Colleges in Dire Financial Straits

[spork]

Mills College to Sell Shakespeare First Folio, Mozart Manuscript Amid Budget Woes

https://www.kqed.org/arts/13871311/mills-college-to-sell-shakespeare-first-folio-mozart-manuscript-amid-budget-woes

This seems incredibly short-sighted and a good way to alienate donors. (Among many others!)

Donors? What donors? Mills has been in a death spiral for several years.

[polly_mer]

Mills College to Sell Shakespeare First Folio, Mozart Manuscript Amid Budget Woes

https://www.kqed.org/arts/13871311/mills-college-to-sell-shakespeare-first-folio-mozart-manuscript-amid-budget-woes

This seems incredibly short-sighted and a good way to alienate donors. (Among many others!)

Donors? What donors? Mills has been in a death spiral for several years.

I agree with Spork's incredulousness.

From everything we've seen on this thread and its predecessor, Mills is at the decision point of gracefully closing or doing all the very short-sighted actions that pay the bills today, but contribute to closing of the institution in the longer run.

A 2017 IHE article on Mills declaring financial emergency indicated an endowment of $177M with an annual budget of $57M, but a gap of $9M .  As for alienating donors, nothing on Mills' website indicate that they have many donors able to donate at the millionish dollar level.  Instead, I see a gift recognition structure much like Super Dinky's that has $1500 in a single year as worthy of recognition and a top level of $25k+.  In contrast, University of Southern California has the Widney Society for donors of $1M or more with a USC associates structure that lists first the Chairman level of $300k over 5 years and an annual contribution of $3k down to a junior level of $25k spread over 5 years and an annual gift of $250

If Mills were regularly getting gifts in the million dollar range, then their recognition structure would look more like USC's.  One thing that kills smaller, niche schools financially in the long run is having relatively few alumni (can't have many total alumni at 100-200 graduates per year) and having a very small fraction of the alumni making upper-middle class money to be able to give generously (hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of five years) to their alma mater. 

So, yes, it seems short-sighted to sell this fabulous piece of human knowledge that has research value as well as monetary value.  However, in terms of supporting the student body as a whole, one research item that few students will use during their time and for which scholars will not be paying big entrance fees to use is not nearly as useful as the money to pay excellent professors or keep the rest of the library functional.

[stemer]

I strongly disagree that the best way to spend higher ed resources is to prop up everything instead of making the conscious choice to gracefully close some institutions and redirect the resources elsewhere. 

Higher ed is not the only need in our society and therefore must be better about allocating limited resources.

<snip>

But I will also post what I have before, and that is that someday historians, economists, educators, philosophers, novelists, and politicians will be examining about our era, and I imagine a perennial question: 'How did one of the most educated, wealthy, and democratic societies in history come to value education so little that it allowed its system to deteriorate?' 

<snip

It did not deteriorate, it self-corrected.

Perhaps. 

But semantics are largely pointless.

We are losing schools and departments and jobs and tenure and endangering whatever preeminence we might have. 

Wordplay however you want, it is still the dismantling / attenuation / dissolution /  devolving / deterioration / etc. of our higher ed system.  Every school we lose is an impoverishment. 

Look at any part of the world in which education is not a significant component.  Whatever else goes on in society, education is a social good.  Why we treat it as if it is expendable I cannot understand.

It is not wordplay or semantics.

I fully appreciate the impact these closings have to our profession, our colleagues and to society at large.  But we (us, the faculty) have also been part of a system that has allowed the number of insitutions to become unreasonably high while being complicit to the borderline criminal practice of saddling our students and their families with crushing debt. 

I am very afraid that this higher-ed imposion is the societal "payback time" for an educational system that became unncessarilly expensive by allowing institutions to become top-heavy spas rather than academic establishments. This is the effect of the administrative bloat, having on-campus climbing walls and the hi-tech dorms to just get students to apply.

I am not sure that the notion of what you refer as 'expendable' is suitable here. Call it "market forces", "survival of the fittest", "supply and demand" or whatever, the bubble is popping.  Unfortunately, we are all emotionally affected by the imposion because the pain is felt most in the smaller, weaker and tuition-driven institutions, the HBCs, the SLACs that thought they could follow the well-endowed places. 

