What Will Higher Ed Look Like After the Deluge?

[apl68]

Maybe? The history of these kinds of predictions suggests that its hard to account for all the possible factors, especially when many of them are about policies and political choices as much as they are about economics. I'm not optimistic, just skeptical. The incentives on predictions are skewed. People who predict dramatic things get a lot of attention. If you make a lot of predictions, and a few of them are accurate, that gets even more attention and everyone tends to forget all the things you got wrong. If you argue that things are complicated and lay out a variety of possible scenarios depending on how things play out, that gets almost no attention.

Sure, you get more attention if you cry doom and gloom, as opposed to slow and painful decline. But, the issues raised seem fairly accurate, and the trends are not promising. My money is on slow and painful decline, with razor thin margins that provide no resilience to unforseen crises.

That seems a pretty reasonable prediction.

[Caracal]

Maybe? The history of these kinds of predictions suggests that its hard to account for all the possible factors, especially when many of them are about policies and political choices as much as they are about economics. I'm not optimistic, just skeptical. The incentives on predictions are skewed. People who predict dramatic things get a lot of attention. If you make a lot of predictions, and a few of them are accurate, that gets even more attention and everyone tends to forget all the things you got wrong. If you argue that things are complicated and lay out a variety of possible scenarios depending on how things play out, that gets almost no attention.

Sure, you get more attention if you cry doom and gloom, as opposed to slow and painful decline. But, the issues raised seem fairly accurate, and the trends are not promising. My money is on slow and painful decline, with razor thin margins that provide no resilience to unforseen crises.

That seems a pretty reasonable prediction.

Sure, I agree with that. I'm just arguing that a lot of factors play into something like this and I don't have a lot of confidence in any particular prediction.

[mleok]

Are we really so sure that there's going to be a wave of colleges closing?

Yeah, probably, unfortunately.  A lot of this is on the say so of a single Harvard Biz. Prof. Clayton Christiansen, but it seems he might be right.  This is a pretty good summary:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2018/12/13/will-half-of-all-colleges-really-close-in-the-next-decade/?sh=7ca740b152e5

If you think the predictions of continued closures are all on the say so of one guy, then you are not informed enough to participate in the conversation.

This might just be my vaccine fever talking, but eff off Poly.

You just seem to be in a constant state of denial. You're a bit like a climate change denier arguing that a specific prediction was incorrect, or that no prediction can ever be absolutely certain, but ignoring the undeniable fact that climate change is happening and that it will have significant negative consequences. This does not add anything we don't all already know to the discussion.

At the end of the day, no business can long survive if they keep losing money on every item they sell. Sure, they can be propped up for a bit by credit, but at some point in time, that line of credit will dry up, and they will fail, when exactly is hard to predict, but one would be foolish to stake one's long term economic interests on such a business.

[Caracal]

Are we really so sure that there's going to be a wave of colleges closing?

Yeah, probably, unfortunately.  A lot of this is on the say so of a single Harvard Biz. Prof. Clayton Christiansen, but it seems he might be right.  This is a pretty good summary:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2018/12/13/will-half-of-all-colleges-really-close-in-the-next-decade/?sh=7ca740b152e5

If you think the predictions of continued closures are all on the say so of one guy, then you are not informed enough to participate in the conversation.

This might just be my vaccine fever talking, but eff off Poly.

You just seem to be in a constant state of denial. You're a bit like a climate change denier arguing that a specific prediction was incorrect, or that no prediction can ever be absolutely certain, but ignoring the undeniable fact that climate change is happening and that it will have significant negative consequences. This does not add anything we don't all already know to the discussion.

At the end of the day, no business can long survive if they keep losing money on every item they sell. Sure, they can be propped up for a bit by credit, but at some point in time, that line of credit will dry up, and they will fail, when exactly is hard to predict, but one would be foolish to stake one's long term economic interests on such a business.

Colleges are non-profits.

Also, what's going on with the tone of this place lately? Is everyone turning into Poly? I'm just expressing some reasonable skepticism about predictions that haven't really come true, mostly based on a lot of business school nonsense. That doesn't call for claims that I'm in denial or attempts to argue that I'm insufficiently informed to be allowed to engage in the conversation. Seriously, can you imagine taking that tone off the internet?Grow up, get some manners. (And yes, I think I would be happy to tell Poly to eff off if someone said something that rude, insulting and dismissive in real life)

[marshwiggle]

You just seem to be in a constant state of denial. You're a bit like a climate change denier arguing that a specific prediction was incorrect, or that no prediction can ever be absolutely certain, but ignoring the undeniable fact that climate change is happening and that it will have significant negative consequences. This does not add anything we don't all already know to the discussion.

