administrators

More programs seek to train those in enrollment management

Section: 

USC program is latest entrant into a growing field of post-graduate degree or certificate programs in enrollment management.

Questions on Fund-Raising Tactic of U. of Iowa Hospitals

The University of Iowa is raising money for its hospitals in part by sharing information about patients with fund raisers for the university foundation, who in turn solicit gifts with letters signed by physicians, The Des Moines Register reported. Further, the foundation is letting physicians know when patients are donors, and the foundation and hospitals are working together on "wealth screenings" of patients. University officials said that these activities are legal and necessary, but some patient advocates expressed dismay.

Ad keywords: 

BREAKING: Virginia President, in Split With Board, Resigns

The University of Virginia announced Sunday that President Teresa A. Sullivan, in office for just under two years, will resign on August 15. The announcement shocked many at the university, with faculty leaders and prominent campus officials reporting that they had seen no sign of any imminent change in the works, and several said on background that they believed Sullivan had been doing an excellent job.

In a statement, Sullivan cited an unspecified "philosophical difference of opinion" with the board.

A statement from Helen Dragas, the rector (U.Va.'s title for board chair), praised Sullivan, but also suggested a board view that she was insufficiently bold. "[T]he board feels strongly and overwhelmingly that we need bold and proactive leadership on tackling the difficult issues that we face. The pace of change in higher education and in health care has accelerated greatly in the last two years. We have calls internally for resolution of tough financial issues that require hard decisions on resource allocation. The compensation of our valued faculty and staff has continued to decline in real terms, and we acknowledge the tremendous task ahead of making star hires to fill the many spots that will be vacated over the next few years as our eminent faculty members retire in great numbers. These challenges are truly an existential threat to the greatness of UVA," the statement said.

The statement continued by outlining the goal of being in "the top echelon" of universities. "To achieve these aspirations, the board feels the need for a bold leader who can help develop, articulate, and implement a concrete and achievable strategic plan to re-elevate the University to its highest potential. We need a leader with a great willingness to adapt the way we deliver our teaching, research, and patient care to the realities of the external environment. We need a leader who is able to passionately convey a vision to our community, and effectively obtain gifts and buy-in towards our collective goals."

Inside Higher Ed will have a full article on Sullivan's departure tomorrow morning.

Ad keywords: 

Bribery Probe of 2 Officials at Pasadena City College

Pasadena City College announced Thursday that it has placed two senior officials -- Richard Van Pelt, vice president of administrative services, and Alfred Hutchings, facilities services supervisor -- on administrative leave, pending the results of a bribery-related investigation by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, The Los Angeles Times reported. The D.A.'s office executed search warrants at the officials' homes and offices Thursday, in an investigations of alleged solicitation of bribes involving a contract from the college. No charges have been filed and the officials could not be reached for comment.

 

Ad keywords: 

New presidents provosts Algonquin CalWestern New Rochelle Pune WCU Western State

  • Angela Laird Brenton, dean of the College of Professional Studies at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, has been appointed provost and vice chancellor for academic affairs at Western Carolina University.
  • Dorothy Escribano, senior vice president for academic affairs at the College of New Rochelle, in New York, has been promoted to provost there.

Florida A&M Board Votes No Confidence in President

The board of Florida A&M University voted 8-4 Thursday that it lacks confidence in James Ammons, the university's president, The Orlando Sentinel reported. Ammons has faced much criticism for failing to deal with widespread hazing by the university's band -- hazing that has received considerable attention since the death of a student last year. But questions have also been raised about other issues, including the university's fragile finances and audits suggesting inadequate management controls. Ammons vowed at the board meeting that he would improve. "I hear you loudly and clearly," Ammons said before the vote. " I understand there are some measures I have to take as president of this university to fix things and I'm going to fix them. This is very serious. This is very serious for the future of this university and you have my commitment to fix them and get this job done." The board did not vote to suspend or fire him.

Ad keywords: 

Essay questions value of defining higher education primarily as tool for economic development

"This is the first stride towards making SUNY the economic engine that it can be and should be for this state. SUNY is poised to be a great economic engine." That was New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo last August, signing a bill that gave the four SUNY centers $140 million to drive regional economic development.