[stemer]

I strongly disagree that the best way to spend higher ed resources is to prop up everything instead of making the conscious choice to gracefully close some institutions and redirect the resources elsewhere. 

Higher ed is not the only need in our society and therefore must be better about allocating limited resources.

<snip>

But I will also post what I have before, and that is that someday historians, economists, educators, philosophers, novelists, and politicians will be examining about our era, and I imagine a perennial question: 'How did one of the most educated, wealthy, and democratic societies in history come to value education so little that it allowed its system to deteriorate?' 

<snip

It did not deteriorate, it self-corrected.

Describing the closure of colleges, which is a wrenching event for the local and alumni communities affected, as a market self-correction sounds rather callous.  That said, it is true that quite a few institutions seem to have lost whatever distinctive educational mission they once had.  When a region--especially in a time of demographic decline--is thickly populated with such no-longer-distinctive schools, it does seem only to be expected that some will end up closing.  Much as I hate seeing SLACs close in principle--I know how I'd feel if it ever happened to my alma mater--some of these closings probably aren't such a terrible loss in the great scheme of things. 

What is a matter of concern is the way so many states have defunded higher education in recent years.  Even here, though, some retrenchment is surely unavoidable, given changes in demographics and the needs and perceived needs of the workforce.

I am sorry if you found my description ("self correcting") of what you describe as "deterioration" to be callous. But I will ask you a variation of your question: 'How did one of the most educated, wealthy, and democratic societies in history turned college to a luxury good that forced generations of students and their families into crushing debt?

I think I know the answer: "it was all the evil adminstrators' fault, faculty were the underpaid innocent bystanders". Sorry, apl68, we are all accessories to this debackle, no matter how much we (the faculty) want to shed off any responsibility.

[Wahoo Redux]

But we (us, the faculty) have also been part of a system that has allowed the number of insitutions to become unreasonably high while being complicit to the borderline criminal practice of saddling our students and their families with crushing debt. 

The majority of American institutions of higher education were founded in the 19th century and then responded to societal needs, such as the G.I. Bill and the population explosion of the Boomer generation, by expanding and opening satellite campuses.  The CC system responded to the need or professional education in the 1920s.  The current sitting faculty had almost nothing to do with the "unreasonably high" number of schools in the U.S.  WTF are you even talking about?!

The cost of education has steadily risen because of increasing costs of technology, increased costs of operations, and general C.o.L.  Tuition has risen because of dwindling state support in the face of these factors.  Colleges have been cutting every corner they could, largely by slicing the professorate into a mash of paraprofessionals, many of whom have not seen a raise in 20 years.

I am very afraid that this higher-ed imposion is the societal "payback time" for an educational system that became unncessarilly expensive by allowing institutions to become top-heavy spas rather than academic establishments.

I highly doubt that you are an academic.  If you are then you have taught in schools which are radically different from the ones I am familiar with. 

This is the effect of the administrative bloat, having on-campus climbing walls and the hi-tech dorms to just get students to apply.

Not where I work.  Not at most places I've seen.  Do you know what you are posting about?

I am not sure that the notion of what you refer as 'expendable' is suitable here. Call it "market forces", "survival of the fittest", "supply and demand" or whatever, the bubble is popping.  Unfortunately, we are all emotionally affected by the imposion because the pain is felt most in the smaller, weaker and tuition-driven institutions, the HBCs, the SLACs that thought they could follow the well-endowed places.

I think we know all this.  What I and others suggest is that education has a much bigger mission than than can be encapsulated in terms appropriate for business.  We all stand to lose if our higher ed system buckles----and yes, if one has a dull wingnut brain made entirely of money, this includes the economy and forces such medical and engineering research (which generally appeal to money-brained individuals).

So I am pretty sure you are not an academic but simply someone who has swallowed the party line and has come here to froth.

[polly_mer]

So I am pretty sure you are not an academic but simply someone who has swallowed the party line and has come here to froth.

I disagree because the diversity of institutions across the entire US higher ed sector is such that people can have been at several institutions and never been at the truly struggling.  I was heavily involved with teaching professional societies that had state sections with monthly or biannual face-to-face meetings hosted by faculty's home institution.

