Leading Change in Higher Education: The Great Compromise

Okay, I fully admit that I have shamelessly taken the concept for this blog from Ian Morrison and his 2011 book titled Leading Change in Health Care. I have done so because I see a clear connection between the state of health care and the state of higher education in America – both are an “ugly compromise among cost, quality, and access.” Where health care is challenged in balancing these for the vulnerable and sick, higher education is challenged in balancing these for the young and those seeking to make a change in their lives.

The Compromise of Cost

There are many forces driving the cost of delivering higher education and competition for students is top on the list. Institutions are building bigger and better facilities, adding more amenities and creating pleasing environments, all to attract and retain students. When my son and I were touring campuses a few years ago, our running joke was how long it took the admissions representative to talk about the world-class climbing wall. But it’s not all about recruiting students. Institutions are under pressure to recruit top-notch faculty with cutting-edge research projects and the accompanying grant dollars that come with them; or those faculty members who bring some level of prestige to the classroom based on the body of their academic work. Finally, there has been a significant increase in non-teaching jobs on campus to support students, faculty and the mission of the institution, sometimes driven by unfunded federal mandates, but often simply to meet a real or perceived need.

I was speaking to a local Rotary club recently and was asked a question about the cost of higher education. Like many parents, he was concerned about the rising cost of attending college and was looking for some justification from the “expert” in the room. My answer may have shocked him. I told him that college simply costs too much. By some estimates, the cost of attending college has increased by more than 200% since the mid-1980s, even when accounting for inflation. To ice the cake, this increase is outpacing the available financial aid causing more students to borrow and graduate with increasing debt.

The Compromise of Quality

How often have you heard someone say they need to attend the best college or university to ensure they have the best opportunity to get a job? But what defines the best institutions? Are the Ivy League institutions the best? Undoubtedly, there is a lifelong value in attending one of these institutions. Does US News and World Report define the best institutions? Drive along any highway in America and the billboards certainly seem to support this conclusion. But quality is something that is dependent on the context. There is no single accepted definition of quality. Phillip B. Crosby defines quality as “conformance to requirements” while W. Edwards Deming suggests quality is “meeting customer needs and wants.” Let’s explore these two definitions in the context of higher education.

There are many requirements placed on institutions of higher education by the public, by the accrediting bodies, by the government and by others. Simply conforming to these requirements does not imply a quality education – it suggests an average education. Excelling in these requirements is quality and this is a typical way we look at institutional quality. Consider graduation rates and job placement rates. The average graduation rate among four-year public colleges in America is 59% (six-year rate). For young adults (20-24) with a bachelor’s degree, the employment rate is 86%, but it is assumed that some of these people are under-employed. For institutions to claim to offer a quality education, excelling in these “requirements” is the standard for quality. This is accomplished in many ways through the curriculum and the services provided on campus.

To define quality through the lens of customer needs and wants is a very different approach. Consider what it would look like to measure student success through their goals. For some, it would look like graduating from a four-year college and getting a job. Or, it could be taking a few welding classes and then finding a good-paying job to support your family. For others, it may be bypassing college altogether and seeking an alternative career pathway. For the first student in the above scenarios, we would all classify that a quality education… but not so much for the other two students. Yet, all could be quality educational experiences with successful outcomes. Higher education needs to embrace multiple pathways more effectively.

The Compromise of Access

Enrollment in college reached a peak in 2010 but has been on a steady decline of almost 5% since then. There are many supposed reasons for this, and the improving economy is among them. Traditional aged students can forego college and go straight to work and post-traditional students are staying in their jobs instead of seeking new careers. But this is only part of the picture. The 2016 election brought into light the deep concerns about the opportunity gap in America and how many people feel left behind or left out. Many of our institutions of higher education have been party to this concern for the reasons discussed above. Inequities in economic opportunity and among disenfranchised populations have not adequately been addressed in higher education and beyond causing many to label colleges and universities as elitist and ivory tower.

But, this is misleading. While higher education has its flaws, it is egalitarian by design with opportunities for all. Focusing on diversity and inclusion are critical aspects of an accessible institution seeking to produce students who will benefit from such an environment. Increased state and federal funding are critical, but it is not the panacea we are looking for. More education on choice is necessary – students need to understand that they do not have to choose the elite private institution or the large state university… they can instead start at the local community college to begin their higher education journey. It is not all about cost when thinking about access. But, we need to make institutions more inviting and safe places for everyone.

