As a reminder, I maintain two blogs. This one primarily views the world through a branch campus lens. The other, “Creating the Future,” is broader. Generally speaking, in “Creating the Future,” I write about innovation in higher education, but I also write at a more personal level about positive psychology, well-being, strengths-based leadership, and encore careers, among other topics. It’s my playground for exploring or sharing ideas.
Recently, I published five posts on “Creating the Future,” about time management. The series grew out of my concern that many talented, well-intentioned administrators are struggling to devote time to new initiatives that may be important to the future of their institution. Too often, they seem trapped by day-to-day challenges, not to mention meetings and events that serve the needs of the existing institution, but do little to advance needed change.
I’ve been there, and I know plates can be very full. As I described in the posts, following Stephen Covey, there are essentially four types of tasks: Those that are Important-Urgent, Unimportant-Urgent, Important-Not Urgent, and Unimportant-Not Urgent.
Obviously, if you are spending time on things that are neither important nor urgent, you have issues! Important-Urgent tasks are what we might call “crises,” and they demand your time and attention. However, in this day of tight budgets and cost control through staff reduction, leaders can drown in a sea of Important-Urgent tasks, which amounts to very little real leadership, at all.
The perverse tasks are those that seem urgent, but, in fact, are unimportant. These tasks often reflect someone else’s sense of importance, and often they amount to someone trying to “delegate” a task back up to their supervisor, or someone over-reacting to a personal situation. (Just because a task is important to someone, or even to everyone, doesn’t mean that you are the person to handle it.)
Leadership, not to mention recognizing and responding to those tasks that are critical for innovation, requires that people spend as much time as practical in the area of Important-Not Urgent items. These are the tasks that are not “hot-hot” right now, so they are easy to push aside, thinking there will be time for them later. It is seductive, can lead people to believe they are doing good things, and can completely rob your institution of an opportunity to thrive in a time of disruptive change.
The point is not that leaders should ignore emergencies or refuse to help someone with a challenge they are facing. However, it is essential to protect time to invest in innovation, because that is where real leadership opportunities lie.
I hope that readers of “Branch Campus Life” will consider checking out “Creating the Future.” You can find it at www.drcharlesbird.com/creatingthefuture. You might find it worth following!
Monday, June 11, 2012
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Branch Campus Article: Pruning the Branches
Today's (May 31, 2012) daily update from Inside Higher Ed has a lead article on branch campuses. There are interesting points in the article, but there also is the suggestion that many universities are moving away from offering programs at branch campuses or are focusing their programs at the graduate level. There are a few comments after the article, including one from me. Note that the title of the article suggests "pruning," not necessarily cutting down the entire tree.
You can access the article at: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/05/31/shift-branch-campuses-reflects-changes-educational-delivery-and-demand. You may have to copy and paste the address.
As indicated in my comment, my own impression is that many branch campuses are growing, and at least some presidents expect to see greater enrollment growth at branch campuses than at their main campuses. In my opinion, branches need to be aggressive about shifting toward hybrid delivery of their programs, and I believe it will be most sensible to form strong partnerships between branches and whatever unit at the institution develops and delivers fully online programs.
Some institutions may, indeed, find it wise to focus on graduate programs, whether online or at branches, and there certainly are ongoing discussions/arguments regarding which programs should be offered at branch campuses. However, I don't see the evidence that there is any broad move to cut back programs or close down campuses. Unfortunately, there is no data base to which we can turn to know for sure.
The article only refers to two institutions, both located in Boston. Both are fine schools, with successful online programs. One of them, Northeastern University, also is pursuing a relatively unusual strategy of developing new branch campuses in locations that are far from Boston. (A campus has opened in Charlotte, NC, and one has been announced for Seattle, WA.) The other institution, Boston University, has no such plans. Take a look at the Northeastern story, because it is both interesting and well-thought-out, in my opinion. (I've mentioned before that I do some work with Northeastern, so draw your own conclusions about their strategy.)
It appears to me that the "contraction" in the Boston area has had more to do with cutting back on what branch folks would call sites, not true campuses. That change might make sense, given online and hybrid options, but I still believe there is a place for a regional strategy that includes a physical presence, as well as increased reliance on technology.
Give the article a look, and see what you think.
You can access the article at: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/05/31/shift-branch-campuses-reflects-changes-educational-delivery-and-demand. You may have to copy and paste the address.
As indicated in my comment, my own impression is that many branch campuses are growing, and at least some presidents expect to see greater enrollment growth at branch campuses than at their main campuses. In my opinion, branches need to be aggressive about shifting toward hybrid delivery of their programs, and I believe it will be most sensible to form strong partnerships between branches and whatever unit at the institution develops and delivers fully online programs.
Some institutions may, indeed, find it wise to focus on graduate programs, whether online or at branches, and there certainly are ongoing discussions/arguments regarding which programs should be offered at branch campuses. However, I don't see the evidence that there is any broad move to cut back programs or close down campuses. Unfortunately, there is no data base to which we can turn to know for sure.