On paper, some of those institutions were very similar to Super Dinky.  Yet, visiting the campuses brought out some huge discrepancies.  Super Dinky was resource-strapped and showed it literally everywhere on campus.  Even the nice, most recently renovated buildings were not nearly as nice as the other small institutions that were similar size and I knew had similar financial troubles due to reading the accreditors reports including probation notices and knowing the Department of Education's current list.  Other institutions had more modern facilities that didn't come up to the lazy river extravagance, but were far nicer (ooh, look a couple exercise bikes and free weights) than our gym at which one could sometimes check out a basketball and that's about it.  Those other institutions had multiple places on campus at which one could eat, not one cafeteria line with a main dish and a handful of sides or a sandwich option.

We used to end up sometimes at the big CC that had nicer amenities than Super Dinky, but weren't extravagant the way the amenities were at the S(elective) LAC.  However, the amenities at the state flagship were much, much better than the amenities at the regional comprehensives that were still hugely better than Super Dinky's amenities that weren't top of the line when they were first built in the mid-sixties since the regional comprehensives had had updates in the past 20 years.

It's true that many struggling places have no frills or extra administrators to cut.  That doesn't mean that some places don't have significant frills and extra administrators that would be eliminated if the top N goals were all on academic teaching and learning.

[apostrophe]

So I am pretty sure you are not an academic but simply someone who has swallowed the party line and has come here to froth.

I disagree because the diversity of institutions across the entire US higher ed sector is such that people can have been at several institutions and never been at the truly struggling.  I was heavily involved with teaching professional societies that had state sections with monthly or biannual face-to-face meetings hosted by faculty's home institution.

I've seen some things, institution-wise, and doubt that anyone is completely untouched by the new realities of higher ed–but I think that's beside the point that Wahoo is criticizing. Attributing blame for complex, systematic changes on climbing walls is just lazy-river thinking.

[polly_mer]

So I am pretty sure you are not an academic but simply someone who has swallowed the party line and has come here to froth.

I disagree because the diversity of institutions across the entire US higher ed sector is such that people can have been at several institutions and never been at the truly struggling.  I was heavily involved with teaching professional societies that had state sections with monthly or biannual face-to-face meetings hosted by faculty's home institution.

I've seen some things, institution-wise, and doubt that anyone is completely untouched by the new realities of higher ed–but I think that's beside the point that Wahoo is criticizing. Attributing blame for complex, systematic changes on climbing walls is just lazy-river thinking.

Could be, but that's not the same as the assertion that someone is clearly not an academic because an individual is focusing on the details that are most vivid in their experience instead of citing details that are most vivid to someone else.

For example, I am amused every time I read the assertion that too much unnecessary administration is clearly a big contributing factor to tight budgets.  Super Dinky only had about 100 total employees at any given time and I mean total -- adjuncts, mailroom, janitorial staff, full-time faculty, president, president's secretary -- everyone drawing a paycheck at a given time came up to about 100 employees.  Thus, the idea that because some huge place like Michigan has 80 diversity staff trying to ensure they continue to be paid means everyone is overstocked on administrators when every day at Super Dinky had even the provost standing at the copier doing his own copying because there was no one else is a different kind of focus on a reality that isn't THE reality at the truly struggling institutions.

Likewise, some institutions really have overbuilt and overinvested in amenities in an effort to compete for students who have good options and will be paying (nearly) full price even at $50+k.  To ignore that situation because that's not everyone means being too narrowly focused.  Some institutions would indeed be basically OK if they scaled back on the amenities and used that scaling back as an advertisement for an excellent education in comfortable enough surroundings.

[Wahoo Redux]

Could be, but that's not the same as the assertion that someone is clearly not an academic because an individual is focusing on the details that are most vivid in their experience instead of citing details that are most vivid to someone else.

It was the clueless and overtly politicized nature of certain poster's commentary that lead me to believe hu was not an academic, not the "details" hu focused on.

The commentary I refer to sounds like the commentary of someone who read some articles on-line and then tried to pass themselves off as an academic. 

[Wahoo Redux]

I've been thinking about Wesley from a slightly different perspective, perhaps because of the economically stressed area I currently live in.

Certainly Wesley as an institution has a lot of room for improvement.  No argument. 

