When I take tests or inventories, designed to identify individual strengths, a top strength always is that I am a “learner.” I do love learning new things, and perhaps as a result, I have very broad interests and (sometimes) a short attention span for the routine. My good fortune to work in academia allowed me to follow lots of different paths and to choose a “road less traveled,” when it suited me.
In that context, I feel especially blessed to pursue an encore career, as a consultant, coach, and speaker. Getting to meet people from around the country, and occasionally from other parts of the world, is terrific. I enjoy visiting new places and learning the unique history of various institutions. After more than 36 years of association with branch campuses and, more broadly, programs for adult learners, I’ve had remarkable experiences and opportunities to learn.
I suppose it is natural that a learner would enjoy sharing what he’s learned, and in the sense that I am still a teacher, the opportunity to consult and coach is satisfying. I am happy to share my thoughts, when asked, to critique current practices and future plans, and to provide examples of effective approaches to new challenges. However, as I’ve moved further into coaching and a strengths-based perspective, I’ve also found even greater pleasure in serving as a “thought partner” to individuals, as they consider opportunities and options.
I mention all of this for a couple of reasons. First, I’d be pleased to have more opportunities to coach, consult, or serve as a speaker for conferences and the like. It is fun, for me, and supports my desire to continue learning and sharing. Second, and more importantly, I want to encourage others to be excited about possibilities in their own lives.
We live in an extraordinary time. As a member of the Baby Boomer generation, it is exciting to think about the possibilities open to us, in the “second half of life.” For younger people, it is intriguing to consider options to work together, to create a future that is based more on abundance than on scarcity, and to reinvent what it means to work.
I was talking with an old friend and trying to explain why I am so pleased to be in the encore stage. I miss being part of a team, but on the whole, I feel as if I am back to being a professor, which was a great experience for me. My “learner” has come back to the fore, pulling along my strengths in areas like strategy and connectedness.
So, just a brief commercial: I am always interested in opportunities to work with individuals and with campuses, when they are looking to the future and considering possibilities. We can learn together and do some good.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
NABCA, RBCA, and Google Alerts
As always, the recent meeting of the National Association of Branch Campus Administrators (NABCA) was well worth attending. We met in Orlando, hosted by Central Florida University, from April 11-14. This was the 15th annual conference, which I believe includes the first several years, when we met as the Western Association. Next year’s conference will be hosted by Brookdale Community College, in Long Branch, New Jersey, April 10-13.
I have participated in NABCA for at least 10 of the 15 years, and I was honored to serve as president, several years ago. I appreciate the effort made by a large number of individuals over the years to make the NABCA conference so valuable, as well as to encourage research on branch campuses, through our very active research committee. Personally, I suspect that the opportunity to meet and develop friendships with people working in our too-often-overlooked sector of higher education provides the single greatest value of the conference. However, participants always indicate that the formal sessions are of real benefit, and they take home at least a few good ideas for exploration. Check out www.nabca.net for more information about the organization.
You might also want to check out the Regional and Branch Campus Administrators (RBCA) conference, which will meet on Longboat Key, June 17-20. RBCA is somewhat smaller, but allows even more opportunity to network, in a beautiful venue. RBCA is a single-track conference that typically concentrates on the interests of branch campus chief administrators, although it is not at all restricted to those individuals. The web site is at www.outreach.ohio.edu/rbca/. If it isn’t obvious, RBCA is organized these days by Ohio University. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend this year, but it’s definitely my loss.
Here’s a tip: Awhile back, I created a “Google Alerts” item for “branch campus.” If you have a Google account, it is easy to set up, and I receive a daily message from Google, with a list of online/internet items that referred to branch campuses. (If you don’t know how to do this, get someone to help you find the right tab. Be sure to put quotes around “branch campus” or you’ll get far too many irrelevant items.) I can’t say the alerts are stunning or surprising, but it is a simple way to keep an eye on relevant stories or announcements. I find it useful, at least, and it takes virtually no time to review, each day.
I have participated in NABCA for at least 10 of the 15 years, and I was honored to serve as president, several years ago. I appreciate the effort made by a large number of individuals over the years to make the NABCA conference so valuable, as well as to encourage research on branch campuses, through our very active research committee. Personally, I suspect that the opportunity to meet and develop friendships with people working in our too-often-overlooked sector of higher education provides the single greatest value of the conference. However, participants always indicate that the formal sessions are of real benefit, and they take home at least a few good ideas for exploration. Check out www.nabca.net for more information about the organization.
