What Will Higher Ed Look Like After the Deluge?

[Wahoo Redux]

Higher Ed took a huge seismic hit last year.

And H.E. will take several more seismic hits in the near future.

Disaster and crisis are often the mothers of invention, however, and American culture is generally resilient.  Higher Ed will not vanish.

But what will Higher Ed look like after the coming collapse?

How long will it take Higher Ed to reconstitute itself?  Or will it?

[marshwiggle]

What are you looking for that's different from the previous thread?

[polly_mer]

Wahoo has a point that the specific post-Covid discussion is not necessarily the same as the discussion that includes:

* Changing national demographics such that the majority of well-established smaller institutions are not where the majority of traditional age college students will be in the next two decades.  New England and the Midwest have hundreds of the small-to-tiny places, but the 18-22 year olds are in the South, Southwest, and West.  Most students go to college within 50 miles of home, absent a compelling reason to go farther like an elite experience, a specific major, or lack of institutions within 50 miles (a big problem in some of the geographically large, but sparsely populated states). 

* Changing enrollment trends on what a typical student looks like.  The idea of college students being 18-22 years old, living on campus, working a 10-hour-per-week-on-campus-job while being a full-time student for exactly four years is very out of step with reality outside of elite institutions.  About half of all students do not graduate in 4 years or even 8 years.  Even 18 year olds may start college part-time for non-academic reasons.  Basing curriculum and support decisions on an inaccurate "typical" student is one fast way to go out of business at a small institution fighting for the shrinking share of the "traditional" students.

* Changing degree choices that are out of step with what faculty want to teach.  More than half of all bachelor's degrees are awarded in 5 fields: business, health professions and related programs, social sciences and history, engineering, and biological and biomedical sciences (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cta.pdf).  Being at a smaller institution that doesn't offer these majors is a much tougher go than being able to offer the most popular majors, even knowing that students usually change majors.  Engineering in particular has a huge attrition rate, but not offering engineering means those students will never enroll at a given institution.

* Growing concerns about the value of a college degree.  Elite institutions have no problems showing data indicating the value of their degree.  Non-elite institutions with low graduation rates and not great outcomes for the few students who do graduate will lose out for anyone who makes any effort to do the research.  One of the goals of establishing https://collegescorecard.ed.gov was to make information being collected by IPEDS accessible to the masses.  That's not good for the struggling institutions who are missing the great narrative of "We help everyone succeed in their life plans, not on a rigid, irrelevant schedule".

* Changing interests of why people are in college.  For many people, college will not be a one-time, four-year experience.  They will dip in and out of college to take some classes, gain a certificate, or explore for pleasure.  Again, the institutional planning model of a "typical" student may not fit the students available and those students will then vote with their feet for something else.

* Changing needs of students.  Online enrollment is not going away.  Being the cheapest physical choice in the region may no longer be a slam dunk for majors that go well online and general education that can be more cheaply obtained in other ways.

* Changing expectations because of the 21st century.  A nice physical campus now includes significant technology, technology that changes and ages much faster than the buildings or other needs.  Being noticeably below average in providing WiFi, online services like registration, and classes that would be the same as they were in the 1950s means losing out to the average and better institutions.  While it's a lovely idea to still be putting up the fall schedule on a bulletin board next to the registrar's office with printouts available on the table, that's a very niche market.

* Changing patterns of attending multiple colleges.  Transfer students are no longer rare.  In 2015, almost half the students who graduated with a bachelor's degree had previously been enrolled at a two-year institution. AP tests, dual enrollment, and dual credit are no longer rare ways to meet requirements, even for people with very modest means. Even if colleges do no other changes, the assumption of students spending four years all at one institution with a solid general education program employing many, many humanities professors is demonstrably false and will result in the loss of academic jobs, even if the institution remains viable.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

Does calling changes "the deluge" imply that the current state is antediluvian?

[Wahoo Redux]

Does calling changes "the deluge" imply that the current state is antediluvian?

Sure.  Why not?

[marshwiggle]

* Changing degree choices that are out of step with what faculty want to teach.  More than half of all bachelor's degrees are awarded in 5 fields: business, health professions and related programs, social sciences and history, engineering, and biological and biomedical sciences (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cta.pdf).  Being at a smaller institution that doesn't offer these majors is a much tougher go than being able to offer the most popular majors, even knowing that students usually change majors.  Engineering in particular has a huge attrition rate, but not offering engineering means those students will never enroll at a given institution.

Obviously there are going to be some differences here in Canada, but can many small places even offer engineering? The accreditation requirements and huge costs of labs and other infrastructure would prevent places which are already tight on funds from getting started. (Not to mention the very high faculty salaries required to hire and retain them.)

[polly_mer]

* Changing degree choices that are out of step with what faculty want to teach.  More than half of all bachelor's degrees are awarded in 5 fields: business, health professions and related programs, social sciences and history, engineering, and biological and biomedical sciences (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cta.pdf).  Being at a smaller institution that doesn't offer these majors is a much tougher go than being able to offer the most popular majors, even knowing that students usually change majors.  Engineering in particular has a huge attrition rate, but not offering engineering means those students will never enroll at a given institution.

Obviously there are going to be some differences here in Canada, but can many small places even offer engineering? The accreditation requirements and huge costs of labs and other infrastructure would prevent places which are already tight on funds from getting started. (Not to mention the very high faculty salaries required to hire and retain them.)

