BlogU

  • Performing to Make Money—Making Money to Perform

    By John V. Lombardi October 19, 2008 6:17 pm

    In the endless Sisyphean task of explaining university finances to many audiences, we often encounter considerable skepticism about our permanent need for more money. No university worth its diplomas will argue that it has enough money to do its job. Not even the richest among us.

    Instead, we seek continuously increasing revenue from our states, the federal government, our students, corporate sponsors, and of course our donors. We have a wide range of creative stories we tell about the wonderful things the money brings: more and better students, services, economic development, and significant research. It is all true, as we know, but nonetheless, we can see the skepticism in the eyes of our legislators, some of our donors, many of our students’ parents, and the army of reformers who imagine high quality education should be a free good.

    Sometimes we despair, but then again, the job is to preach the gospel of higher education to the unbelievers whether conversion takes place or not. There is a story we can tell, however, that sometimes reaches difficult audiences, especially those made up of business people.

    Universities are indeed business enterprises, we can explain. They earn and spend money, they produce and sell a wide array of products, and they compete for student customers and high quality faculty employees. They produce teaching and research, they require students and faculty, and they judge their performance on the quality work both perform. Most people in our audiences will recognize all this as more or less appropriate and right. Then we come to the money.

    Universities, we can tell them, are revenue engines with a business model fundamentally different from our corporate colleagues. The business world constructs enterprises to produce and sell products or services with the goal of making money. A successful business earns a profit that it distributes to its owners. The business measures its success by the amount of money (or value) created for its stockholders or owners. This is simple. If the business cannot make the product and sell it for a profit, it stops making that product and makes a different one that it can sell at a profit, because the point of the exercise is the profit not the product.

    In the university however, we do something different. We engage in an intense and focused search for money so we can produce teaching and research (with all of its associated benefits). The more money we can generate the more and the better teaching and research we can do. The purpose of the money is to purchase quality teaching and quality research and support a quality university environment. We compete with each other not to make a profit but to acquire quality. We define the successful university by the total amount of quality it can accumulate (demonstrated by its products) within its boundaries.

    Quality is rare and expensive because the best students and the best faculty can choose where to go and participate in the creation of quality. To get the best, we have to provide them with an ideal environment for realizing their dreams and aspirations. The people whose work we enable through the environment, the facilities, the support, and the opportunities we create using the revenue acquired from all those difficult sources generate the quality products. The point of the university is the quality product, not the money. For us, the money makes the quality product possible. For the business, the quality product makes the money possible.

    The business model produces quality at a cost below what the market will pay for the product. The university model spends its revenue to produce the highest quality its money can buy, and then pursues additional money to buy more quality. We spend in a competition to acquire quality for our institutions where our business counterparts spend in a competition to produce higher profit margins for its owners. In the university, there are no owners; there are only quality producers. We compete to buy the highest quality producers our resources and the efficiency and effectiveness of our institutional systems permit.

    In the business world, the one with the most profit taken out of the enterprise wins.

    In the university world, the one with the most money invested into the creation of quality products wins.

    Our business colleagues are not sure this is rational, but once they see the rules of university competition, they understand better how we play the game.

Advertisement

Comments on Performing to Make Money—Making Money to Perform

  • Money
  • Posted by George at csulb on October 24, 2008 at 12:15pm EDT
  • The definition of best does not include the actual interaction with the students. Money is not everything - Washington DC gets the most money per student and has one of the worst records in K-12. A little bit of respect for those that love to teach goes a long way. Treat your adjuncts better and you will be amazed at how much better the university gets without increases in funding.

  • Posted by Linda Gast , Asst Prof & Counselor at University of Maryland on November 19, 2008 at 11:00am EST
  • Your commentary on business vs. university models (making money to perform or performing to make money) is one of the most cogent arguments I have seen. Thank you!

  • Posted by The Epicurean Dealmaker on November 20, 2008 at 4:00pm EST
  • "Quality at any cost" may indeed be the implicit organization model of private educational institutions. However, this can 1) make such institutions inefficient creators of "quality" and 2) render such institutions vulnerable to the inevitable backlash among their end consumers when such consumers' money runs out.

    We are close to discovering, in my opinion, just how valuable the "quality" higher education has been pursuing at any cost for so many decades is to the end consumers who attend and pay for their budgets. The economic environment is such that many educators will discover to their horror that their historical license to print money has been revoked.

    http://epicureandealmaker.blogspot.com/2008/11/et-in-arcadia-ego.html

  • Making Money Off the Hope of Students
  • Posted by Muneerah Crawford on December 1, 2008 at 10:30am EST
  • Lendors and others in the financial aid group are lying to students about the real cost of the education.
    No where in the application or promissory note does it say that if you fall behind on a loan, (or if the lendor makes a mistake on the loan and then refuses to correct it, causing the loan to default)
    that the loan will baloon to over ten times the original amount.

    Restore consumer protection for student loans.

  • Posted by Bruce G Rogers on December 9, 2008 at 7:05am EST
  • The author states that the reason for making a product is to make a profit. That is the philosophy of many businessmen, but, in my opinion, it is why those businessmen are now in trouble. They should have the goal to make the best product, with the expectation that it will be purchased, thus allowing them to continue to make the best product. If it does not sell, then they might reconsider whether it is the best product. Perhaps they may need to improve it so that people will buy it, or make a new product if the product actually is not one that people should be buying.
    Years ago, I wanted to buy a small car, but Detroit said that those did not make enough profit, so I bought a VW. They still do not make a good small car, so I bought a Nissan. Detroit needs new management that will build cars that people want. That is the true free-enterprise system.

  • Posted by Steve on January 7, 2009 at 1:25pm EST
  • There are a few issues with this line of argumentation. Money, in general, is not the solution, as policies can be enacted that are better performing or more cost effective than others. Money does not guarantee quality programs, greater graduation rates, or better job placement. Collecting money, does not guarantee distribution of money, as many college foundations distribute less than 5% of their endowments which are untaxed. It is reasonable to expect that money given to universities be used, and be used in an effective and quantifiable manner. The final criticism is the difference between public and private institutions. Additional public support, requires additional public good, not just new buildings and construction jobs, but additional learning, better performing students, and lower graduation debt levels.

  • What is quality
  • Posted by Mike , Assistant Dean at Mercer University School of Law on January 9, 2009 at 5:15pm EST
  • Infusion of money into higher education institutions by investors would be more palatable if "quality" were easy to define. Consumers intuitively understand quality when it comes to the purchase of a product or service: 1)was the product durable? 2)did product perform as advertised? and 3)was the service performed correctly? When the academy lacks agreement on what quality is and how to go about defining it, it is certainly plausible that donors, students, legislators and any other investor whould be skittish about dropping their cash. This is something the higher education community should work on.

  • Posted by Ohanepecosh , Dr. on January 20, 2009 at 12:10am EST
  • Naughty boy! Apologize to your readers, please. I cannot withstand another paroxysm of belly laughter!