The Bonus Compromise of Value

The great debate in higher education is centered on the value of the degree: is it attained for the purpose of learning or to prepare one for work? In practice, this may not be dichotomous, but it is often portrayed that way. I like to think that everything we learn in college has value for our future and that we are not educating students for their first job, but for a career. This means that there must be a balance and a shared responsibility among students, institutions and employers for lifelong learning. The value of higher education is clear: those with a bachelor’s degree earn nearly $1 million more than those with a high school diploma in their lifetime.

Like the Great Compromise of 1787 when small and large states determined our legislative structure to ensure equity, those of us in higher education and our stakeholders must understand the nuance of cost, quality, and access and seek to ensure that we are ever-diligent in our pursuit of value and equity. I’ll close with the words of William Butler Yeats, “Education is not filling a pail but the lighting of a fire.”

The Purpose of Higher Education

There is debate regarding the purpose of higher education – is it to get a job or get an education? My philosophy of higher education is that we are not preparing our graduates for their first job, we are preparing them for a lifetime of jobs. So, the short answer for me is the purpose of higher education is to get an education… or more precisely, to learn how to learn. Unfortunately, this answer is all too simplistic and deserves more attention and depth.

Rising costs of higher education have caused many to question the value of traditional degrees. This has been particularly true in recent years as graduates have struggled to find relevant work in their field of study. Certainly, there are fields where this is less of an issue, and we have seen placement rates rise in recent years, but it is still more challenging to start a career following college than it is to simply find a job… and a career is what graduates are seeking.

To justify the tuition and other costs associated with college, graduates are seeking to embark on a career and earn a living wage with enough resources to pay back their student loans. To be sure, I am not one who fully buys into the media hype regarding student loan debt. However, according to Forbes, the average student in the Class of 2016 graduated with $37,172 in student loan debt. But these numbers are somewhat skewed by the heavy debt load of some students. When you dig into the numbers, roughly 66% of borrowers owe less than $25,000 and 37% owe less than $10,000.

Now, before you post your angry response because you are a graduate who has borrowed significant amounts of money to pay for your education, I too am concerned with these rising numbers. I am simply making the point that rising costs, and the subsequent rising debt, should not alter one’s thinking about the purpose of higher education. It is still more about the learning than the job. But it does call into question one’s expectation when they enter college. Have we in higher education created an unrealistic expectation for both our students and the community of constituents who hire our students?

Practicality, not true learning, is becoming the norm so higher education institutions can confidently report meeting the needs of the workforce in communities across the nation. Designing degrees and creating programs that represent the local workforce has long been the purview of community and technical colleges, but now we are seeing state universities and private, liberal arts colleges jumping into the fray trying to beat the competition to the next great degree. And when you throw for-profit institutions into the mix, the dizzying array of degrees, programs and micro-credentials is almost alarming. Can higher education sustain this pace of change?

But all of this is an interesting discussion in the context of the purpose of higher education. In a 2016 report by the organization Imperative, it is suggested that the current generation of college students are more purpose-oriented than any previous generation. Not necessarily more driven to succeed or more intelligent, just more interested in pursuing learning defined by purpose rather than the traditional academic major. Generation Z students seem to understand the value of an education for the sake of learning. Of course, these students do not represent the majority attending college today, but wouldn’t it be interesting to transform our programs and curriculum to be more purpose-driven?

Historically, higher education has been focused on advancing knowledge and learning through faculty research. But this focus seems somewhat outdated with the growing population of post-traditional students who seek more relevancy and autonomy in their learning and the newest generation of students seeking purpose. The “sage on the stage,” who teaches what is relevant to them or their research, is fast-becoming a thing of the past; replaced by instructors who seek to teach and learn with their students. Discovering knowledge in creative ways is the new learning – both for students and instructors. Precisely defined learning outcomes and connecting students with real-world problems seems an exciting way to help students find relevancy and purpose. But we still think in terms of teaching and learning, a dichotomy that sets the instructor apart from the student. When I facilitate a class, I often learn as much as my students. I certainly have knowledge and experience to share, but so do the students. A vibrant learning environment allows this two-way exchange to occur.

I do buy into the idea that higher education should vigorously strive to develop in all parties a capacity for creation, change and innovation. This is consistent with my idea that the purpose of higher education is to prepare graduates to learn how to learn. When reading on this topic, I am often overwhelmed by the aggrandized language used to define this purpose. Language built around the idea of achieving the American Dream, diversity and inclusion, citizenship and democracy and other equally interesting, yet overstated ideas. Don’t misunderstand, I think these are all valuable outcomes of a college education and certainly central to social mobility and being productive members of our society. However, I think we over-promise and under-deliver. If we simplified (I know, this may come across as “dumbing it down”) our purpose to be clear and to-the-point, like learning how to learn, then does this not represent all the other articulated purposes out there? Would it not be more consistent with the relevancy and purpose our students are seeking?

