New Professional Programs

[apl68]

Not meant to be a duplicate of the recent "New Undergrad and Graduate Programs" thread.  The other day I had a chance to visit a couple of long-time faculty members at Alma Mater that I knew back in the day.  One thing we talked about was some of Alma Mater's new professional programs.  Alma Mater is a SLAC that has so far kept its enrollment up.  They know that the nation's demographics mean they can expect more and more trouble recruiting sufficient traditional-age students, so they have been establishing new professional programs.  Besides trying to attract non-traditional-age students, they are also trying to keep some of their undergrads who would otherwise leave to pursue a necessary professional degree--or might not come in the first place without the assurance that they could also get the professional degree there.

Something we've seen a lot over the years on the "Financial Straits" thread has been desperate efforts by struggling schools to set up a new degree program in hopes that it would serve as a cash cow--and usually losing whatever borrowed money they put into the venture, in the manner of struggling farmers who hear that they can make big bucks raising emus or something.  But what about successful efforts to set up a new professional degree program to meet changing demand?  What are examples of such programs?  What sorts of things does it take to make them work?

I think about the unsuccessful "hail Mary" efforts we hear about struggling schools making every time I hear of Alma Mater trying something new.  But they seem to have had some success with these initiatives.  From what my friends there tell me, they're not just emu ranching.  They seem to have been carefully thinking through what programs are in demand among the communities they recruit from, and how they can incorporate faculty and offerings they already have into building the new programs.

So what does it take to adapt to a changing market for higher ed?

[mamselle]

Probably--sorry to say--the exact opposite situation in which most of the new programs are being set up.

In other words, well-placed colleges within well-off R1s can be creative, hive off a few folks for a summer institute as a trial run, and then start offering, say, winter 2-week programs, first, then month-long programs 2-3 times a year, then long-weekend programs, and finally build up to a year-long series of variously-timed offerings that fit into, say, a professional governmental appointee's time frame for a program in public policy, or an academic science professional's open slot for courses in lab funding and maintenance with a mind to grant application chops on the side.

The schools that don't need it, in other words, can play with the timing, the funds, the personnel, and the shape of the offerings, for a few years before making that a more permanent part of their work--even, sometimes, splitting it off into a semi-stand-alone institute.

In other words, they can afford to go through several generations of emus (a fragile bird, sometimes) before the farm starts to pay off.

M. 

[Hegemony]

I have a friend at a well-regarded SLAC that is not struggling too much.

Meanwhile, I'm at a state school that is underfunded and swamped in bureaucracy.

Here at the state school, some of us have been trying to pivot some of our under-enrolled programs to be more career-mindful and to take modern conditions into account. Think cutting back on the Milton seminars (which have to be canceled every year because they enroll 2 students) and offering some "Writing for the Media" courses. Or even framing some Milton in terms of a course on "Good vs. Evil through the Ages."

To make any kind of change like that we need the approval of six or seven different entities fighting for their turf. So almost nothing is getting done.

Meanwhile I see that over at the SLAC where my friend works, they have already put all the new stuff into place. Good on them, I say.

[Ruralguy]

Money and smaller bureaucracy lead to good academic results.

[mamselle]

I have a friend at a well-regarded SLAC that is not struggling too much.

Meanwhile, I'm at a state school that is underfunded and swamped in bureaucracy.

Here at the state school, some of us have been trying to pivot some of our under-enrolled programs to be more career-mindful and to take modern conditions into account. Think cutting back on the Milton seminars (which have to be canceled every year because they enroll 2 students) and offering some "Writing for the Media" courses. Or even framing some Milton in terms of a course on "Good vs. Evil through the Ages."

To make any kind of change like that we need the approval of six or seven different entities fighting for their turf. So almost nothing is getting done.

Meanwhile I see that over at the SLAC where my friend works, they have already put all the new stuff into place. Good on them, I say.

If your "Good and Evil" course included films like "Good Omens," that would be 'way cool.

Just for starters...

M.

[Hibush]

We have a small one that is going ok, a one-year professional masters in a field were well known for. The key was to deploy some underutilized graduate advising capacity in the form of faculty who want to have graduate advisees, but can't afford to pay for them or don't have big enough research programs to attract them. Project based programs for self-pay students lets them use their talent.

[artalot]

We tried to pivot our MBA online using one of those terrible online 'partners.' Suffice to say that we are not notable enough to attract hordes of online students and we are losing money on the deal. There was faculty opposition from the get go, which should have been a big red flag.
On the flip side, a niche program has grown 3 fold. Think a masters in public history, but with a particular slant due to local collections and faculty specialties. The success of this program is due to this rather unique focus and to a director who really believes in it, has re-organized the curriculum to be more responsive to student needs, and gets out there to recruit.
So I think the formula is something like: actual faculty interest and specialty, value added or specialty of the program, dedicated program director.   

[financeguy]

I've taught in three "cash cow" professional programs that give the student the ability to sit for a specific exam, some of which can be in a masters, some a certificate so long as specific classes are shown. I've tried to start one from scratch at institutions locally that would compete with many other making money and have ran into red tape from various parties who are at best tangential to the subject matter that would be taught. You can tell a lot about a school's likelihood to succeed by the ratio of "people who want to actually get something done" to "people who believe they should need to sign off on anything before it can get done."

[secundem_artem]

For years, my program was a cash cow for the uni.  Sadly, other universities, usually in financial trouble, opened a ton of new programs in the field.  We went from ~ 75 programs nationally to ~ 150.  Then student interest in the field as a major dropped off fairly suddenly.  We are no longer the cash cow and have been opening new programs left and right in an attempt to stop the bleeding.  Overall, our enrollment is stable due to the new programs, but we have had to hire a dozen or so new faculty to teach in all these new fields that our existing faculty were not qualified to teach in. 

So.... as was once observed, we're losing money with every student, but making it up on the volume.  8-)

[apl68]

For years, my program was a cash cow for the uni.  Sadly, other universities, usually in financial trouble, opened a ton of new programs in the field.  We went from ~ 75 programs nationally to ~ 150.  Then student interest in the field as a major dropped off fairly suddenly.  We are no longer the cash cow and have been opening new programs left and right in an attempt to stop the bleeding.  Overall, our enrollment is stable due to the new programs, but we have had to hire a dozen or so new faculty to teach in all these new fields that our existing faculty were not qualified to teach in. 

So.... as was once observed, we're losing money with every student, but making it up on the volume.  8-)

I think about your example whenever I hear about Alma Mater trying new programs in hopes of attracting new students.  From what I've heard from those involved, though, it's not so much about trying to tap new markets as trying to respond to changing needs and wants in the sorts of students they've already been serving.  They're trying to keep up with a changing world before they get desperate enough to jump onto whatever the current bandwagon happens to be.

[mamselle]

Yes, the trouble with bandwagons is that the parade keeps moving along.

M.