to serve this audience.  It is a special interest of mine, and I have written about the encore stage, both in this blog and in my other blog, Creating the Future, at www.drcharlesbird.com/creatingthefuture. 

As always, I am available to serve as a resource, coach or consultant.  Get in touch if I can be of help, and I hope you have a great 2015.

Out on a Limb: Drawing on the Experience of Leading a Branch Campus System

Perhaps the most interesting career transition for me came with my promotion to vice president at Ohio University.  In that position, I was responsible for five campuses, with a combined enrollment (at the time) of approximately 9000 students.  Each campus had a dean, as well as local faculty and support staff.  In addition, I was responsible for the Division of Lifelong Learning, which supported a variety of programs, including paper-based correspondence courses, summer programs, conferences and workshops, and other activities.  In fact, we had a center in Hong Kong that reported to the dean of Lifelong Learning, so in a sense, we even had a branch on the other side of the world.  Later, we also provided administrative support for online courses and programs, which drew my work in new directions.

Although having a vice president specifically focused on branch campuses and other outreach programs may not be unique, I do believe it is relatively uncommon.  Indeed, Ohio University moved away from having a vice president and now has an executive dean, who reports to the provost.

There were advantages to being a vice president, and in measurable terms, things worked well. We were entirely independent, financially speaking, and paid an overhead of about 8% of gross revenue to the main campus, in addition to other transfers that came to an additional 4% of our revenue.  In my consulting work, I learned that it is unusual for branches to be completely self-funded and self-supporting, but I appreciate the advantages that came our way because of our approach.  We assumed the risk for our campuses, but we also received most of the financial gain from enrollment growth, allowing us to add programs, hire faculty and staff members, improve marketing, and stay current with technology, among other things.

All of this is discussed in more detail in Out on a Limb:  A Branch Campus Life.  I’m sure that my view of branch campuses and how they either thrive or struggle was enhanced by the opportunity to work at the level of an executive officer of the institution.  The last several chapters of the book represent my attempt to capture something of the view from that executive level.

Although branch campus administrators should be committed to the development of their own campus, I believe they often could be more effective lobbyists and advocates in the political environment of a college or university if they better understood how things look at the main campus.  I hope my descriptions have some value on that score.  More importantly, I hope they encourage a more strategic perspective that supports a “mutual gains” approach to negotiation for resources, whether programmatic or financial.

If you work on a branch campus and choose to read Out on a Limb, perhaps you will recognize your experience in the first six or seven chapters, then find some helpful ideas in the remaining parts.  If you are a main campus person who works with branches, I hope the book brings some clarification and encourages deeper conversations with your branch campus colleagues.

Five Concerns That Can Interfere With Branch Campus Growth

If it isn’t apparent, my recent posts reflect growing concern and frustration with the way institutions administer their branch campuses.  Having spent some years working with online programs, as well as studying the implications of disruptive environments on organizations, I also see important strategic connections between branches and online delivery.

Moreover, virtually every consulting role I’ve filled was at least in part tied to a president who wanted to see enrollment growth at their branches and in their online programs.  Although I’m pleased and impressed that these presidents recognize the potential significance of branch growth, the press of day-to-day crises at the main campus makes it nearly impossible for presidents to personally lead specific initiatives.

I should add that, again in my own experience, provosts or academic vice presidents seem less consistently concerned than presidents about enrollment growth through new audiences.  Deans have been mixed in their engagement, as well, but typically seem most focused on their main campus mission.  (This is not meant as a sweeping generalization, but simply my own too-common observation.  I’ve known and worked with some terrific deans and vice presidents.)

Although this is understandable, given their background and priorities, it means that presidents and branch campus leaders may be on one page, whereas the administrators between them are, at best, less committed to branch growth.  That is just one reason for my belief that presidents and boards should create relatively autonomous units to attract and serve adult learners and others who prioritize cost and flexibility over a residential experience.

With that overview, in this post and the one to follow, I will raise five concerns I have about the way branch campuses are administered that will reduce the likelihood of enrollment and revenue growth.  Similar points can be made about online programs, as well.

The first concern is that branches typically are buried in an institutional structure that is designed for predictability, not entrepreneurship.  The branch structure should allow nimble, quick response to opportunities, assure that branches can offer the courses and programs for which they have local demand, and encourage deep, engaged partnerships with the community served.  Moreover, both branches and online program executives should understand entrepreneurship and be aggressive in pursuit of enrollment growth.