Since I work there, it’s the case I’m most familiar with, but SUNY is hardly the only school to label itself an economic engine in recent years. Indiana University, the University of Iowa, Rutgers University, Ohio State University: there’s hardly a public university out there that hasn’t let legislators know that investing in it will pay off economically.

The "economic engine" model implies a certain story about why the university matters. Universities do the research that drives technological innovation, the story goes. The inventions of faculty are spun off into start-ups, or transferred to existing companies, where they create new products, jobs, industries, and economic growth.

In some ways this is true, of course. Google was started at Stanford University, Genentech at the University of California at San Francisco. But lately, selling the university as an economic engine seems to be the only way to gain legislators’ support in a climate of scarcity.

Metaphors matter. If we think of universities as economic engines, we’re going to encourage some activities — like technology transfer and public-private partnerships. And these may indeed be things we want to
encourage. Choosing some priorities, though, means not choosing others. Some implications of the economic engine model, like the defunding of the humanities, are fairly obvious. Others, though, get less attention. Here are five reasons we should think twice about what we lose, as well as gain, when we turn our universities into economic engines.

The short-term beats out the long-term. The private sector, reasonably enough, wants to collaborate on research that will impact the bottom line within a few years. But sometimes it’s the research that will take a decade or more to bear fruit that matters most.

Take public plant breeding, for example. Big agricultural companies have huge programs that support research in plant breeding. But they only focus on a handful of commercially viable crops, and while they fund some academic science, they’re mostly interested in research that will have short-term results.

But plant breeding is slow work — after all, generations of crops have to grow. Though genomics is speeding things up, developing a new crop variety can easily take 10 years. And it’s the ambitious, long-shot research — on perennial grains that could make better use of marginal lands, or minor crops, like millet and tef, that are important to the developing world — that won’t get done unless academics do it.

Yet public plant breeders are rapidly becoming an endangered species. Plant breeders attract six-figure salaries in industry, but face declining budgets in academe, even though they’re probably among our most important scientists. By valuing short-term priorities that work for industry over longer-term investment, the current model pushes them closer to extinction.

Profitable products are favored over more diffuse benefits. The economic engine model focuses on discrete inventions that can be transferred to the private sector for development. What it deprioritizes is research whose economic benefits are not so easily captured.

Universities are very fond of research on pharmaceuticals and medical devices, for example. A blockbuster drug, while a long shot, can result in payoffs in the hundreds of millions of dollars from licensing revenues.

But the payoffs from public health interventions, which often keep people from getting sick in the first place, can be just as large. Yet public health research is chronically underfunded in relation to medical science. Improvements in workplace safety, disease prevention, infectious disease control, and food safety transformed life in the twentieth century. But no one will ever launch a campaign for universities to drive economic
development by studying how to prevent heart disease. There’s just no money in it.

Not all economic growth is created equal. The purpose of an economic engine is to drive economic development. But development is good because it creates human benefits, not for its own sake. Making
economic development the mission of the university doesn’t distinguish between the kind of growth we want, and the kind that deserves our skepticism.

The American Economic Review, for example, recently published an article on the environmental externalities created by different industries. Nicholas Muller, Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus estimate
that the air pollution produced by some industries, notably oil- and coal-fired power plants, costs more than the economic value they create.

Universities, then, might want to think twice about the real benefits of the growth they hope to create. Hydraulic fracturing, for instance, creates opportunities for public-private partnerships that many universities would like to take advantage of. But using the university to drive the expansion of fracking before its environmental costs are clear is not a winning strategy.

Innovation is prioritized over education. In the economic engine model, universities’ impact comes from their scientific inventions. But research is only one part of what universities, even research universities, do. And in a zero-sum budget climate, sinking support into scientific research can come at the expense of education.

To pick an example close to (my) home, the State University of New York at Albany is very proud of its College for Nanoscale Science and Engineering. It has attracted many billions of dollars in investment from
companies like IBM, Intel, and Samsung, and has world-class facilities. President Obama stopped by recently to hold it up as an example of what the U.S. should be doing more of.