You might also want to check out the Regional and Branch Campus Administrators (RBCA) conference, which will meet on Longboat Key, June 17-20. RBCA is somewhat smaller, but allows even more opportunity to network, in a beautiful venue. RBCA is a single-track conference that typically concentrates on the interests of branch campus chief administrators, although it is not at all restricted to those individuals. The web site is at www.outreach.ohio.edu/rbca/. If it isn’t obvious, RBCA is organized these days by Ohio University. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend this year, but it’s definitely my loss.
Here’s a tip: Awhile back, I created a “Google Alerts” item for “branch campus.” If you have a Google account, it is easy to set up, and I receive a daily message from Google, with a list of online/internet items that referred to branch campuses. (If you don’t know how to do this, get someone to help you find the right tab. Be sure to put quotes around “branch campus” or you’ll get far too many irrelevant items.) I can’t say the alerts are stunning or surprising, but it is a simple way to keep an eye on relevant stories or announcements. I find it useful, at least, and it takes virtually no time to review, each day.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
New Approaches for Branch Campuses: Part 3
To wrap up this brief series on the future of branch campuses, I want to offer a few suggestions to those campus leaders who are prepared to rethink strategy. My recommendations follow from this premise: Branch campuses should base their strategy for growth on the idea that their student audience is most concerned about time to degree and the cost of that degree. (Obviously, the two are related.)
Branches should develop their academic programming and student support services around providing individual attention that helps students reach their goals as quickly and efficiently, as possible. Campuses that thrive will be flexible and reasonable in the application of previously earned credits toward a degree, while making sure that they maintain high standards. (Institutions may lose some students who have clearly unreasonable expectations, but I always maintain that there is a market for quality. Just think carefully and well about what quality means.)
Branches that thrive will emphasize engaged, deep partnerships. Depending on the type of branch, this might involve working closely with high schools around dual credit opportunities, working more closely with the distance learning unit at the main campus, collaborating with community colleges, or offering opportunities such as those provided by Straighterline to help students efficiently complete a requirement. Campuses should learn about and make use of best practices in prior learning assessment, such as CAEL supports through LearningCounts.org.
If it were my call, I’d be spending my money on admissions counselors, financial aid counselors, and academic advisors, along with those learning support services that make a demonstrable difference to success. If the branch is large enough to attract more traditional-aged full-time students, then I might provide a broader range of support services and student life opportunities, but that would be to serve a different audience than the one I’m discussing, here.
On programming, I’d be deeply and completely student oriented. At branches, student demand should drive both course schedules and programs, but I’d also be concerned about average section size in face-to-face classes. To be honest, however, I’d stop offering face-to-face classes, for the most part. I’d concentrate on high quality hybrid and online courses, supported by outstanding support services. In any case, class schedules should be efficient, and we should get over the notion that maximizing course options to meet a specific requirement is important to students. Branch audiences, at least, are more concerned about a clear path to their goals.
To borrow a term, it is time to re-engineer the branch campus, so that it closely aligns with the preferences of the audience it serves. In the process, I suspect leaders will find that less is more: Offering a tighter range of courses and helping students get more credit for work done elsewhere will support creation of higher quality courses and services. Marketing strategies will unfold in natural and compelling messages, and word of mouth will kick in powerfully. Campuses must leverage their physical presence, while embracing the power of technology and more deeply appreciating the preferences of their student audience.
Branches should develop their academic programming and student support services around providing individual attention that helps students reach their goals as quickly and efficiently, as possible. Campuses that thrive will be flexible and reasonable in the application of previously earned credits toward a degree, while making sure that they maintain high standards. (Institutions may lose some students who have clearly unreasonable expectations, but I always maintain that there is a market for quality. Just think carefully and well about what quality means.)
Branches that thrive will emphasize engaged, deep partnerships. Depending on the type of branch, this might involve working closely with high schools around dual credit opportunities, working more closely with the distance learning unit at the main campus, collaborating with community colleges, or offering opportunities such as those provided by Straighterline to help students efficiently complete a requirement. Campuses should learn about and make use of best practices in prior learning assessment, such as CAEL supports through LearningCounts.org.
If it were my call, I’d be spending my money on admissions counselors, financial aid counselors, and academic advisors, along with those learning support services that make a demonstrable difference to success. If the branch is large enough to attract more traditional-aged full-time students, then I might provide a broader range of support services and student life opportunities, but that would be to serve a different audience than the one I’m discussing, here.
