Effect of rural college closing

[jimbogumbo]

Seems obvious, but...: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2023/05/25/wvu-higher-education-montgomery-west-viriginia-impact/70243287007/

[lightning]

Substitute when the main factory closes down or when the Wal-mart moves away its logistics/distribution hub or when a new Interstate redirects commercial traffic away from a town or when a river port loses its commercial traffic to the railroad, yada, yada, yada, and it's the same old story.

Over-reliance on a singular economic engine always ends badly, because nothing is forever. The inherent advantage that small higher-ed driven rural towns have is that they have a built in resource for diversifying the economy and for the ongoing evolution of the local economy. But it's rare for a lot of these types of small towns to actually leverage that advantage for their futures, both collectively and individually. In some cases, the college institution itself is looked upon by the local community with mis-trust, even going so far as making the local college a focal point for their culture war.

I saw this happen at my previous job.

[spork]

Substitute when the main factory closes down

Or when the military base is decommissioned.

The small rural colleges that started off as normal schools a century or more ago have no future, unless they've amassed billion dollar endowments -- e.g., Williams and Grinnell.

Excluding the dozen or so ultra-elite schools, which operate as suppliers of prestige goods, higher ed is now a content industry like music. MOOCs were the Napster of higher ed. Now the industry is evolving to the equivalent of Spotify -- content creators licensing their products to distribution platforms that operate independently of physical space. Undergrad needs Basketweaving Analytics 320 to graduate on time from Southwest Central State U., but it's not offered or there aren't any seats? Plug into the consortium that SCSU belongs to and choose the equivalent offered by ASU or SNHU through whatever OPM revenue-sharing affiliate they use. Or SCSU just slaps its name on a course built entirely by the OPM's in-house staff that the OPM rents to SCSU and hundreds of other schools on an as-needed basis.     

[dismalist]

The idea that a university would produce sufficient positive externalities locally to bring riches and expansion to small locales is widespread and deeply misguided. The people that universities train are mobile. No need for them to stay local.

I suppose one thinks of Route 128 and Stanford's back yard when considering the question. But Boston and San Francisco were not small towns at the onset, and have or have had plenty of amenities before playing home to the tech industry. Petroleum engineers lurk in Texas because there's oil in them thar hills. And so on.

A good reason for universities to branch out into the boondocks has been low land rent and a central collection point for students. When the number of students declines, as it is doing, there is absolutely no justification to save the branches or the colleges.

[lightning]

Substitute when the main factory closes down

Or when the military base is decommissioned.

The small rural colleges that started off as normal schools a century or more ago have no future, unless they've amassed billion dollar endowments -- e.g., Williams and Grinnell.

Excluding the dozen or so ultra-elite schools, which operate as suppliers of prestige goods, higher ed is now a content industry like music. MOOCs were the Napster of higher ed. Now the industry is evolving to the equivalent of Spotify -- content creators licensing their products to distribution platforms that operate independently of physical space. Undergrad needs Basketweaving Analytics 320 to graduate on time from Southwest Central State U., but it's not offered or there aren't any seats? Plug into the consortium that SCSU belongs to and choose the equivalent offered by ASU or SNHU through whatever OPM revenue-sharing affiliate they use. Or SCSU just slaps its name on a course built entirely by the OPM's in-house staff that the OPM rents to SCSU and hundreds of other schools on an as-needed basis.     

Curricula that is not tied to a physical space has long been one of the utopian promises of online education that was spouted in the mid-1990s, especially after broadband Internet became omni-present in the early 21st century. 

Back in my bad-old-days when I was on faculty at a dying rural college in a dying rural town, I was a leading content creator (OK, "leading content creator" in my delusional mind only, but that really only meant I was the only one dumb enough to volunteer to do it) for a college consortium that was supposed to license its curricula to anyone and everyone and to each other, especially to those poor sad sack rural colleges that that didn't have the faculty expertise to teach courses in emerging fields. It failed miserably in terms of adoption partly because there were too many stakeholders who insisted on local control and oversight. This came especially from the rural areas with the rural colleges. They were surprisingly territorial.

The idea that a university would produce sufficient positive externalities locally to bring riches and expansion to small locales is widespread and deeply misguided. The people that universities train are mobile. No need for them to stay local.