However, if the college closes it removes approximately 500 total jobs (both FT and PT, including positions at the Aramark co. which provides the food service) from Dover.  In a city of 136K, that is not a death-blow by any means...and the administrative and blue-collar workers will probably find other jobs in this economy----but still, these are incomes and tax dollars suddenly removed from a mid-sized city which would otherwise contribute to the micro-economy in the region. 

The accountants, admin assistants, grounds crew, drivers, carpenters, counselors, janitors etc. who find new employment (presumably in Dover or vicinity) will be taking jobs that someone else would get if the college remained open.  Micro-drops in the employment and economic buckets, of course, unless you are someone who needs a job just given to a former Wesley employee.

Most of the FT faculty will probably relocate somewhere somehow, although not all; one can only conjecture what will happen to the PT faculty. 

For some faculty this closure will also close their careers.  Our attitudes toward our fellow academics tend to follow the vernacular and we often lack any sort of sympathy for each other (I can't think of any industry outside, say, Hollywood which is so unsupported by its own members), and yet I, at least, feel sorry for the handful of trained specialists who may find an extremely difficult transition to gainful employment with their academic backgrounds.

I suspect most of the 15K students will find other schools----although for some this will mean the end of their education for whatever reason.  Not a big deal, really, unless you own an apartment house, bar, pizza or burger joint, supermarket, movie house, etc. in the Wesley region----no bankruptcies perhaps, but you cannot remove 500 jobs and 1,500 students without some economic impact.

And, while I doubt anyone will lose the Nobel Prize if Wesley closes (although they might, who knows?), we all know that modern research is the result of scholars across the world contributing incrementally to the knowledge base----and even if the same discovery will be made somewhere else down the road, that is somewhere else which is not performing yet more incremental research which would have been contributed at Wesley earlier in the process.

Alright, maybe all this is no match for $3M expenditure (which would be a flat refund of around $3.10 for every citizen of Delaware) but these do bear thinking about.  At least I thought so.

[stemer]

But we (us, the faculty) have also been part of a system that has allowed the number of insitutions to become unreasonably high while being complicit to the borderline criminal practice of saddling our students and their families with crushing debt. 

The majority of American institutions of higher education were founded in the 19th century and then responded to societal needs, such as the G.I. Bill and the population explosion of the Boomer generation, by expanding and opening satellite campuses.  The CC system responded to the need or professional education in the 1920s.  The current sitting faculty had almost nothing to do with the "unreasonably high" number of schools in the U.S.  WTF are you even talking about?!

The cost of education has steadily risen because of increasing costs of technology, increased costs of operations, and general C.o.L.  Tuition has risen because of dwindling state support in the face of these factors.  Colleges have been cutting every corner they could, largely by slicing the professorate into a mash of paraprofessionals, many of whom have not seen a raise in 20 years.

I am very afraid that this higher-ed imposion is the societal "payback time" for an educational system that became unncessarilly expensive by allowing institutions to become top-heavy spas rather than academic establishments.

I highly doubt that you are an academic.  If you are then you have taught in schools which are radically different from the ones I am familiar with. 

This is the effect of the administrative bloat, having on-campus climbing walls and the hi-tech dorms to just get students to apply.

Not where I work.  Not at most places I've seen.  Do you know what you are posting about?

I am not sure that the notion of what you refer as 'expendable' is suitable here. Call it "market forces", "survival of the fittest", "supply and demand" or whatever, the bubble is popping.  Unfortunately, we are all emotionally affected by the imposion because the pain is felt most in the smaller, weaker and tuition-driven institutions, the HBCs, the SLACs that thought they could follow the well-endowed places.

I think we know all this.  What I and others suggest is that education has a much bigger mission than than can be encapsulated in terms appropriate for business.  We all stand to lose if our higher ed system buckles----and yes, if one has a dull wingnut brain made entirely of money, this includes the economy and forces such medical and engineering research (which generally appeal to money-brained individuals).

So I am pretty sure you are not an academic but simply someone who has swallowed the party line and has come here to froth.

I do not appreciate your commentary, in fact, I find it crass and very low rent for my taste. Your abject failure to provide cogent counter-arguments but instead attempting to discredit me as a "non-academic" (ouch, that hurt! how will I do any of my grading now?)  indicates either limited intellectual capacity to provide a meaningful argument or perhaps some kind of academic insecurity (did you get a mail-order Ph.D.? are you working at a for-profit?) or complete inability to follow the discussion.