Of course, we know that higher education is both knowledge and utility… seeking to educate and to prepare graduates for work. No longer is a college degree reserved for the elite, it is now open to anyone with the drive and ability to seek its opportunities. While much is written about access to higher education and the challenges many face in reaching this goal, I think there are increasingly more paths to a degree than ever before; there are certainly more paths to learning. Maybe the expectations we set as we recruit these students ought to be one of relevancy and purpose, not one of finding a job. If this were the case, students might be more comfortable choosing to start in a community college instead of the national research university. Imagine what this would do for access and student debt?

Five Hot Topics in Student Engagement

Student engagement is one of those concepts that has been talked about and researched for many years. Evolving from Alexander Astin’s seminal work on involvement as a means of better understanding the student experience, student engagement is the extent to which students are actively involved in their own learning and the learning environment.

As a higher education practitioner, I find the idea of student engagement to be increasingly relevant in light of the post-traditional nature of today’s college campus and the myriad delivery styles that have been adopted. Colleges that have implemented student engagement strategies are reaping the benefits such as increased retention and more satisfied students.

Leading the way in understanding this concept and the impact it has on campuses across the nation are two national surveys that collect data annually from America’s college students: the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE). In a collaborative effort, these two surveys suggest that students are showing increased engagement in the learning environment leading one to conclude that student engagement is both worth the effort and making a positive impact on current college students.

So, what’s hot in student engagement? Below are five topics I regard as relevant for practitioners today as we seek to engage college students.

Ownership

The debate that rages on my campus is who owns student engagement? Student affairs? The faculty? Students themselves? While I believe that student engagement needs to be centralized, I think all of us have some part to play in the engagement of our students. Student affairs tends to be the home of student engagement based on the programs and activities designed to get students actively involved on campus. But this is only one-third of the experience. Faculty must be willing to come down off the stage and interact with students in meaningful ways. Finally, students themselves must take responsibility for ensuring that engagement occurs because they are the only ones who can take advantage of the opportunities presented. I think this happens when students are academically challenged while concurrently provided support and opportunities to be involved in multiple ways.

Environment

“Engagement is an environment… not an activity.” I tweeted this statement recently because I believe this to be true on our campuses. Too often we adopt a “build it and they will come” mentality whereby we create and offer many programs and activities in an effort to engage with our students when all we need to do is change the model. Such a transformation as this is built on transparency and an open campus environment. Activities create opportunities for involvement and are an important component of student engagement. But an environment where everyone seeks opportunities to connect, whether that be on the quad, in the cafeteria, during and after class or at any point where students and faculty meet, creates a richer engagement culture.

Individualization

While this seems to fly in the face of student engagement it is actually a critical strategy for connecting with students. There is a concept in customer service that applies to our engagement with students: moment of truth. The moment of truth occurs anytime we interact with a student. It is our opportunity to strengthen or diminish the relationship. The more students are involved, both in and out of the classroom, the more likely they will feel as though they are a part of the institution. When colleges practice avoidance instead of engagement, whether intentional or not, they create environments of mistrust and disrespect. This occurs most effectively on an individual basis by everyone on campus. Collectively we can impact engagement… but individually we can change the culture.

Dialogue

Classrooms, whether they have walls or not, should be places of exploration and discovery. We should be crafting conversations that are impactful, meaningful and rejuvenate the spirit of learning. Such conversations can, and should, occur across the campus in multiple venues through various mediums. Learning does not occur in isolation, it occurs in connection with others. The dialogue presented here includes an exposure to diversity from a perspective of inclusion. Robert M. Hutchins once stated, “Education is a kind of continuing dialogue, and a dialogue assumes different points of view.” To strengthen engagement requires us to create safe places on campus for such conversations to happen, whether intentionally or sporadically.

Trust

Finally, I think student engagement simply comes down to trust. Students must be willing to put themselves out there and those of us in positions of authority need to be willing to accept them. Students who feel a sense of trust on campus are more likely to advocate for their needs, respond to opportunities and actively participate in their own learning and in the learning environment. Trust is the lubricant that keeps the machinery of campus moving in a friction-free environment. Trust is built through experience – experiences with faculty, staff and others on campus. Too often we have policies and procedures in place that undervalue the student experience in an effort to make our administrative lives more efficient. Examining these protocols with an eye toward students can lead to stronger bonds of trust.