I suppose one thinks of Route 128 and Stanford's back yard when considering the question. But Boston and San Francisco were not small towns at the onset, and have or have had plenty of amenities before playing home to the tech industry. Petroleum engineers lurk in Texas because there's oil in them thar hills. And so on.

A good reason for universities to branch out into the boondocks has been low land rent and a central collection point for students. When the number of students declines, as it is doing, there is absolutely no justification to save the branches or the colleges.

Of course, the training that an individual received from a college is mobile. You get no argument from me about that. The mobility problem that you bring up is an old problem that rural towns have been dealing with for a long time. But I'll say it again, it's up to the region/state/county/municipality to have reasons for the home-grown talent to stay (and, that's a whole separate discussion).

I'm talking about when a small-town Chamber of Commerce representative tries to entice a potential large employer to their small town. A ready and capable workforce, in addition to the built-in capacity of workforce development made possible through the college, professional development, and personal development for incoming businesses and enterprises and their employees, is a selling point. The offerings of a rural college in terms of cultural offerings (speakers, plays, concerts, art shows, etc.) is a selling point to the potential employer. All this on top of the facilities themselves offering additional potential & infrastructure for additional economic drivers such as summer camps (Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth come to mind, whose sites bring in rental money) and summer music festivals hosted by colleges (the National Music Festival in rural Maryland comes to mind) which bring in boatloads of tourism money to local economies.

Regardless of whatever reason the university decided to set up shop in Montgomery, the university was there long enough to help Montgomery with the necessary re-invention as the world changed (especially as the world moved away from coal), but it's obvious that not enough people in Montgomery had the foresight and heart to get it done. That's on Montgomery and not Charleston and Morgantown.

[ciao_yall]

The idea that a university would produce sufficient positive externalities locally to bring riches and expansion to small locales is widespread and deeply misguided. The people that universities train are mobile. No need for them to stay local.

It brings well-paid professors. Young adults with parent's credit cards who like affordable restaurants and bars. Hotels where parents can stay and visit. Maybe cultural attractions such as museums related to the college.

I suppose one thinks of Route 128 and Stanford's back yard when considering the question. But Boston and San Francisco were not small towns at the onset, and have or have had plenty of amenities before playing home to the tech industry. Petroleum engineers lurk in Texas because there's oil in them thar hills. And so on.

Such as local universities with highly educated graduates who could easily staff the tech companies that were springing up nearby. They took advantage of the professors doing deep research, the grads and undergrads who wanted summer jobs and wanted to stay nearby when they graduated.

A good reason for universities to branch out into the boondocks has been low land rent and a central collection point for students. When the number of students declines, as it is doing, there is absolutely no justification to save the branches or the colleges.

Or, 200 years ago it was a more central location due to agriculture, mining, rivers, railroads, etc. 

[ciao_yall]

Substitute when the main factory closes down

Excluding the dozen or so ultra-elite schools, which operate as suppliers of prestige goods, higher ed is now a content industry like music. MOOCs were the Napster of higher ed. Now the industry is evolving to the equivalent of Spotify -- content creators licensing their products to distribution platforms that operate independently of physical space.

Yeah, and kids just love staying in their teenage bedrooms downloading classes all day. /eyeroll

Undergrad needs Basketweaving Analytics 320 to graduate on time from Southwest Central State U., but it's not offered or there aren't any seats? Plug into the consortium that SCSU belongs to and choose the equivalent offered by ASU or SNHU through whatever OPM revenue-sharing affiliate they use. Or SCSU just slaps its name on a course built entirely by the OPM's in-house staff that the OPM rents to SCSU and hundreds of other schools on an as-needed basis.     

Theoretically. Except... they aren't. So enrollments are way down, especially at colleges with limited on-ground offerings.

[Wahoo Redux]

If your local economy is weak it doesn't even take closing a college to have a dire effect.  Our enrollment has been slipping for about five years now, COVID made it worse, and several local business across the street from campus have closed; the nearest apartments, newly built, have to resort to basement prices; and we may lose the local coffee shop which has the best espresso outside of Chicago I've ever had.  People only seem to appreciate the microeconomies and community-building that a college creates when it is gone.

I don't think they are going to get there, but if the city college closes it is going to devastate the tiny downtown which is just now showing little buds of revitalization.   