At the end of the day, no business can long survive if they keep losing money on every item they sell. Sure, they can be propped up for a bit by credit, but at some point in time, that line of credit will dry up, and they will fail, when exactly is hard to predict, but one would be foolish to stake one's long term economic interests on such a business.

Colleges are non-profits.

Also, what's going on with the tone of this place lately? Is everyone turning into Poly? I'm just expressing some reasonable skepticism about predictions that haven't really come true, mostly based on a lot of business school nonsense. That doesn't call for claims that I'm in denial or attempts to argue that I'm insufficiently informed to be allowed to engage in the conversation.

At the very least, the demographic shifts, i.e. decades-long decline in the number of traditional age students and changes in socioeconomic background, and the changes in what programs students choose, are realities that are well-known and are not primarily determined by the level of government funding. Consolidation is inevitable, even if the precise timeline is debatable.

[spork]

Are we really so sure that there's going to be a wave of colleges closing?

Yeah, probably, unfortunately.  A lot of this is on the say so of a single Harvard Biz. Prof. Clayton Christiansen, but it seems he might be right.  This is a pretty good summary:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2018/12/13/will-half-of-all-colleges-really-close-in-the-next-decade/?sh=7ca740b152e5

If you think the predictions of continued closures are all on the say so of one guy, then you are not informed enough to participate in the conversation.

This might just be my vaccine fever talking, but eff off Poly.

You just seem to be in a constant state of denial. You're a bit like a climate change denier arguing that a specific prediction was incorrect, or that no prediction can ever be absolutely certain, but ignoring the undeniable fact that climate change is happening and that it will have significant negative consequences. This does not add anything we don't all already know to the discussion.

At the end of the day, no business can long survive if they keep losing money on every item they sell. Sure, they can be propped up for a bit by credit, but at some point in time, that line of credit will dry up, and they will fail, when exactly is hard to predict, but one would be foolish to stake one's long term economic interests on such a business.

Colleges are non-profits.

Also, what's going on with the tone of this place lately? Is everyone turning into Poly? I'm just expressing some reasonable skepticism about predictions that haven't really come true, mostly based on a lot of business school nonsense. That doesn't call for claims that I'm in denial or attempts to argue that I'm insufficiently informed to be allowed to engage in the conversation. Seriously, can you imagine taking that tone off the internet?Grow up, get some manners. (And yes, I think I would be happy to tell Poly to eff off if someone said something that rude, insulting and dismissive in real life)

The bolded part indicates that you have very little idea of the financial constraints that universities have to operate under. It's the equivalent of saying "cars have wheels" in a discussion about railroads.

[Caracal]

Are we really so sure that there's going to be a wave of colleges closing?

Yeah, probably, unfortunately.  A lot of this is on the say so of a single Harvard Biz. Prof. Clayton Christiansen, but it seems he might be right.  This is a pretty good summary:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelhorn/2018/12/13/will-half-of-all-colleges-really-close-in-the-next-decade/?sh=7ca740b152e5

If you think the predictions of continued closures are all on the say so of one guy, then you are not informed enough to participate in the conversation.

This might just be my vaccine fever talking, but eff off Poly.

You just seem to be in a constant state of denial. You're a bit like a climate change denier arguing that a specific prediction was incorrect, or that no prediction can ever be absolutely certain, but ignoring the undeniable fact that climate change is happening and that it will have significant negative consequences. This does not add anything we don't all already know to the discussion.

At the end of the day, no business can long survive if they keep losing money on every item they sell. Sure, they can be propped up for a bit by credit, but at some point in time, that line of credit will dry up, and they will fail, when exactly is hard to predict, but one would be foolish to stake one's long term economic interests on such a business.

Colleges are non-profits.

Also, what's going on with the tone of this place lately? Is everyone turning into Poly? I'm just expressing some reasonable skepticism about predictions that haven't really come true, mostly based on a lot of business school nonsense. That doesn't call for claims that I'm in denial or attempts to argue that I'm insufficiently informed to be allowed to engage in the conversation. Seriously, can you imagine taking that tone off the internet?Grow up, get some manners. (And yes, I think I would be happy to tell Poly to eff off if someone said something that rude, insulting and dismissive in real life)

The bolded part indicates that you have very little idea of the financial constraints that universities have to operate under. It's the equivalent of saying "cars have wheels" in a discussion about railroads.

No it doesn't mean any such thing.  I'm just pointing out that thinking of non-profits in terms of businesses is a poor model. That doesn't mean they don't have to deal with finances or remain viable, of course. But it does mean that models that ignore broader issues of politics and public policy are myopic

I'm stuck by the inability of some people to actually engage in good faith on this. It's just a lot of yelling about what I must not understand that has nothing to do with anything I actually wrote.