The second concern arises if the budget covering faculty salaries and the delivery of courses on branch campuses resides in the main campus academic units.  Truthfully, this seems so obviously wrong to me that I’m stunned by how often I see it happen. Deans and department chairs need to see clear financial benefit from supporting branch courses, or else they will see branch courses as a drain on their resources.  

Put the academic budget on the branches, and then let units receive a share of the revenue generated, outside of their normal operating budget.  If you choose to pursue responsibility-centered budgets, which I endorse, treat branch campuses and online programs as revenue centers, not as service units.  The dollars still can eventually wind up in the academic units, but it is those units that are serving the branch audience, not the branches that are serving academic units.

Next time, three more concerns!

The How of Disruption in Higher Education

I have not written about innovation or disruption in higher education, on Creating the Future, for a while, although I do write about it on my branch campus blog.  This post will be published on both.  (The blog addresses are www.branchcampus.blogspot.com and www.drcharlesbird.com/creatingthefuture.)

I’m intrigued by the rapid progress of MOOCs (massive open online courses) and other online options, but the trigger for this post is the pushback we see, especially from some faculty members.  The defense of traditional classroom education seems disingenuous, appearing to suggest that all faculty members create vibrant learning environments and transform students into sophisticated critical thinkers, even as students also acquire undefined benefits from the residential experience.

Actually, there are remarkable professors out there, and I know full well that important growth can come through the traditional experience.  The issue is how consistently this happens, whether we might find less expensive ways of creating these experiences, and whether the level of debt students are taking on is worth the gain (still undefined and unmeasured).

That said, I also think many defenders of the status quo fail to understand how new developments will disrupt traditional higher education.  Remember, disruptive improvements begin by serving current nonconsumers.  In this case, they attract audiences that are unserved or poorly served by traditional options.

In the case of higher education’s future, like it or not, the issue is money.  Residential education, specifically, has become so expensive that nearly all non-elite institutions fail to cover their cost of operation, especially given declining state support for public education, without extraordinary increases in tuition.  What some have called an “arms race” to compete for students has gone too far. 

The result, as I’ve written many times, is that many institutions require the revenue from branch campuses, online programs and other sources, to survive.  If the “primary” activity is going to lose money, then something else has to offset that loss.

To cause disruption, it isn’t necessary that most students turn to MOOCs or other low-cost options.  All that has to happen is for main campus financial losses to grow larger, and for enough nontraditional students to choose lower cost routes to their goals, to cause many institutions to begin a slide into oblivion.  Add in the developing trend of some employers to value the credentialing of skills over degrees, and we have the opportunity for disruption.

Once institutions pass the tipping point, change will seem to come quickly, but the reality is that it is happening across a much longer period of time, as a result of traditional campuses over-reaching.  This is why second- or third-tier institutions will suffer the most.  Elite public and private institutions will be fine, although they will need to make some adjustments.

Finally, when critics attack new delivery options, especially with regard to quality, they essentially are attacking a straw man.  Disruption moves upstream, from serving nonconsumers to serving traditional consumers, by improving quality through experience.  I believe our culture values education, and few are addressing how the “psychology of going to school” will impact choice.  Nevertheless, even if many people prefer a traditional, residential education, institutions have an unworkable financial model that seems ready to collapse.

As always, leaders who understand how to empower branch campuses and online programs for entrepreneurial outreach have the advantage.  Some institutions will thrive, but to do so, they must understand the challenge.

Revisiting Revenue Sharing and Entrepreneurship as Tools for Branch Campus Growth

The second most viewed post on this blog is titled, “Revenue Sharing and Support for Branch Campus Growth.”  (http://branchcampus.blogspot.com/2010/02/revenue-sharing-and-support-for-branch.html).  I tend to write shorter, more focused posts, these days, but so it goes.  Among other things, I described the approach to funding in Ohio, which worked well for a very long time.  Unfortunately, recent changes may make things harder for university branches; I am concerned about the long-term implications for enrollment.