On programming, I’d be deeply and completely student oriented. At branches, student demand should drive both course schedules and programs, but I’d also be concerned about average section size in face-to-face classes. To be honest, however, I’d stop offering face-to-face classes, for the most part. I’d concentrate on high quality hybrid and online courses, supported by outstanding support services. In any case, class schedules should be efficient, and we should get over the notion that maximizing course options to meet a specific requirement is important to students. Branch audiences, at least, are more concerned about a clear path to their goals.
To borrow a term, it is time to re-engineer the branch campus, so that it closely aligns with the preferences of the audience it serves. In the process, I suspect leaders will find that less is more: Offering a tighter range of courses and helping students get more credit for work done elsewhere will support creation of higher quality courses and services. Marketing strategies will unfold in natural and compelling messages, and word of mouth will kick in powerfully. Campuses must leverage their physical presence, while embracing the power of technology and more deeply appreciating the preferences of their student audience.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
New Approaches for Branch Campuses: Part 2
For branch campuses to thrive in the newly competitive environment, I believe they have to focus sharply on their mission and on what they do best. Branches provide their home institution with a physical presence in the communities they serve, and they tend to do a good job of engaging with that community, as well as building political support for their institution. They have a history of providing strong support services for students, and they provide ease of access and flexibility for working adults.
In terms of enrollment opportunities, I suspect that the future sweet spot for branch campuses lies in two areas: Partnering with whatever unit is developing and delivering online courses at their home institution, and focusing on the creation of hybrid delivery options. Hybrid delivery compromises some on flexibility, but provides enough structure and support to be appreciated by many students.
Partnering between the online unit and branch campuses can substantially reduce the cost of course development, with learning modules serving both fully online and hybrid options. For the collaboration to make sense, however, there must be a revenue sharing arrangement that is attractive to both partners, and there should be an institutional strategy that defines audiences and coordinates marketing. Branches should be compensated for their role in recruitment and support of online students.
There is strategic advantage to developing a strong portfolio of online courses and programs, then drawing out learning modules from those courses to be used in hybrid programs at branch locations. Fully online programs can serve a national or international audience, maximize flexibility for those who want it, and generate substantial revenue. A regional hybrid strategy can meet the needs of those who prefer more structure, but still want more flexibility than traditional delivery affords.
A regional hybrid approach also expands the service area from which campuses can recruit. Typically, commuter campuses obtain the great majority of their enrollment from people living within 30 miles of the campus. If students only come to campus on a few occasions per term, I’d argue that a radius of 100 miles or more is practical, especially if the campus offers some unique and attractive program or has an especially strong regional brand.
Most importantly, perhaps, continuing to offer some face-to-face courses, some fully online, and some hybrid can serve a branch campus’s mission, even as student preferences evolve. The branch campus leadership should stay close to enrollment data and nimble with regard to the proportion of each type of delivery it offers, as demand shifts.
I don’t know the end game for all of this, but branches need a thoughtful strategy for change, if they intend to compete. I hope the way branches engage with their communities and support their students will continue to be valued and continue to attract enrollment, but over time it won’t trump the advantages created by online and hybrid delivery.
Next time: Some thoughts on how branch campuses can act on their unique opportunities.
In terms of enrollment opportunities, I suspect that the future sweet spot for branch campuses lies in two areas: Partnering with whatever unit is developing and delivering online courses at their home institution, and focusing on the creation of hybrid delivery options. Hybrid delivery compromises some on flexibility, but provides enough structure and support to be appreciated by many students.
Partnering between the online unit and branch campuses can substantially reduce the cost of course development, with learning modules serving both fully online and hybrid options. For the collaboration to make sense, however, there must be a revenue sharing arrangement that is attractive to both partners, and there should be an institutional strategy that defines audiences and coordinates marketing. Branches should be compensated for their role in recruitment and support of online students.
There is strategic advantage to developing a strong portfolio of online courses and programs, then drawing out learning modules from those courses to be used in hybrid programs at branch locations. Fully online programs can serve a national or international audience, maximize flexibility for those who want it, and generate substantial revenue. A regional hybrid strategy can meet the needs of those who prefer more structure, but still want more flexibility than traditional delivery affords.
A regional hybrid approach also expands the service area from which campuses can recruit. Typically, commuter campuses obtain the great majority of their enrollment from people living within 30 miles of the campus. If students only come to campus on a few occasions per term, I’d argue that a radius of 100 miles or more is practical, especially if the campus offers some unique and attractive program or has an especially strong regional brand.
Most importantly, perhaps, continuing to offer some face-to-face courses, some fully online, and some hybrid can serve a branch campus’s mission, even as student preferences evolve. The branch campus leadership should stay close to enrollment data and nimble with regard to the proportion of each type of delivery it offers, as demand shifts.