[marshwiggle]

I'm just pointing out that thinking of non-profits in terms of businesses is a poor model. That doesn't mean they don't have to deal with finances or remain viable, of course. But it does mean that models that ignore broader issues of politics and public policy are myopic

I'm stuck by the inability of some people to actually engage in good faith on this. It's just a lot of yelling about what I must not understand that has nothing to do with anything I actually wrote.

OK, so imagine the funding godmother comes along and waves her wand and you now have your department budget doubled. How are you going to double your enrolment?

For comparison:
In STEM, it's not uncommon for course enrolment to be limited by the number (and size) of lab sections. So, being able to hire more lab staff and TAs, and potentially buy more lab equipment and/or space would be sufficient, as there are students who are academically qualified who are currently not admitted.

In some programs, the number of spaces is limited by the number of placements available for practica. Again, if more money allowed hiring more recruiting staff to find employers and do practicum supervision, then these programs could expand because qualified students are currently turned away.

So what would more money do which would double enrolment in humanities programs in your department? And if you aren't currently turning away qualified students, where would these new students come from and how would they be recruited?

[polly_mer]

And if you aren't currently turning away qualified students, where would these new students come from and how would they be recruited?

This is what will close a lot of doors.  There just aren't enough students to fill the current seats, especially as a typical student is more likely to be part-time, a returning student over 25, and from a background that is weaker academically with a complicated life so school is never first priority.

Harvard ets. will not be hurting for students because they turn away hordes of qualified students and even full-pay qualified students.

The next layer of eliteness will also be fine as they lose some students up, but can also just go deeper into their qualified pools.

You don't have to go very far down the elite scale in New England and the Midwest before you hit the institutions that have already had to offer much better financial aid or an absurd discount rate to get close to the necessary new student cohort.  These places don't carefully balance cohorts based on majors, extracurriculars, and other factors.  These places are desperate for butts in seats.

Even before Covid, many of these places were already running deficits, deferring maintenance, cutting employees, and cutting benefits for the remaining employees.  The related problem is doing this negatively affects the student experience while not greatly reducing expenses.

Thus, as seats at better institutions become easier to get with better financial aid, there's no way for these institutions to compete for students who have choices.  Even very poor students will be offered something better with more support because adequate support for underserved populations is expensive.

From a public resource allocation standpoint, closing the non-performing institutions and diluting the neediest students to places that can easily support them is the best option for everyone involved except the faculty who will lose their jobs.

As an aside, fuck off is not a credible case.  Ignoring voluminous evidence in favor of "skeptical questions" is not a case.  There are details that can be discussed, but not from the equivalent of:

* Prove that 2+2 isn't 17
*What about when the sky is green?
* Small children don't get and pass respiratory diseases.

If someone wanted to be taken seriously, then start by spending a whole afternoon with the readily accessible literature and ask a question worth answering.

[Caracal]

And if you aren't currently turning away qualified students, where would these new students come from and how would they be recruited?

This is what will close a lot of doors.  There just aren't enough students to fill the current seats, especially as a typical student is more likely to be part-time, a returning student over 25, and from a background that is weaker academically with a complicated life so school is never first priority.

Harvard ets. will not be hurting for students because they turn away hordes of qualified students and even full-pay qualified students.

The next layer of eliteness will also be fine as they lose some students up, but can also just go deeper into their qualified pools.

You don't have to go very far down the elite scale in New England and the Midwest before you hit the institutions that have already had to offer much better financial aid or an absurd discount rate to get close to the necessary new student cohort.  These places don't carefully balance cohorts based on majors, extracurriculars, and other factors.  These places are desperate for butts in seats.

Even before Covid, many of these places were already running deficits, deferring maintenance, cutting employees, and cutting benefits for the remaining employees.  The related problem is doing this negatively affects the student experience while not greatly reducing expenses.

Thus, as seats at better institutions become easier to get with better financial aid, there's no way for these institutions to compete for students who have choices.  Even very poor students will be offered something better with more support because adequate support for underserved populations is expensive.

From a public resource allocation standpoint, closing the non-performing institutions and diluting the neediest students to places that can easily support them is the best option for everyone involved except the faculty who will lose their jobs.

As an aside, fuck off is not a credible case.  Ignoring voluminous evidence in favor of "skeptical questions" is not a case.  There are details that can be discussed, but not from the equivalent of:

* Prove that 2+2 isn't 17
*What about when the sky is green?
* Small children don't get and pass respiratory diseases.

If someone wanted to be taken seriously, then start by spending a whole afternoon with the readily accessible literature and ask a question worth answering.

Mod Edit: removed personal insults. Please don't break the forum rules. ~eigen

I'll put it more nicely. Go away, and stop misrepresenting my views.

[eigen]

Ok, this has gone over the line. Topic locked.

Take a step back, cool down, and remember that this forum does not allow personal attacks on other users.

Nor does it allow bringing baggage from thread to thread. Engage with the person you are talking to based on the things they are writing in this particular discussion.