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.

A Few End-of-Year Thoughts on Branch Campuses

I post infrequently on this blog, especially since the publication of my book, Out on a Limb.  I’m pleased that people are finding the book through Internet searches and word of mouth, as well as through their connection to NABCA (www.nabca.net).  For that matter, I’m also pleased that I occasionally hear from someone who has discovered this blog and found it useful.

As I continue to scan the environment, visit various campuses, and think about branch campus issues, I will occasionally comment on what I observe, although I may wind up repeating ideas I’ve expressed before.  Thus, here are a few end-of-year observations.

First, I feel increasingly frustrated by the failure of most institutions to fully exploit the strategic potential of their branch campuses.  (Check out this post: http://branchcampus.blogspot.com/2013/04/revisiting-revenue-sharing-and.html.)  The branch campus audience is not the same as that on a residential main campus, so why are people who have no experience with the branch audience making decisions about recruiting, class scheduling, and student support?  Take a look at my posts over the past couple of years on branch campus trends and on concerns that may interfere with branch campus enrollment growth.

Second, if you are a branch campus administrator, dig into your enrollment patterns.  I talk about “dwelling in the numbers,” and it is so important.  Understand what students are telling you through their decisions on courses and programs and let their preferences help drive your marketing, scheduling, etc.  Make sure you understand what your competitors are doing, as well, and the extent to which your own potential students are choosing them over you.

In this same way, take note of trends across the country.  Some branches are growing rapidly and others are fading.  Why?  And how is technology affecting enrollment?  Should you be doing more with hybrid delivery and online options?  Joining NABCA and engaging more with colleagues from other institutions may help jumpstart your thinking. 

By the way, right now would be a good time to buy copies of my book for your staff and to create a reading circle to discuss ideas.  Judging from the response to Out on a Limb, it has helped plant seeds for some folks.  Maybe you can even engage some main campus people to consider new options.  (I feel as if I should put a smiley face here, but I’ll resist the urge.)

Next week I’ll offer a few more thoughts for the end of the year.

Thriving "Out on a Limb"

I consider myself to be an advocate for branch campuses.  At their best, branches create access and opportunity for individuals and contribute to the economic development of the communities they serve.  In Out on a Limb:  A Branch Campus Life I go into much more detail about why branches matter, but for present purposes the key point is that branches serve an audience that is different than the audiences served by a traditional main campus or by a fully online program.  There are excellent opportunities for campuses and programs to partner in multiple ways, but it is a mistake to overlook the differences.

Institutional leaders certainly recognize that the world of higher education is much more complicated and more competitive than it was just a few years ago.  Count me among those who believe that the financial/business models are broken, and the impact of technology has forever changed delivery options in ways that are exciting but also increase risk.  In my opinion, despite recognizing the issues, most leaders remain stuck in frames and practices that are unlikely to be effective in this “new world,” but that’s a story for another day.

The last few chapters of Out on a Limb are more explicitly strategic about the conditions that allow branch campuses to thrive and the likely challenges they will face in the future.    There are outstanding opportunities, but institutions need a comprehensive strategy that includes distinctive approaches for their traditional audience, for online programs, and for their satellite operations.

For branch campuses, I believe the greatest threat to growth occurs when the main campus attempts to control too many decisions that are better made locally, in the mistaken belief that they understand the branch audience or that they need to guard against branch campuses somehow undermining the institutional brand.  Prospective branch students are not the same as main campus prospects, and their priorities are quite different.

Specifically, I believe that course scheduling, marketing/recruitment, and those support services that are directly visible to students should be administered locally, whereas those that are more of the “backroom” sort, such as financial aid needs assessment, registrar, and bursar functions can most efficiently be centralized at the main campus.  Any given institution may vary somewhat from the ideal, but enrollment success depends on connecting effectively with the audience.

Failure to appreciate the perspectives and priorities of different audiences is a serious mistake.  For both online and branch programs it is important to give them enough independence to avoid getting trapped by the demands of the “production engine” (see Govindarajan and Trimble, 2010, The Other Side of Innovation), which will try to rein in anything that is truly innovative, simply because the established academic and administrative units will view that innovation as a distraction, perhaps as a threat, and for sure as inferior to their own efforts on behalf of the institution.  It isn’t easy to support entrepreneurship in an established organization, but those who thrive in the future will figure out how to make it happen.

Out on a Limb:  A Branch Campus Life is available in print and Kindle versions on amazon.com.  I hope you will check it out.