In the same month, I also wrote a post titled, “On Being an Entrepreneur in Higher Education.” (http://branchcampus.blogspot.com/2010/02/on-being-entrepreneur-in-higher.html)  That post stemmed from my frustration with institutional leaders who claim to be entrepreneurs, but do not appear to understand what it means to empower innovation, especially in a disruptive environment.

Good information is available on how to develop and empower strengths-based teams that can release energy and creativity in organizations.  There are people who really “get it,” and they are more likely to be found on branch campuses and in those units that have experience in continuing education or lifelong learning than in the offices of those whose career focus has been within traditional academic units.

I do not question the good intentions of presidents, vice presidents, and deans, but in typical academic fashion, too many try to be “innovative” or “entrepreneurial,” without ever talking seriously with people who have been there and done that.  It’s frustrating, in part because I believe there is a lot at stake for most institutions.

Entrepreneurial efforts are intended to develop products and services that will attract new audiences to the institution or that will significantly change its competitive position with existing audiences.  Therefore, units charged with innovation require autonomy to allow flexible, quick engagement with audiences and partners, as well as the ability to make investments consistent with their rate of growth.  When universities bury these efforts in their colleges or hinder their progress with policies and practices that are inconsistent with speed and responsiveness, innovation will proceed slowly, if at all.

I think most institutional leaders would be well served if they think of their institution as a kind of holding company, with a variety of businesses, each of which can and should be managed on its own terms.  (I know some people don’t like business-related metaphors, but I’ve long since stopped worrying about that.)  Each “product line” requires structure, policies and practices that enable success within its own market.  Each requires leadership that understands the specific mission, the competitive environment, and the elements of a successful strategy.

That’s not to say that leaders shouldn’t insist on appropriate internal partnerships or that some activities and services shouldn’t be centralized, but the effort should emphasize the word “partnership,” and should serve the legitimate interests of each partner.  (With respect to academic programs, I’m suggesting that faculty still should lead and oversee program development and quality, but decisions about offering programs at branch campuses or online should be market driven, and processes for program development and approval should be streamlined.)

Give branch campus leaders an opportunity, and many will understand how to engage with their audiences in a high quality, high touch way that can succeed.  Keep them under the control of mid-level main campus administrators, and they will not be able to compete effectively with newer options.  Force innovative initiatives to fit within your academic, financial, human resource, and political traditions, and you will be on a very dark road.

More Attention From Institutional Leaders May Not Benefit Branch Campuses

Through most of my career, I both enjoyed and benefited from the fact that people at the main campus paid little attention to their branches.  For all the frustration and difficulty of getting programs or courses approved, the circumstances worked to our advantage.  In addition, because we were financially separate from the main campus, we developed a deeper understanding of higher education finance than most of the chairs, deans and vice presidents with whom we worked. 

(Not bragging; just sharing the facts.  My experience with finance or budget administrators really was no different, because they tend to focus so strongly on cost control and risk avoidance that we found negotiations usually worked to our advantage.  Keep in mind that I am a devotee of mutual gains bargaining, so our success was mostly a matter of careful listening and addressing the interests of others, but with a strong understanding of our own interests.  Thus, it was the lack of others’ understanding of our interests that gave us an advantage.)

I’m saying this, because I am concerned that “flying under the radar,” or being “out of sight and out of mind” have become liabilities.  Branch campuses, along with online learning programs and main campus programs for adult learners, can best serve their institutions if they aggressively pursue an entrepreneurial tack.  Being entrepreneurial and highly service oriented tend to be natural for people who have served for a long time on branch campuses.  Bluntly, however, although I meet a lot of institutional leaders who talk about entrepreneurship, I meet very few who really get it.

Given the growing importance of outreach types of initiatives, we can expect institutional leaders to take more interest in branch campuses.  However, to the extent that they do not understand the mission, the student populations, and other elements that make branch campuses a unique form of delivery, branch leaders can expect some unfortunate choices to be made at the main campus.  Put another way, if main campus administrators do not understand the interests of branch students and communities (i.e., do not understand what they value or how they make decisions), those administrators will make assumptions that are off the mark, leaving the branch all that more vulnerable to competitors.

All of this makes me believe that the need for good research and literature on branch campuses will only increase.  It also suggests to me that the main campus individuals with oversight responsibility of branch campuses need to have a legitimate background in the area, or at least to have strong support people who can deliver good advice on important decisions.  Institutions need their branches and online programs to thrive, but thriving can only occur when there is deep understanding of those adult or non-traditional audiences we hope to attract and retain.