The cost of education has steadily risen because of increasing costs of technology, increased costs of operations, and general C.o.L.  Tuition has risen because of dwindling state support in the face of these factors.  Colleges have been cutting every corner they could, largely by slicing the professorate into a mash of paraprofessionals, many of whom have not seen a raise in 20 years.

You are completely misinformed. Tuition increases have surpassed and continue to surpass every year C.o.L. and wages by several multiples. The highest cost in academic budgets is not the cost of required instructional technology (which, in fact, is relatively cheap, practically a commodity) but administrative bloat, campus vanity projects (e.g. high tech dorms, libraries and sports facilities) or completely misfired program launches. There are several stories about campuses building new dorms, athletic facilities and eSports arenas while in financial free-fall. There are also several examples of SLACs in particular, starting expensive pre-professional and professional programs (e.g. engineering, nursing etc) while letting their majors in the humanities die.   

The defunding of state institutions should have -somewhat- leveled (albeit to no economic benefit to students) the playing field for the privates that would have smaller of a tuition cost gap to compete against regional state campuses. But from the closings we are seeing, this is not the case, not by a long shot. So, get your facts straight.

No kidding Sherlcok the professoriate has been underpaid and losing professional traction. When you fully catch-up wth what is going on with higher ed perhaps you can share with us what you think is the reason for the unreasonable tuition increases the last 30+ years. But I won't hold my breath.

For the rest of the nonsense you write, I will not dignify you or the the comments with an answer.

[stemer]

It's true that many struggling places have no frills or extra administrators to cut.  That doesn't mean that some places don't have significant frills and extra administrators that would be eliminated if the top N goals were all on academic teaching and learning.

I agree. So, it begs the question, have the majority of those crumbling lately been of the frugal/cut-to-the-bone/perennially stuggling category or the frills/high overhead/bad management program misfirings variety? From the reporting,my impression is that it is the latter.

[Hibush]

It's true that many struggling places have no frills or extra administrators to cut.  That doesn't mean that some places don't have significant frills and extra administrators that would be eliminated if the top N goals were all on academic teaching and learning.

I agree. So, it begs the question, have the majority of those crumbling lately been of the frugal/cut-to-the-bone/perennially stuggling category or the frills/high overhead/bad management program misfirings variety? From the reporting,my impression is that it is the latter.

One does get that impression from a lot of public commentary about the issue. But do the numbers bear that out?

Which schools that closed in the last couple of years fit into the latter category?

Here is my impression of where the greatest stress is.

• Some big for-profits have crashed recently, and are probably the greatest by student numbers. They were frugal and badly managed.
• Small religious schools feature prominently on the at-risk list, and several have shrunk and expired in the last few years. They have been frugal, at least in the final years.
• Beauty schools are the other class that is common on the at-risk list. I don't associate those with frills and high overhead. There is little sound when one of those goes away.
• Rural liberal arts schools in regions with declining populations. Most don't have the wherewithal to make a fatal splash on frills.
• Rather well-too-do schools that are competing for full-pay, ambitious students are investing in excellent facilities and great student services to be competitive. They are not going broke.
• Schools that are not in the previous category may make unjustified commitments to compete, but do not succeed. They do go broke.

The highest overhead comes from having half the design enrollment, which doubles the overhead for facilities and administration, and substantially increases the cost of instruction because class sizes are smaller. Lots of rural schools are experiencing that.

[spork]

^ Pretty much sums things up.

The only points I would add about higher ed in the USA:

• Cost is a larger factor in the enrollment decision making of potential and current undergraduates than in the past, due to 1) parents less likely to use home equity loans for their children's college educations, 2) increasing wealth inequality means a larger proportion of actual or potential students are less wealthy, and 3) a smaller proportion of students are treating college as an endeavor that replaces/delays full-time employment in terms of time commitment.
• State legislatures continue to decrease budget allocations to public university systems.
• There is greater fear among parents and students about not entering or remaining in the middle class, however that term is defined, therefore leading to a focus on career preparation that in reality ends up being the purchase of empty credentials rather than learning what is useful in the workplace.

[polly_mer]

Alright, maybe all this is no match for $3M expenditure (which would be a flat refund of around $3.10 for every citizen of Delaware) but these do bear thinking about.