The article only refers to two institutions, both located in Boston. Both are fine schools, with successful online programs. One of them, Northeastern University, also is pursuing a relatively unusual strategy of developing new branch campuses in locations that are far from Boston. (A campus has opened in Charlotte, NC, and one has been announced for Seattle, WA.) The other institution, Boston University, has no such plans. Take a look at the Northeastern story, because it is both interesting and well-thought-out, in my opinion. (I've mentioned before that I do some work with Northeastern, so draw your own conclusions about their strategy.)
It appears to me that the "contraction" in the Boston area has had more to do with cutting back on what branch folks would call sites, not true campuses. That change might make sense, given online and hybrid options, but I still believe there is a place for a regional strategy that includes a physical presence, as well as increased reliance on technology.
Give the article a look, and see what you think.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
More on Coaching
I’ve been asked to explain more about coaching and how it works, so here goes:
Coaches serve clients as a “thought partner” or “trusted adviser,” by supporting them in an exploration of goals and options for achieving those goals. When I coach, I like to concentrate on identifying both individual strengths and strengths in the organization or leadership team, where appropriate. I encourage people to think about times they felt especially energized and committed to their work and what it was about them or the situation that contributed to success, so that they can consider those experiences in new contexts.
I’ve found that the coaching process not only leads to identifying options and clarifying ideas, but it releases a lot of confident energy. Sometimes coaching clients also want to use me as more of a consultant, especially with regard to resolving a specific issue at work. I’m generally aware of which role I’m in, but I do try to be careful about doing too much “consulting,” when coaching is called for. It’s the client’s choices that matter.
Coaching can be used with groups, as well as with individuals. You may hear terms like “executive coach,” “life coach,” or “transitions coach,” but I seem to cut across those boundaries with most of my clients. In my own practice, I typically talk with clients over the telephone, usually for 50 minutes to an hour. I like to talk with new clients once a week, for three or four weeks, to establish the relationship and start working on goals. After that, we follow whatever pattern is most useful to the client.
With regard to branch campus administrators, my coaching experience falls in three areas. First, some individuals want to move up the administrative ladder, and either they or their supervisor thinks I can help with the preparation. This type of developmental coaching generally involves some assessment of strengths and exploration of career options, but I also ask questions intended to explore specific leadership challenges the person has encountered, as well as to clarify the role and situation that might represent a good career move.
A second opportunity comes when someone actually accepts a new position or takes on new projects. If he or she is changing institutions, we might talk about an exit strategy, as well as an on-boarding strategy for the new position. Very often, people encounter unexpected challenges and reactions in their new position, and a coach can help with the transition, not to mention adjusting to a new culture.
A third coaching opportunity arises when people consider leaving full-time administration and want to give thought to their future. A coach can help shape the planning process, provide resources, and advise on options. This type of transition coaching provides an opportunity to think about one’s “life portfolio,” considering the balance of work, recreation, family, and other elements of life. I am especially interested in working with people who are considering an encore career, because the creative potential is so high.
Coaches serve clients as a “thought partner” or “trusted adviser,” by supporting them in an exploration of goals and options for achieving those goals. When I coach, I like to concentrate on identifying both individual strengths and strengths in the organization or leadership team, where appropriate. I encourage people to think about times they felt especially energized and committed to their work and what it was about them or the situation that contributed to success, so that they can consider those experiences in new contexts.
I’ve found that the coaching process not only leads to identifying options and clarifying ideas, but it releases a lot of confident energy. Sometimes coaching clients also want to use me as more of a consultant, especially with regard to resolving a specific issue at work. I’m generally aware of which role I’m in, but I do try to be careful about doing too much “consulting,” when coaching is called for. It’s the client’s choices that matter.
Coaching can be used with groups, as well as with individuals. You may hear terms like “executive coach,” “life coach,” or “transitions coach,” but I seem to cut across those boundaries with most of my clients. In my own practice, I typically talk with clients over the telephone, usually for 50 minutes to an hour. I like to talk with new clients once a week, for three or four weeks, to establish the relationship and start working on goals. After that, we follow whatever pattern is most useful to the client.
With regard to branch campus administrators, my coaching experience falls in three areas. First, some individuals want to move up the administrative ladder, and either they or their supervisor thinks I can help with the preparation. This type of developmental coaching generally involves some assessment of strengths and exploration of career options, but I also ask questions intended to explore specific leadership challenges the person has encountered, as well as to clarify the role and situation that might represent a good career move.
A second opportunity comes when someone actually accepts a new position or takes on new projects. If he or she is changing institutions, we might talk about an exit strategy, as well as an on-boarding strategy for the new position. Very often, people encounter unexpected challenges and reactions in their new position, and a coach can help with the transition, not to mention adjusting to a new culture.
A third coaching opportunity arises when people consider leaving full-time administration and want to give thought to their future. A coach can help shape the planning process, provide resources, and advise on options. This type of transition coaching provides an opportunity to think about one’s “life portfolio,” considering the balance of work, recreation, family, and other elements of life. I am especially interested in working with people who are considering an encore career, because the creative potential is so high.
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
The Enjoyment of Consulting and Coaching
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.
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, 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)