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.

The Accelerating Rate of Change in Higher Education

A few years ago, I wrote a piece for this blog titled, “Rate of Change and Predicting Which Institutions Will Thrive in the Future.”  You can find it at http://branchcampus.blogspot.com/2010/05/rate-of-change-and-predicting-which.html.

The post was based on a quote from Jack Welch:  “I’ve always believed that when the rate of change inside an institution becomes slower than the rate of change outside, the end is in sight.”  Sobering words, but the logic is compelling.  Over and over again, we have seen that established organizations in a wide range of industries lose out to more innovative, nimble organizations with an idea that disrupted the status quo.

I am revisiting this topic, because the rate of change in higher education clearly accelerated in recent months.  The stories are stunning, as the availability of MOOCs and other online options are expanding.  The emergence of “free” courses has rapidly spawned remarkably low-cost options to turn those non-credit experiences into credit-bearing courses; we see more interest than ever in credit for prior learning; and we see a move toward awarding credit and degrees that are based on competencies, rather than on completed coursework.

I could go on, but I no longer have any doubt that higher education will forever be changed.  As I’ve written before, the problem for most institutions is that their traditional, residential programs inevitably lose money, in large part because of the nearly insane competition to expand amenities.  However, if you want to see real confusion about the challenge of serving traditional audiences, while encouraging innovation and attracting new audiences, look at state-level policy makers and boards of trustees.

Here’s the rub:  The institutional financial engine requires increased income from non-residential audiences.  I believe those audiences will be drawn to online or branch campus-based hybrid programs.  Unfortunately for the institution, those students will have excellent options to meet their needs that will be very low cost.  Established institutions will find it difficult to charge enough tuition to meet their broader financial needs, unless they have a very special brand.

We don’t know yet just which of the emerging options will be most attractive to students.  For myself, I wonder exactly how the psychology of going to school will interact with the efficiency and cost advantages of technology-driven choices.  How will students combine various modes of delivery and learning to create what may well become customized lifelong learning portfolios?

I anticipate that students will chose different delivery modes for different purposes and topics, depending on their strengths, interests, and life circumstances.  Degrees may actually become less important than building a portfolio of competencies, although adult learners may aggregate such competencies, add some missing pieces, and eventually claim their diploma.

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.

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.

Two Examples of Emerging Challenges to Traditional Institutions of Higher Education

Today (February 4, 2013), there are several stories in Inside Higher Education that illustrate the point of my last post, and I want to use two of them to express a relatively strong statement of concern.  I simply do not believe that many leaders in higher education understand the train that is bearing down on them.

The first piece is titled, “Free Course, Inexpensive Exam” (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/02/04/free-online-course-providers-pair-credit-bearing-exams).  The story describes the decision of a student to take a free online course, and then receive three credits at his home institution by taking a CLEP exam, for just $99.   The piece then discusses some of the many options that more and more students undoubtedly will choose over paying much higher tuition at a university, or even at a community college. 

The course was a general education course in psychology, and the student makes a perfectly understandable point that it made no sense to him to pay tuition to attend a large lecture class, in which personal attention or interaction would be limited.  However, my own observation is that general psychology is an enormously profitable course at most institutions, as are many other general education courses.  Indeed, a full cost accounting view of most upper level courses at universities would reveal that nearly all are offered at a deficit.  Take away the lucrative general education courses, and it may become impossible to balance a traditional residential institution’s budget.

The second piece is titled, “If a School Adds an Amenity and No One Knows, Does it Really Exist?  ( http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/stratedgy/if-school-adds-amenity-and-no-one-knows-does-it-really-exist#ixzz2JwPL6XBs).  It caught my attention, because it is a blog post, commenting on a recent study that argues it may make economic sense for institutions to spend more on amenities than on improving academic quality.  (A story on the original research can be found at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/01/29/many-students-opt-colleges-spend-more-nonacademic-functions-study-finds) 

Leaving aside all sorts of things one might say about the implications of this study, my take is that it illustrates another reason that most institutions are in trouble:  They have bought into a war of competition, to fill first-year classes by building the “next new thing” that will draw students.  Regardless of whether the strategy works to attract students, it certainly increases the cost of operations and contributes to escalating tuition.

These pieces illustrate the dilemma faced at most institutions.  In effect, people are working harder and harder to fill their first-year class, with what may well be negative financial implications in the long run.  Some will succeed; some will fail.