The problem is it's not a one-time $3M expenditure to save 500 jobs and 1500 students.  Wesley will need to be propped up every year for the foreseeable future because it's not a viable institution.  In addition, this particular $3M comes on top of two other recently granted requests that also total $3M.  Far more kind to everyone involved and a better use of the people-of-Delaware's money is to help transition all the affected people into something else with a 2-3 year graceful closure instead of just barring the doors at the end of the term at which Wesley runs out of money with perhaps a two-week notice.

Yes, it's likely to be the end of some folks' academic careers.  A large number of people in the US will lose their academic jobs in the next five to ten years.  The kindest thing to do now is acknowledge that reality and help people find something else that meets their fiscal, intellectual, and emotional needs instead of trying to prop up everything currently in the system.  There's no way to prop up the system enough so that everyone who wants an academic position in certain fields can have one.  That's what the data from the institutions that get away with paying peanuts and still having qualified people teach indicate.

If we're using data to redirect resources to ensure more access to college, then redirecting to the rural places that have literally no other local options and not good access to online options is a much better choice to preserve the system as a whole.  There's no reason for NJ to send money directly to Wyoming to prop up the outreach aspects of University of Wyoming, but that's a better use of resources to preserve higher ed in the US as a whole and save the handful of jobs that are far more impactful on their local community both on and off campus than propping up Wesley in an urban area with many similar options within an easy bus ride.

Another useful question is are the people of Delaware so well off that they wouldn't rather spend an extra $6M per year on something else like health care, K-12 education, or public transportation?  Personally, I'd much rather that everyone who can be vaccinated be vaccinated and that the buses run often enough to be useful than continue to hoard higher education institutions in places that have adequate seats for the populace.

It's true that many struggling places have no frills or extra administrators to cut.  That doesn't mean that some places don't have significant frills and extra administrators that would be eliminated if the top N goals were all on academic teaching and learning.

I agree. So, it begs the question, have the majority of those crumbling lately been of the frugal/cut-to-the-bone/perennially stuggling category or the frills/high overhead/bad management program misfirings variety? From the reporting,my impression is that it is the latter.

Define "crumbling". 

Hibush wrote a good list of what "crumbling" == "flat out closing" means.  In terms of student numbers, by the time most single-campus institutions flat out close, we're talking a few hundred students and often fewer than than faculty, staff, and administrators.  The only people who notice the closures are those in the community affected and those who read IHE if a notice is made there (often they won't be).  Education Dive has a list of college closures/consolidations since 2016 at https://www.educationdive.com/news/tracker-college-and-university-closings-and-consolidation/539961/.  Many of those institutions on the list didn't make the general national news.

If "crumbling" means "cutting a bunch of underenrolled majors with concomitant firing/non-renewal of faculty", then, sure, there are plenty of reports of institutions that could have cut something else and kept academic programs afloat for a while longer.  Often, those cuts will make the national news for certain outlets that are again outraged that someone somewhere is "dismantling the university" instead of a more neutral observation of making a purposeful choice to stop doing something that isn't working.  It's true that sometimes a different choice years earlier would have resulted in not closing a given program. 

It's also true that what's near and dear to some hearts is pretty clearly not being selected by enough students at the given price at a given institution that includes not just money, but also a personal investment of time and effort.  Nationally, trends in majors have shifted significantly in the past decade even, let alone from decades ago, when many faculty members were hired.  At individual institutions, the effect can be so dramatic that what makes the news is 40% of academic programs are cut, but people will hand wave away that those cuts only affect 6% of the students because the outrage is really about the change in mission.

Wahoo's comments about the national higher ed landscape often are a cri de coeur regarding the changes in what a college education, let alone a university education, means.  However, for those of us who came up already under some other type of education and have a college degree, that insistence that the world will end if many more people are like us than like the people making the cri de coeur tends to not have the desired rhetorical affect.  That affect accelerates every year as more and more faculty members, let alone administrators and community stakeholders, have an education that doesn't draw heavily on the liberal arts model of 1/3 major, 1/3 general education, and 1/3 free electives to explore the whole of human knowledge.

Our critical thinking skills indicate that change has already occurred.  The question is whether people are going to make the painful trade-offs to deal with current reality or insist on waiting until reality does the much, much more painful later correction because there are no choices once the money is all gone.