Correct.  The tiny, already struggling places cannot offer engineering.

Those places also generally can't get business faculty, many of the health care professions, or biomedical sciences.

Those places can do social sciences and biology, but those are often the majors that pick up students leaving engineering, nursing, etc., not the majors that drive enrollment to the school.

Many of these places are just doomed.  Period.  The majors they can afford to staff are not going to draw from a large enough pool to matter.

[Ruralguy]

Small places can try to offer pre-engineering options, which are liberal arts degrees in that they have large % core (gen ed) requirements, but a large amount of what would usually be electives are re-dedicated to the major due to the greater amount of math pre-requisites and senior capstone lab/design projects. But even for that sort of thing, the ABET requirements are prohibitive from a % of curriculum perspective. Small schools can do similar things with CS. In terms of the politics of the school, these majors can be difficult to pass since they tend to challenge ancient (well like 1400 years old) notions of the liberal arts.  So, establishing *accredited* engineering programs at a small school  is difficult (the general accrediting agency such as SACS will approve it, but it won't be accredited by ABET, the standard engineering accreditor.

Of course, the salary and research lab requirements for many faculty in engineering would likely be prohibitive.

Business is similar in that the certain hybrids of business and econ/psych/politics can be offered, but even straight econ faculty are expensive and pure business /accounting   faculty are prohibitively expensive for a small school.

You can probably guess how I just happen to know these things...

[polly_mer]

You can probably guess how I just happen to know these things...

The joy of laying out options for the group and being shot down for everything that could matter enough?

Yep, I know that experience.

[Ruralguy]

No, not exactly that. Sometimes I'm the rejecter! Its more general frustration that we can only take baby steps, and huge parts of the faculty think *that* (the small steps)  are offensive when its only the beginning if we want to make any headway before it doesn't matter anymore.

[apl68]

No, not exactly that. Sometimes I'm the rejecter! Its more general frustration that we can only take baby steps, and huge parts of the faculty think *that* (the small steps)  are offensive when its only the beginning if we want to make any headway before it doesn't matter anymore.

I suspect that in some cases they know very well that the small steps are meant to be the thin end of a wedge.  That's precisely why they're offended at them.

[polly_mer]

No, not exactly that. Sometimes I'm the rejecter! Its more general frustration that we can only take baby steps, and huge parts of the faculty think *that* (the small steps)  are offensive when its only the beginning if we want to make any headway before it doesn't matter anymore.

Yeah, resistance to necessary changes will hurt places that could thrive if they would accept reality and have discussions about positive change in time to matter.

[polly_mer]

No, not exactly that. Sometimes I'm the rejecter! Its more general frustration that we can only take baby steps, and huge parts of the faculty think *that* (the small steps)  are offensive when its only the beginning if we want to make any headway before it doesn't matter anymore.

I suspect that in some cases they know very well that the small steps are meant to be the thin end of a wedge.  That's precisely why they're offended at them.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.  Refusing to accept reality doesn't change the reality.

[eigen]

Small places can try to offer pre-engineering options, which are liberal arts degrees in that they have large % core (gen ed) requirements, but a large amount of what would usually be electives are re-dedicated to the major due to the greater amount of math pre-requisites and senior capstone lab/design projects. But even for that sort of thing, the ABET requirements are prohibitive from a % of curriculum perspective. Small schools can do similar things with CS. In terms of the politics of the school, these majors can be difficult to pass since they tend to challenge ancient (well like 1400 years old) notions of the liberal arts.  So, establishing *accredited* engineering programs at a small school  is difficult (the general accrediting agency such as SACS will approve it, but it won't be accredited by ABET, the standard engineering accreditor.

Of course, the salary and research lab requirements for many faculty in engineering would likely be prohibitive.

Business is similar in that the certain hybrids of business and econ/psych/politics can be offered, but even straight econ faculty are expensive and pure business /accounting   faculty are prohibitively expensive for a small school.

You can probably guess how I just happen to know these things...

Or 3:2 / 4:1 programs built on existing STEM majors is another option for that.

[Wahoo Redux]

On another blog somewhere one of the posters opined that American colleges should be more like "European" colleges, essentially buildings with teachers----no gyms, no dorms, no psychological counselors, and (obviously) no huge sports complexes.  I don't know enough about education in Europe to know if this is an accurate description----certainly not colleges in Great Brittan, from what I have heard.

I should read the other thread, but I do wonder if that is one possible future.  No gyms unless a Planet Fitness franchise moves in.  Parking garages owned and run by corporations.  No shuttle busses funded through student fees.  Schools sans advisors, student health centers, cafeterias, computer labs, and dorms.

That really doesn't seem like something that is on the table.  We still here the "we want quality education at an affordable price" mantra, which I think means all the amenities we take for granted on a college campus.  We just don't want to pay for these things, reduce our defense budget, or pay more taxes.

No, not exactly that. Sometimes I'm the rejecter! Its more general frustration that we can only take baby steps, and huge parts of the faculty think *that* (the small steps)  are offensive when its only the beginning if we want to make any headway before it doesn't matter anymore.

Yeah, resistance to necessary changes will hurt places that could thrive if they would accept reality and have discussions about positive change in time to matter.

I am sure that this is true.

But one of the constants on these boards is the ineptitude of admin.  We would have to assume that the small steps are always smart steps to take and not an admin-critter blundering around in the dark.