The potentially good news is that many presidents and boards now understand the need to create new sources of revenue, and that could be helpful to branch campuses and providers of online courses.  Unfortunately, however, most leaders are trapped by their frame of reference, and outside of those of us with a branch campus or continuing education background, most leaders at traditional institutions do not understand how to build innovation teams and release the power of entrepreneurship.

Next time:  The leadership dilemma

Staying on Top of Developments in Higher Education

I start most days by checking email and reading/scanning various newsletters.  I work from what I like to think is a holistic, almost intuitive sense of direction, and that seems to require immersion in information.  I wish I did a better job of retaining specific sources and details, but at this point in my life I’m going to roll with my strengths and not worry too much about my deficits.  (That’s a shout-out to all my strengths-based leadership friends!)

I realize that most people lack the time to invest that I do in exploring ideas, whether through reading online newsletters, networking, or otherwise pursuing new developments.  I hope to provide a brief series of posts, here, to capture a few key elements, as I think they might relate to administrators at branch campuses or other small public and private institutions.

I recommend that anyone interested in emerging change subscribe to at least two online resources that I check out every day.  The first is Inside Higher Ed, which I find more valuable to administrators than The Chronicle of Higher Education, although I do subscribe to it, as well. 

You can check out Inside Higher Ed at www.insidehighered.com, and subscriptions to the Daily Update are free.  Inside Higher Ed also supports some useful groups on LinkedIn, and the Update includes a number of interesting bloggers.  My favorite blog is called “Confessions of a Community College Dean.”

Just today, the Update had an interesting story on MOOCs and one that covers a recent study suggesting that there is very little connection between what an institution spends on students and the quality of the education they receive.  There also is an interview with Randy Best, CEO of Academic Partnerships, which just announced a new initiative, called MOOC2Degree.  It is an interesting new idea for awarding credit and attracting students to enroll in online degree programs.

Academic Partnerships is a company that works with public universities to create and market relatively large online programs.  I worked with them, when I was at Ohio University, and, although the partnership was challenging to manage, it also was instructive and successful in attractive several thousand students to our online RN to BSN program.  Randy is innovative, entertaining, and frequently controversial.  The Q and A definitely helps explain the MOOC2Degree initiative.

The second resource is the “Professional, Continuing and Online Education Update by UPCEA,” which is at http://continuingedupdate.blogspot.com/.  It typically provides links to three articles, usually related to online learning.  Some of them can be quite thought-provoking, such as one today, titled, “The End of the University as We Know It,” by Nathan Harden, for the American Interest.  It is long, but makes an interesting argument.  (The particular piece is at http://the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1352.)

Anyone who hopes to understand and compete effectively in the emerging new world of higher education needs to invest at least a little time in studying trends.  I hope this blog is of help to those in the branch campus world, which can be part of a thoughtful institutional strategy, but also will be challenged to adapt to the educational and potential financial advantages of online options.

Competition for Established Branch Campuses

I love competition and the challenge of growing enrollment and budgets.  I enjoy all the elements, at least as I’ve experienced them.  Marketing releases lots of creative energy, and the challenge of continuously improving institutional processes appeals to the puzzle solver in me.  I also believe that branches tend to do best when they develop strong internal and external partnerships, and partnership development has been one of my most enjoyable experiences.

In this context, I’ve been thinking about the competitive pressures faced by those branch campuses that have been around for a while.  For several generations, institutions created branch campuses as a vehicle to expand access and draw additional enrollment.  I’ve often said it is a holy mission, providing opportunity to people who otherwise would not be able to realize their educational dreams.

These branches tended to be in small cities or either in the suburbs or the downtown area of cities, depending on where the main campus was located.  For decades, the practical limits of commuting distance meant that a branch, or any other commuter campus, could recruit effectively over about a 30-mile radius.  Sometimes, branches and other institutions have overlapping circumferences, but until recently, most campuses had relatively clear service areas.

It’s not that way anymore.  At this point, I hear people talking about two challenging trends.  One is the emergence of fully online or very limited residency programs that blow away any concern about a 30-mile commuting distance.  As I’ve written before, I think branches can compete against fully online programs, but it requires adjusting some of their traditional practices.

The other challenge is more complicated to describe.  The trend seems to be that many institutions are developing outreach centers or sites that are relatively low cost, but intended to draw new enrollments to specific programs.  One example involves small private non-profits that are fighting enrollment and endowment declines and recognize the need to attract more adult learners to their institutions.  There is nothing wrong with these moves, but they definitely have gotten the attention of leaders at some more established branch campuses with whom I speak.