Alexander Astin, when asked what motivated students to become more involved, stated, “I don’t think most students are actively searching for ways to become more involved. Some are. But in general, the institution determines that - whether they encourage students to become involved actively and create structures that have that effect on students.” This statement summarizes the concepts presented above. It is the structures and culture we create on campus that builds engagement opportunities. Our challenge is to examine our own campus and see what needs to change. I am excited to hear your thoughts.

Everything you need to know you can Learn Online

Innovation is not always synonymous with the administration of higher education. In fact, with budgets shrinking and state allocations frozen or reduced, it has become a challenge to maintain the status quo. To be innovative is almost impossible. But clearly, much good is occurring at colleges across the nation and many students are enrolling, learning, and graduating in ever-increasing numbers. Where is it all heading… what’s the future of higher education?

Distance learning has been around in many forms for more than 50 years. Learning via the internet was pioneered by the higher education community and today there are many opportunities to learn online. But too often these opportunities are simply a new form of the same old classroom. Instead of projectors we now have computer screens, but the expectations, content, delivery, information, and ultimately the learning has not really evolved. The most creative delivery of content available today is found in the form of the flipped classroom or the MOOC… but even these courses, certainly innovatively outside the proverbial box, are offered in a model that is recognizable to most of us. Topical content is delivered and outcomes are measured without ever changing the traditional curriculum model.

Competency, measured through student learning outcomes, is much the same for the online classroom as it is in the traditional classroom. Tests are created, papers are written, discussion ensues, and portfolios are produced based on the material presented by the instructor with little effort required of the student to explore content on their own. True innovation comes when content is delivered in a personalized approach on an as-needed basis with outcomes measured through future performance. In this new curriculum, competency begins to take the form of self-assessment, multisource assessment, interviews, simulation, and ultimately performance in the required concrete and abstract skills.

We need to move from a curriculum model of proclamation and regurgitation to a more enlightened approach that is less concerned with how much a student remembers and more concerned with the ability to seek answers and understand their importance in the pursuit of knowledge and ability. This new curriculum is more about the journey than the destination. No longer should it be acceptable to expect students to pay a large tuition for the privilege of sitting in a classroom to hear a great lecture when the same great ideas can be accessed for much less via the internet. In fact, many of these same faculty members can be found in both places… albeit with the internet version often more real and less canned.

Access to this new curriculum can be obtained easily, at any time, from any location, and in a much more cost-efficient manner than the traditional college classroom. Gone will be the days that cost is a factor in learning replaced by a true egalitarian approach to higher education where anyone of any means can attain a quality education.

While many obstacles exist for such a curriculum to fully be realized, the concept holds promise and is not that far from possibility. This new curriculum takes advantage of the myriad information available online and with a dose of creativity, offers an opportunity for learning that rivals the traditional college. With the emergence of creative means of documenting learning such as Mozilla’s Open Badges, Degreed’s repository of learning, and Accredible’s portfolio, new standards are being created to recognize and verify learning. The new curriculum has the potential of becoming a viable alternative to college as we know it. How will you prepare your campus for this revolution?

Is Google the next MOOC?

In this age of self-directed learning it seems everyone is jumping on the MOOC bandwagon. Who can blame them? The opportunity to learn in the terabyte world of the web is available at the fingertips of anyone with a laptop and an internet connection. But universal access to great thinking is certainly not new. Excite came on the scene in 1993… Yahoo began connecting us in 1994… and the Google revolution has been fulfilling our need for information since 1998. In fact, “Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” What can be more MOOC-like than that?

Is Google the next MOOC? The concept of the massive open online course is relatively new in distance learning, but only in its current iteration. Google is a search engine that meets three of the four criteria to be a MOOC. Google is massive. It has created algorithms and tools that organize a seemingly infinite amount of information on the web. Google is open. It is free and available to users worldwide, easy to use, and provides open access to content on virtually any subject. Google is online, obviously. However, Google is not a course. So, can it be a MOOC?

In our evolution from teacher-directed to self-directed learning, what exactly is a course? While there is some disruption to this concept, MOOC’s are still very traditional in scope and feel. However, with a little creativity, Google can be a course… in fact, it has already ventured into this area with its Advanced Power Searching course. But this is only the beginning. For those who want to learn almost anything, the information is available. When higher education institutions, and more importantly the companies that hire graduates, begin to accept life experience and self-directed learning as adequate substitutes for traditional courses, Google will become a course in the broadest sense. All that will remain is competency and this can be determined by performance outcomes.

Oscar Wilde once said, "Education is a worthwhile thing, but it is well to remember that nothing worth knowing can be taught." His suggestion that individuals must be responsible for their own learning is an important consideration in this discussion of self-directed learning. What better way to learn than to log on and begin surfing?