I don’t know the end game for all of this, but branches need a thoughtful strategy for change, if they intend to compete. I hope the way branches engage with their communities and support their students will continue to be valued and continue to attract enrollment, but over time it won’t trump the advantages created by online and hybrid delivery.
Next time: Some thoughts on how branch campuses can act on their unique opportunities.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
New Approaches for Branch Campuses: Part 1
As I’ve said many times, I believe that demographics, technology, and the preferences of adult learners have created a disruptive environment in higher education. The flexibility provided by online programs meshes well with the preference of adult learners, creating a challenge for traditional institutions.
Unquestionably, the most financially successful application of technology lies with high quality, scalable online programming, accompanied by strong and focused support services, and with aggressive pricing that widens the gap between those programs and the cost of traditional residential campuses. The price gap could be the trigger that bursts the so-called “tuition bubble” and causes the great majority of students to choose nonresidential options.
Given all that, what does the future hold for branch campuses? In my opinion, it depends on how they choose to adapt. Branch campuses provide access and opportunity, and they are located at some distance from the main campus, in order to serve place bound audiences. Historically, this meant that they helped people realize their educational dreams, but as an “innovation,” branches represent a sustaining improvement over the need to relocate in order to pursue a degree. Today, those same audiences can choose online programs from any number of providers.
One significant concern I have is that branches often attempt to replicate the main campus experience, as much as practical. Thus, they have facility costs and provide services that may not only be expensive, but underutilized by students, and with no demonstrable benefit to recruitment and retention. In addition, given that branches were initially created and nurtured from the main campus, I wonder whether institutional leaders will conclude that they should emphasize lower-cost online options to serve place bound students.
For branches, the challenge is to develop a niche that is sufficiently attractive to prospective students, so that they choose the branch option over others. I’ve always said that branch campuses are a unique delivery form of higher education, and it is time they start considering what that implies. At the very least, branches need to be attentive to their expenses and to be more intentional about the assessment of services, not to mention creating a truly student-focused class schedule and making cost effective decisions about the range of course options provided.
My personal opinion is that branches would be well advised to begin emphasizing hybrid delivery of courses and programs. “Hybrid” can refer to a mix of fully online courses with others that meet anywhere from once a week to only two or three times during the term, or it can mean all courses have at least a few face-to-face meetings (or meetings over interactive television). They are hybrid in the sense that they use technology both to enhance learning and to provide flexibility, but they also bring more structure and direct interaction than most fully online programs provide.
In my next post, I will expand on the potential of hybrid delivery at branch campuses.
Unquestionably, the most financially successful application of technology lies with high quality, scalable online programming, accompanied by strong and focused support services, and with aggressive pricing that widens the gap between those programs and the cost of traditional residential campuses. The price gap could be the trigger that bursts the so-called “tuition bubble” and causes the great majority of students to choose nonresidential options.
Given all that, what does the future hold for branch campuses? In my opinion, it depends on how they choose to adapt. Branch campuses provide access and opportunity, and they are located at some distance from the main campus, in order to serve place bound audiences. Historically, this meant that they helped people realize their educational dreams, but as an “innovation,” branches represent a sustaining improvement over the need to relocate in order to pursue a degree. Today, those same audiences can choose online programs from any number of providers.
One significant concern I have is that branches often attempt to replicate the main campus experience, as much as practical. Thus, they have facility costs and provide services that may not only be expensive, but underutilized by students, and with no demonstrable benefit to recruitment and retention. In addition, given that branches were initially created and nurtured from the main campus, I wonder whether institutional leaders will conclude that they should emphasize lower-cost online options to serve place bound students.
For branches, the challenge is to develop a niche that is sufficiently attractive to prospective students, so that they choose the branch option over others. I’ve always said that branch campuses are a unique delivery form of higher education, and it is time they start considering what that implies. At the very least, branches need to be attentive to their expenses and to be more intentional about the assessment of services, not to mention creating a truly student-focused class schedule and making cost effective decisions about the range of course options provided.
My personal opinion is that branches would be well advised to begin emphasizing hybrid delivery of courses and programs. “Hybrid” can refer to a mix of fully online courses with others that meet anywhere from once a week to only two or three times during the term, or it can mean all courses have at least a few face-to-face meetings (or meetings over interactive television). They are hybrid in the sense that they use technology both to enhance learning and to provide flexibility, but they also bring more structure and direct interaction than most fully online programs provide.
In my next post, I will expand on the potential of hybrid delivery at branch campuses.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Straighterline as an Example of Innovative Approaches
Check out Straighterline, if you want to see an innovative approach to online learning. You may or may not like what you see, but I believe they offer a product that makes a lot of sense. The web site is www.straighterline.com.