But the CNSE is almost purely a research operation. The $1.2 billion contributed by the state of New York over the last 11 years has produced only 135 graduates to date.

Now, education is clearly not CNSE’s main purpose. But while it expanded, the rest of the university — whose budget is separate from CNSE —  lost 30 percent of its state support, some $30 million, over three years. Notoriously, this resulted in plans to close three language departments, classics, and theater.

There are lots of reasons CNSE has received so much money from the state, not least that it’s attracted even more from the private sector. And it’s not like someone stole the funds from French and gave them to CNSE. Yet at some level these tradeoffs are real — we’re choosing to fund innovation, but not education.

Non-economic benefits are discounted entirely. All the tradeoffs above are, in some sense, economic. But there is one more tradeoff that is at least as important. By focusing on universities’ roles as economic engines, we devalue their noneconomic contributions.

Universities produce not only workers, or technology, but citizens— ideally, ones who can think clearly, critically, and independently. Having more such citizens is vital to our democracy, not just our economy. And at their best, universities transform people’s lives through the love of learning and the pursuit of knowledge, not just by improving their job prospects.

When the economy is stagnating and university budgets are being cut, it may make sense, strategically, for universities to declare themselves economic engines. It may even be inevitable. But if we do, we should be
very aware of what is lost, as well as gained, when we make this call.

Elizabeth Popp Berman is assistant professor of sociology at the State University of New York at Albany. She is the author of Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine (Princeton University Press).

New York's Top Court Rejects Suit Over Baseball Injury

New York State's highest court on Tuesday ruled that Shawn Bukowski did not have the right to sue Clarkson University over injuries he suffered during a baseball practice. Bukowski was a pitcher who -- in his first "live" practice -- had a ball hit right back at him, striking his jaw and breaking a tooth. His suit argued that he was not fully introduced to the circumstances and dangers he would face in practice. But the court found otherwise. "[P]laintiff was an experienced and knowledgeable baseball player who assumed the inherent risk of being hit by a line drive," the court ruled.

Ad keywords: 

Colleges must seek new kinds of leaders (essay)

Pathways to the Presidency

Wrapping up their series on what different types of colleges and universities should seek in new leaders, Richard Skinner and Emily Miller urge boards to think boldly.

Ad keywords: 

Comparing universities' sports subsidies to library spending (essay)

Everyone talks about the amount of money spent on college football, superstar coaches, television contracts and stadiums. They worry about an imbalance between the expense of university sports programs and the challenge of funding the academic enterprise. These real concerns provoke often-impassioned responses from those who defend or attack the current state of intercollegiate athletics in America.

Unfortunately, much of the noise tends to focus on extreme examples, spectacularly paid coaches of whom we may have only a dozen or so out of the hundreds of college sports personnel, super-sized stadiums and sports department budgets when most sports programs operate on a more modest scale. The targets are attractive because the celebrity status of big-time football and basketball fill pages of newspapers and specialty magazines, appear endlessly on multiple television channels, and enjoy the attention of rabid fans.

Yet college sports is a complicated enterprise that serves many interests at institutions public and private, large and small. Sports are a pervasive part of American culture, and like other high-profile activities (such as finance, real estate or banking), there are bad actors, people of questionable integrity, and errors of commission and omission that attract justifiable outrage and response.

Those of us who live in the academic world, however, sometimes have trouble sorting out the real impact of college sports on our lives. We can understand this competitive world better if we separate the institution of intercollegiate athletics into its various parts, including the engagement of students, the lives of student-athletes (both celebrity performers and regular participants), the involvement of alumni and public, and the financial consequences of sustaining these programs.

Of these, the financial elements are most accessible thanks to data collected by the NCAA and required by various federal reporting rules. Money in universities is always important, especially in these difficult economic times, and we looked for a way to index the university’s cost of intercollegiate athletics to the institution's budget.