Organizing Thoughts on Delivery and Assessment

There is no question that lots of things are happening in higher education.  New programs and new strategies show up at a rapid clip.  As you think about the future, you will necessarily make choices about course and program delivery, and those choices will have a major impact on how attractive you are to prospective students.

Consider this range of possibilities for delivery:

·      Face-to-face in a traditional classroom

·      Synchronous delivery with some students in the same classroom as the instructor and others participating through interactive video

·      Hybrid delivery, which may include asynchronous streaming videos, online elements, and occasional classroom meetings, which themselves can occur in a variety of forms; this might include use of the “flipped classroom,” which offers significant creative opportunities

·       What I’ll call “traditional” online, with an instructor teaching 15-25 students

·      Scalable online, enrolling, say, 75-300 students in each course, with one instructor and facilitators supporting smaller “sections” of students

·      What I used to call “massively scalable” courses, with a thousand or more students per section, but still supported by a team of facilitators, working under the supervision of a faculty member

·      Massive open online courses (MOOCs), sometimes with more than 100,000 students enrolled, usually for free, but typically not offered for credit

Now, consider how students might be credentialed for their work:

·      Traditional grades, leading to a degree

·      Traditional grades, leading to certificates that document specific skills and experiences

·      No grades, but the awarding of a badge (similar to a certificate) or a certificate of completion; students might receive traditional course credit through some additional process, probably for a fee

·      Recognition of prior learning and the awarding of academic credit for that work

And how might we assess student learning?  How about:

·      Traditional exams, projects and papers, perhaps with exams taken at a testing center

·      Portfolio assessment

·      Demonstrated competencies

Then, how will institutions generate revenue or otherwise cover their costs?

·      Through tuition, fees, state support, and endowments

·      Employers pay a fee to access resumes of top course/program completers

·      Content producers, such as Coursera and Udacity, license high quality course content to institutions, which then provide support and flipped classroom experiences to students; colleges and universities can create niche opportunities to do the same, including internationally

·      Industries/employers “sponsor” courses and programs, covering the cost of development and delivery

·      Students pay a fee to have competencies assessed and “certified”

Each of these lists can be expanded, and some of my bullet points may need further description to be clear.  My advice is to read newsletters, surf the Internet, and network with creative people.  I don’t think it is all that overwhelming, explored in a thoughtful way, but it does take time and energy.  Hence the concerns I expressed awhile back about making sure that you focus on the so-called “important but not urgent” items that will create your future. 

As you consider audience, cost, price, content, delivery and support services, you can work your way through the options.  You may well make different choices for different programs and audiences, and your competition will affect what makes sense.  It’s important to be nimble and engaged!

A Leadership Dilemma for Branch Campuses and Online Programs

When I suggest that most institutions of higher education are in trouble, I am in good company.  Many people say the same thing, and most point to the remarkably rapid emergence of very low cost alternatives for earning credits, especially in the lucrative area of general education, as well as alternative ways of certifying learning that tie to the needs of employers.

For example, at StraighterLine, one can earn a full year of general education credits for about $1000, and those credits will transfer to many institutions.  Companies, community colleges and a few universities are breaking new ground by providing free non-credit options that can be turned into transferable credits, through exams that may cost less than $100.  In short, the higher education financial model is breaking down.

Moreover, because leaders are convinced that spending on “amenities,” (athletics, additional buildings, etc.) is necessary in order to compete for residential students, they are increasing the cost of operation, at the same time their traditional revenue sources are under pressure.  With the eighteen-year-old demographic declining in many parts of the country, we are bound to see winners and losers, whether we look at the public or private sphere.

Just at the time that leaders need to reframe their thinking, they are, instead, trapped by the need to save their “brand.”  (And this trap is real.  I do believe that the main campus residential program creates the institutional brand for most universities.  Leaving aside political issues, alumni, donors, and everyone else, it would be foolish in almost all situations to close the main campus.  Thus, presidents and boards are locked into a “loss leader” as the activity on which they concentrate their time.  That’s a classic example of why established institutions struggle in a disruptive environment.)