Essentially, Straighterline has a portfolio of nearly 40 online courses, mostly in general education or at an introductory level (principles of accounting, for example). Because Straighterline is not a degree granting institution, the notion of accreditation doesn’t apply directly. However, their courses are “evaluated and recommended by The American Council on Education's College Credit Recommendation Service (ACE CREDIT).” They have more than 20 partner institutions, many of which are in the for-profit sector, but certainly not all. In particular, Western Governor’s University is a partner, which is something that makes me sit up and take notice. According to Straighterline, many other institutions readily transfer their credits, because of the ACE recommendation.
One of the principle implications of a disruptive environment in higher education is that financial models will change. If the experience of business and industry is an indicator, we can expect lower cost options to traditional education to emerge, serving audiences that either can’t afford or for other reasons choose not to enroll at those traditional institutions. As course quality and support services continue to improve, the new options will move upstream and attract enrollment away from more expensive, less flexible providers.
Straighterline has such a financial model. Students pay $99 per month and $39 for each course they take. Thus, if a student wishes and is able, he or she can move along quickly and receive credit for a number of courses at a very modest cost. According to their web site, a student can reasonably complete an entire year of coursework for $999, and that blows away most competition.
However, there is that second concern about support services. Providing strong online support services is both possible and affordable, at scale. Among other services, Straighterline uses Smarthinking, for tutoring support (www.smartthinking.com ), but certainly there are other ways to go.
Regardless of whether Straighterline is of immediate interest to you or not, I suggest checking out the FAQs on their web site to get a sense of how things work. You can Google “Straighterline” for a wealth of stories about the company, including interviews with Burck Smith, the CEO.
CAVEAT: It isn’t my place to push Straighterline as the answer, not that they need me to. I do know Burck Smith, but I have no personal connection to the company. Smith is an exceptionally articulate spokesman, both for the company and for new models of education.
What is important to me is to emphasize new options and ways of thinking that can expand access and success. As people put together their credits through various means, the cost of a degree will go down dramatically, and I predict that student satisfaction will go up dramatically, as well.
How does all this relate to branch campuses and their access mission? In my next post I will attempt to bring together some of the ideas I’ve been exploring to suggest some approaches that will contribute to branch campus success.
Essentially, Straighterline has a portfolio of nearly 40 online courses, mostly in general education or at an introductory level (principles of accounting, for example). Because Straighterline is not a degree granting institution, the notion of accreditation doesn’t apply directly. However, their courses are “evaluated and recommended by The American Council on Education's College Credit Recommendation Service (ACE CREDIT).” They have more than 20 partner institutions, many of which are in the for-profit sector, but certainly not all. In particular, Western Governor’s University is a partner, which is something that makes me sit up and take notice. According to Straighterline, many other institutions readily transfer their credits, because of the ACE recommendation.
One of the principle implications of a disruptive environment in higher education is that financial models will change. If the experience of business and industry is an indicator, we can expect lower cost options to traditional education to emerge, serving audiences that either can’t afford or for other reasons choose not to enroll at those traditional institutions. As course quality and support services continue to improve, the new options will move upstream and attract enrollment away from more expensive, less flexible providers.
Straighterline has such a financial model. Students pay $99 per month and $39 for each course they take. Thus, if a student wishes and is able, he or she can move along quickly and receive credit for a number of courses at a very modest cost. According to their web site, a student can reasonably complete an entire year of coursework for $999, and that blows away most competition.
However, there is that second concern about support services. Providing strong online support services is both possible and affordable, at scale. Among other services, Straighterline uses Smarthinking, for tutoring support (www.smartthinking.com ), but certainly there are other ways to go.
Regardless of whether Straighterline is of immediate interest to you or not, I suggest checking out the FAQs on their web site to get a sense of how things work. You can Google “Straighterline” for a wealth of stories about the company, including interviews with Burck Smith, the CEO.
CAVEAT: It isn’t my place to push Straighterline as the answer, not that they need me to. I do know Burck Smith, but I have no personal connection to the company. Smith is an exceptionally articulate spokesman, both for the company and for new models of education.
What is important to me is to emphasize new options and ways of thinking that can expand access and success. As people put together their credits through various means, the cost of a degree will go down dramatically, and I predict that student satisfaction will go up dramatically, as well.
How does all this relate to branch campuses and their access mission? In my next post I will attempt to bring together some of the ideas I’ve been exploring to suggest some approaches that will contribute to branch campus success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)