Sports expenses are funded from earned revenue (tickets, television, sales, gifts and similar revenue generated by the athletic activity itself), and from institutional revenue available for any purpose (student fees and university funds). The institutional revenue is a subsidy for an enterprise that in the best of all possible worlds should earn its own way in much the same fashion as other university nonacademic enterprises such as food services, bookstores, parking, and housing.

All but a few universities, however, subsidize athletics from student fees and general university revenue. We should ask how significant that subsidy is within the general framework of the university's academic activities. With some sense of the relationship between subsidy and academics, we can assess when sports consume too much of our academic resources.

We could compare the sports subsidy to the cost of a college of business perhaps, or to the cost of an honors program. Each university's organization is substantially different, however, making these units hard to compare.

Libraries, especially for research universities, are stable, standard enterprises central to the work of the university in a continuing way. In addition, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) has maintained standard data on library expenses, revenue, and budgets (as well as other statistics of significance) for many decades. We anticipated that a comparison of the athletics subsidy to the expenditures on the research university's library could provide a useful reference for understanding the wide variation in the financial impact of college sports on academic institutions.

Aiding in this illustration are the data compiled by USA Today on college sports finances, although its data involve only Division I public institutions whose information is available under freedom of information rules. Private universities prefer we not see their numbers.

If we take the 64 Division I public research university members of the Association of Research Libraries (all major research universities of varying size and complexity) and compare their athletic subsidies to the cost of their libraries as reflected in the ARL data, we can get a useful distribution of the impact of sports subsidies on academic enterprises. These research universities maintain libraries to support their instructional and research programs, compete for the best students and faculty, compete as well for the external funding that makes research at this level possible, and require strong libraries for their success.

The size of the libraries reflects an institutional commitment to the academic enterprise, while the sports subsidy for the sports program reflects a commitment to the nonacademic competitiveness of athletics. The subsidy also represents an institutional investment that the institution could have allocated to academic enterprises but instead uses to pay part of the cost of the intercollegiate athletic program, a nonacademic enterprise.

The table below clearly illustrates that the impact of college sports on the academic enterprise varies widely from those institutions whose sports programs require no subsidy (and therefore have no detrimental impact on the academic enterprise) to those sports programs whose subsidy reaches one and a half times the total library budget, clearly a major impact.

These varying impacts are not the result of dramatic changes over time in the library expenditures (which have followed the general trend of university budgets throughout recent years). The impact is the consequence of a college sports environment that requires growing expenses to sustain competitive or even functional programs at the Division I level. When the university must subsidize the athletic program, it indicates that sports at that institution do not compete well enough to earn sufficient revenue from attendance, television, sponsorships, alumni and donors, and must spend university money to stay within the competitive context of Division I.

The wide variation in subsidy also indicates that if the revenue of public universities continues to decline, some institutions may find their level of subsidy for athletics at the expense of academics too high for the other benefits sports provides. That could prompt a change in competitive division within the NCAA, or the elimination of a variety of high-cost sports.

However, those of us who have lived in various institutions know that while talk of curtailing expenditures on sports is common and enthusiastic among many faculty and some outside commentators, the constituencies for college sports among alumni, trustees, elected officials, and fans are passionate at unbelievable levels. Trustees, alumni and elected officials, in addition to fans of all kinds, want their sports regardless of the subsidy required at the expense of the academic enterprise.

Perhaps along with the other financial requirements for participation in the NCAA Division I, we might expect such programs to limit their institutional subsidies to less than a third of their library budget. That may, however, be asking too much.

Subsidy of College Athletics (2010-11) and
Library Expenditures (2008-9)
Division I Public Research Universities