I hear presidents say they want growth at their branch campuses and in their online learning programs.  Unfortunately, for the most part, they invest very little of their personal time or their political capital to get the point across to vice presidents, deans, chairs, alumni, or others.  Revenue sharing models either do not exist or are ineffectively designed, and few traditional educators understand the audience that chooses to enroll online or at branches.

Bottom line:  We have the perfect context for the emergence of new providers.  If institutions lose general education students, just as one example, it will be tough to replace that revenue, without pricing in a way that makes the competitive situation just that much worse.

Given the rapid engagement of elite institutions in the online market, it makes sense to aggressively identify niche opportunities and to empower innovation teams.  Unfortunately, I don’t see much evidence that is happening.  On the contrary, most efforts at “innovation” are kept on a very short leash, for political reasons, as much as from a lack of understanding.  What we see are linear improvements and incremental change, slowed by complex governance processes, when we need something much more creative.

Observations

Some things to consider:

·      Traditional residential campuses face overwhelming deferred maintenance, to the point that the challenge may be literally insurmountable for many institutions.

·      Competing for students has produced enormous institutional debt, in order to have state-of-the-art residence halls, fitness centers, and student centers.  The cost of technology and technical support are a challenge everywhere.  Many institutions spend millions of dollars per year on athletic programs, with highly questionable return on that investment.

·      Marketing/recruiting costs grow higher, as institutions attempt to draw prospective students away from competitors.  In other words, institutions are fighting to maintain class size, in the face of a declining 18-year-old demographic.  Private nonprofits continue to increase the level of discounting, in order to fill classes.

·      People can argue about tuition and student loan bubbles, but the cost of attendance is problematic, and defenders of tuition increases offer tortured justification or blame cuts in state funding.  It doesn’t matter what the explanation is, because good alternatives are developing rapidly.

·      Administrators tend to shield faculty from financial and political realities, with the result that faculty members are understandably confused or angry, when they are told that the model no longer works, teaching loads are inadequate, or their institutions are forced to rely on lower-paid adjuncts in order to support all the items in the bullets above.

So what are the solutions?

·      Many institutions are paying closer attention to retention.  That’s a good thing.

·      Programing and services will become more focused and improve over time.  That also is a good thing.  However, this has to come from a student-centered, learning outcomes point of view and not just an attempt to reduce costs.

·      We can hope to increase the proportion of 18-year-olds who go to college, or who come to our particular institution, but the pricing/debt issues suggest that the trend will go toward attending community colleges, university branches, and online institutions.  University administrators will find it very difficult to balance a budget, without first- and second-year students.

·      We can recruit more international students, more adult learners, and (for publics) more out-of-state students.  I doubt that this will be an adequate solution, because institutions either won’t adapt their services to these audiences, losing out to more student-centered competitors, or they will find that the cost of support is excessive, given the continuing needs of their traditional audience.

·      Virtually all institutions will expand online offerings, and that could attract new enrollment.  However, the most successful online programs will be highly scalable and offered at attractive prices.  Over a few years, enrollment will tend to consolidate at some institutions and move away from others.  Quality student services will be key.

This isn’t prophecy.  It is the obvious conclusion from watching trends across the country, combined with my belief that we are in a disruptive environment, not simply a challenging phase in a funding cycle.  For those of us who genuinely care about access and opportunity, the end result may be exciting, creative, and encouraging.  To be sure, the effects of change will be different in different sectors of higher education.

If I were leading a branch campus, I’d be thinking about how to most effectively position programs and services to appeal to students for whom cost and time to degree are critical.  I’d work toward using hybrid delivery for nearly all classes.  I’d try to negotiate a revenue sharing arrangement, such that we could re-invest and expand course options, as we grow.  Well-run branches have many advantages that main campuses cannot match.

Building Branch Campus and Online Program Enrollment

I maintain two blogs. The older, “Branch Campus Life,” focuses on topics related to branch campuses of colleges and universities; the newer, “Creating the Future,” explores a wider range of topics related to my interest in innovation, positive psychology, and encore careers. Links to both blogs can be found on my web site, www.drcharlesbird.com.

For the first time, I want to post the same entry on both blogs. This is not something I expect to do very often, but I’d like to offer a few summary thoughts about building enrollment in online programs and on branch campuses. I see a close relationship between the two, in terms of objectives and challenges.