For all that, the greatest threat to many branch campuses will not come from other providers.  It will come from their own main campus, as the powers-that-be are attracted to the cost and efficiency of their own online programs and consider branch campuses to be an unwelcome competitor.  (In fact, branches and fully online programs can enhance each other, attracting somewhat different student markets.)  Watch your back and develop strong internal partnerships that demonstrate how you can help generate institutional revenue!

From Epic 2020: New Video on Disruption in Higher Education

Back in August, I recommended that readers take a look at a video posted online by my friend, Bill Sams.  If you haven’t watched it, check it out at www.epic2020.org.  On the Epic web site, you’ll find links to other sites of interest.

In the Epic 2020 video, Sams drew on recent and current events to forecast a radically different environment for higher education, by the year 2020.  Regardless of your personal point of view, and certainly regardless of what you want the future to be, I think Sams captures trends that deserve attention.  The video has been viewed over 40,000 times, so lots of people are paying attention.

Now, Sams has posted a new video, providing a “…concise view of what has already happened.”  The video, which is a brief, Ted-type lecture, leads to the conclusion that 2012 may actually be the tipping point, following which traditional higher education will be forever changed.  Check the video at http://epic2020.org/2012-the-tipping-point/.  Again, agree of disagree, but do not overlook the fact that Sams has essentially brought together a summary of current events.

My own best guess remains that we will see a variety of options for the pursuit of educational objectives.  The challenge, however, will be for individual institutions to identify a program niche, develop outstanding services, control costs, and generate enough revenue to thrive.  If an institution sticks primarily to face-to-face delivery to residential students, then I think it will be difficult to be successful.  Indeed, far too many institutions have a financial model that actually loses money on every residential student.  Without strong endowments to support the financial loss, attracting new audiences is the only hope of survival.

The strategic issues for branch campuses are only modestly different than for main campuses, because branches are more like main campuses than they are different.  Delivery and packaging options are extremely significant to diversification and the ability to respond to changing demands.

Check out the Sams videos and consider how your campus or institution will attract sufficient enrollment to stay successful.  Of course, as I’ve said before, even if traditional education does better than I think it will, attracting new audiences will support even greater success and provide better opportunities for your audience.

More on Credit for Prior Learning

I’ve written before about credit for prior learning.  Last week, Inside Higher Education had a piece about a significant partnership between 14 universities in the Pennsylvania State University System of Higher Education and the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL) that will facilitate the assessment of prior learning, through CAEL’s Learning Counts service.

You can read about the initiative at http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/08/23/pas-public-universities-open-doors-prior-learning-credits.  Note that, like most reputable prior learning assessment programs with which I’m familiar, it is portfolio based, and with CAEL’s strong reputation, there is no reason to doubt that prior learning can be matched to specific university courses in a reliable manner.

Understanding how credit for prior learning fits into a comprehensive strategy to serve adult learners is important.  Remember, other than flagship public institutions and elite privates, most institutions will find it impossible to balance their budgets through traditional residential programs.  Branch campuses’ stock in trade is serving adult learners and other nontraditional students, and attracting this audience is increasingly important for many small private or regional public institutions, as well.

Adult learners are extraordinarily value conscious, with cost and time to degree important elements in their value equation.  A solid enrollment management strategy should include concern for transfer-friendly practices, flexible scheduling and online options.  Credit for prior learning is an appropriate tool in this context.

I was struck by one part of the article:  “One reason many colleges are skittish about granting credits for prior learning is because to do so is to acknowledge that the academy doesn’t have a lock on college-level learning. Some faculty members also view the process warily, arguing that it can be an academically suspect money grab and a weak substitute for college.”  People who take their stand on the notion that only colleges provide college-level learning are going to find the future a very tough place to live.  Uninformed arrogance is an all-too-common weakness of the “academy.”

I do think nationally recognized standards for awarding prior learning credit would be helpful.  I’m aware of institutions that essentially give away far too much credit, with far too little documentation.  Common standards would not only increase the credibility of prior learning assessment, but it would help institutions feel more comfortable transferring such credit, as assessed elsewhere.  I hope CAEL’s effort will contribute to reliable standards.

Institutions or campuses can refuse to award prior learning credit, but if they do so, they will seriously harm their competitive position.  I congratulate CAEL and the Pennsylvania system on their partnership.

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.