Institution

Total Library Expenditures

Total Sports Subsidy

Ratio Subsidy to Library

University of Delaware

$18,734,280

$28,535,457

1.52

Ohio University

$13,268,842

$19,576,760

1.48

University of Massachusetts at Amherst

$15,403,001

$22,043,976

1.43

Kent State University

$12,551,309

$16,717,874

1.33

State University of New York at Stony Brook

$13,772,703

$17,887,144

1.30

University of California at Davis

$19,932,904

$20,953,181

1.05

University of Houston

$20,149,427

$20,142,457

1.00

State University of New York at Albany

$12,506,329

$12,444,324

1.00

State University of New York at Buffalo

$21,026,650

$20,823,478

0.99

Colorado State University

$15,334,082

$14,128,711

0.92

Southern Illinois University at Carbondale

$15,228,311

$13,961,656

0.92

University of California at Riverside

$13,395,277

$11,872,584

0.89

Rutgers University

$33,219,035

$28,475,523

0.86

Washington State University

$14,356,836

$11,531,641

0.80

University of New Mexico

$20,809,647

$16,605,866

0.80

University of Cincinnati

$20,330,143

$14,708,672

0.72

University of Colorado at Boulder

$22,131,757

$15,518,149

0.70

University of Hawaii

$19,076,939

$11,986,408

0.63

University of Maryland at College Park

$25,783,433

$15,861,641

0.62

University of California at Santa Barbara

$19,197,432

$11,484,580

0.60

University of Connecticut

$26,831,009

$15,029,723

0.56

University of California at Irvine

$21,947,912

$11,833,894

0.54

Virginia Tech

$14,177,077

$7,591,114

0.54

Georgia Institute of Technology

$12,511,623

$6,454,071

0.52

University of Louisville

$19,533,056

$10,061,012

0.52

University of Illinois at Chicago

$20,616,384

$10,360,432

0.50

Florida State University

$15,750,486

$7,528,006

0.48

Arizona State University

$24,640,095

$10,660,952

0.43

University of Utah

$23,948,377

$9,381,567

0.39

University of Virginia

$34,248,073

$12,973,298

0.38

Auburn University

$12,276,211

$4,307,040

0.35

Oklahoma State University

$17,886,909

$6,187,333

0.35

University of Alabama

$17,430,914

$5,235,300

0.30

University of Arizona

$30,645,753

$7,396,592

0.24

Texas Tech University

$26,049,443

$5,788,180

0.22

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

$40,769,990

$8,829,369

0.22

University of California at Berkeley

$51,973,099

$10,505,850

0.20

University of Minnesota

$41,225,580

$7,778,861

0.19

University of Wisconsin at Madison

$43,732,756

$7,237,901

0.17

Iowa State University

$23,250,210

$3,739,115

0.16

University of Missouri at Columbia

$17,235,752

$2,681,641

0.16

University of Florida

$28,147,202

$4,367,071

0.16

University of Oregon

$16,074,716

$2,419,855

0.15

University of Kansas

$23,042,922

$3,436,907

0.15

University of Georgia

$22,802,390

$3,197,387

0.14

Michigan State University

$26,411,564

$3,650,280

0.14

University of South Carolina

$19,284,992

$2,248,275

0.12

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

$41,600,882

$3,983,640

0.10

Indiana University at Bloomington

$33,147,603

$2,686,769

0.08

University of Washington

$43,956,131

$2,458,983

0.06

University of California at Los Angeles

$50,205,645

$2,587,439

0.05

University of Tennessee at Knoxville

$23,515,580

$1,000,000

0.04

North Carolina State University

$28,483,805

$1,088,895

0.04

University of Kentucky

$21,734,374

$819,124

0.04

University of Iowa

$29,517,181

$564,680

0.02

University of Michigan

$53,134,323

$272,684

0.01

Texas A&M University

$36,374,551

$9,856

0.00

Louisiana State University

$13,428,011

$0

0.00

Ohio State University

$38,818,365

$0

0.00

Pennsylvania State University

$49,451,130

$0

0.00

Purdue University

$24,830,291

$0

0.00

University of Nebraska at Lincoln

$15,230,621

$0

0.00

University of Oklahoma

$23,865,613

$0

0.00

University of Texas at Austin

$46,205,263

$0

0.00

Sports subsidy and library budget data refer to public Division I universities whose libraries are members of the Association of Research Libraries.

Sources: Association of Research Libraries (in The Chronicle of Higher Education) and USA Today.

 

John V. Lombardi is a professor of history at Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - administrators
Back to Top