First, although institutions have many reasons for supporting branch campuses and online programs, the most important, by far, is that they expand access and opportunity for otherwise underserved audiences. I believe in the value of education and the significance of personal dreams. Branches and online programs have enormous potential, still only partially realized, in that regard.

Second, these initiatives have the potential to generate significant revenue for institutions, in a time of disruptive change. If they want to compete and thrive, most institutions should pay attention to their branch campuses and to the development of online options.

Third, to compete successfully, leaders of online and branch strategy need to understand and accept that the majority of their students care more about the cost of their education and the time it will take to earn their credential than anything else. Individuals may have additional or more personal goals, but the audience served by branches and online programs is pragmatic. Institutions will generate more revenue in the long run, if they understand the need to help students get to their goals more quickly and at less cost.

Fourth, I believe it makes sense for most institutions to create a strong link between their online programs and their branch campuses. Some institutions may not pursue both, but branch campuses will struggle unless they offer online and hybrid options to their students.

Fifth, as a consultant, I find it surprising that most institutions have poor financial models for their branch campuses, and sometimes for their online programs. Get revenue sharing right, or you will not create the necessary incentives to motivate deans, chairs, and administrative offices to support outreach.

Sixth, people need to understand what a deep, engaged partnership means. Building strong, mutually beneficial relationships with other institutions, with employers, and with other units in your own institution is absolutely essential. (I mention it, because most people I meet do not understand deep, engaged partnership.)

Finally, a point specific to online programs: Online programs only make financial sense if they are scalable. There are solid, high quality approaches for online delivery that make it possible to enroll hundreds, or even thousands of students in the same course. At scale, the cost of course development and the cost of instruction approach zero, and the greatest share of operating expenses lie with marketing/recruitment and student support services.

All of these points have been addressed over time in both of my blogs. These programs matter, because the students matter and because, to thrive in the future, most institutions need to attract enrollment through flexible, student-centered options. Please, just think about it.

Engaged Partnership

Partnerships are critical to the success of any modern organization. Partners may provide certain services better and less expensively than you can manage within your own organization. Partners may also provide critical collaboration on important projects, blending their expertise with your own, to support more nimble and higher quality development.

Branch campuses absolutely need reliable partners. Internally, campuses can partner in all sorts of interesting ways, but the most critical partners probably are main campus academic units. These often-difficult relationships can work much better if the campus and the academic unit think of each other as partners.

I was fortunate to carry the title of vice president for over eight years, and I realize that position provided access and encouraged cooperation in a way that titles like campus dean or executive director may not. Regardless, I maintained that our branches would partner with any academic program, assuming we had an audience for the program, and we worked hard to meet the expectations of our partners. On the other hand, we would walk away from the table, if we were treated as if we were only a location or a service provider. (I don’t mean that we jumped up and stomped out of rooms, but that we would let the conversation rest until the other side showed more willingness to acknowledge our contributions and interests.)

My point was that branch campuses bring something important to the table and deserve to be respected as partners of the academic unit. Branch campus leaders have knowledge of the local market and how that market can most effectively be reached, as just one important example. Given escalating competition, branch campuses also should bring a level of targeted services and technical support that contributes to long-term enrollment success.

Branches also need external partners, in my opinion. I object to labeling certain contracts “vendor relationships,” when I believe they should run deeper than that. For example, in Ohio University’s distance learning programs, we established strong ties with certain companies that could bring marketing knowledge or excellent course design skills to the table. At the time, we could not create these services at the level of excellence we believed necessary, and by creating a financial partnership, instead of a typical vendor relationship, we set an expectation for collaboration that led to considerable success. I recognize that some administrators do not agree with this point of view, but I stand my ground.

Finally, I think branch campuses need external academic partners, as well. I am proud of the Community College Partnership program we built in my last few years, although that work did not directly involve our regional campuses. (I think it will, eventually, but that isn’t up to me.) We set a goal to become a “preferred partner” of certain community colleges, by engaging more deeply than simply creating articulation agreements, and it has paid off in significant, rapid enrollment growth. To my mind, the key was coming to the table as colleagues, something a lot of universities fail to do, according to community college leaders with whom we worked.

I encourage you to be thoughtful about partnerships. Choose them carefully, but also consider what it means to be a real partner and why it matters. Engaged partnerships bring substantial opportunity, but develop them selectively and strategically.