[dismalist]

I'm talking about when a small-town Chamber of Commerce representative tries to entice a potential large employer to their small town. A ready and capable workforce, in addition to the built-in capacity of workforce development made possible through the college, professional development, and personal development for incoming businesses and enterprises and their employees, is a selling point. The offerings of a rural college in terms of cultural offerings (speakers, plays, concerts, art shows, etc.) is a selling point to the potential employer.

Yes, this sort  of stuff affects competition for firms. Localities compete with tax deductions to attract such. If they think it's good, let them. Point is locals will get the benefits. So let them pay if they think it's worth it.

It brings well-paid professors. Young adults with parent's credit cards who like affordable restaurants and bars. Hotels where parents can stay and visit. Maybe cultural attractions such as museums related to the college.

The well-paid professors could live in Boston. Parents' credit cards could be used there, too, on restaurants, bars and hotels and museums. That's just redistribution. If a locality thinks it can compete with Boston for higher education location, let the residents pay, for they will reap the benefits, if they materialize.

[lightning]

I'm talking about when a small-town Chamber of Commerce representative tries to entice a potential large employer to their small town. A ready and capable workforce, in addition to the built-in capacity of workforce development made possible through the college, professional development, and personal development for incoming businesses and enterprises and their employees, is a selling point. The offerings of a rural college in terms of cultural offerings (speakers, plays, concerts, art shows, etc.) is a selling point to the potential employer.

Yes, this sort  of stuff affects competition for firms. Localities compete with tax deductions to attract such. If they think it's good, let them. Point is locals will get the benefits. So let them pay if they think it's worth it.

It goes beyond tax deductions. Companies have desperate and often gullible towns over a barrel, so the companies play hardball. Tax credits, rebates, and even cash grants, all in addition to the usual provision of new or updated infrastructure that the municipality has to provide somehow, (new utilities, sewer, roads, etc.), replete with eminent domain and easements.

In the short term, it can bring in jobs and relieve the pain of unemployment. In the long term, we know how the story ends.

I'm with you on this one, though. Let the townsfolk decide for themselves. Some people have to learn the important lessons the hard way.

[spork]

[. . .]

Yeah, and kids just love staying in their teenage bedrooms downloading classes all day. /eyeroll

As far as I know, the internet exists beyond teenagers' bedrooms. You sound like the people who said Amazon will never succeed because people will always only want to read print books.

Undergrad needs Basketweaving Analytics 320 to graduate on time from Southwest Central State U., but it's not offered or there aren't any seats? Plug into the consortium that SCSU belongs to and choose the equivalent offered by ASU or SNHU through whatever OPM revenue-sharing affiliate they use. Or SCSU just slaps its name on a course built entirely by the OPM's in-house staff that the OPM rents to SCSU and hundreds of other schools on an as-needed basis.     

Theoretically. Except... they aren't. So enrollments are way down, especially at colleges with limited on-ground offerings.

In practice, they are. Look at the enrollments of ASU and SNHU. Or the Digital Higher Education Consortium of Texas. Or Coursera's certificate programs. Or Georgia State's online master's degree programs. Or The Open University, which has > 200,000 students.

A large portion of first-time, full-time undergrads in the USA choose to enroll at a particular four-year institution because of the expected experience not the potential education, which is why campus tours emphasize dorm rooms, the cafeteria, and athletic facilities. Those who know they can't afford that experience look elsewhere.

As for content delivery, it is extremely inefficient to have thousands of humans with very-expensive-to-get PhDs teaching the same World History 101 course in thousands of physical classrooms every semester when Crash Course: World History offers the same information with a far higher production value for free on YouTube.

[Antiphon1]

As for content delivery, it is extremely inefficient to have thousands of humans with very-expensive-to-get PhDs teaching the same World History 101 course in thousands of physical classrooms every semester when Crash Course: World History offers the same information with a far higher production value for free on YouTube.

Uh huh.  Self education only takes you so far.  We'd all be freaking geniuses if all learning took was watching a video or reading a book.  Take a look at the learning losses during Covid after transitioning from face to face to online learning.  The data points to losses between 1/2 year to 2 years based on testing results.  Further, most rural colleges aren't employing high numbers of Ivy League grads.  The real contraction point is falling population and thus falling enrollment.  Closing a satellite campus while financially expedient to the system exacerbates populations shift and most times also destroys the tax base supporting the system.  It's a downward spiral ultimately benefiting neither the system or the taxpayers.

[lightning]

As for content delivery, it is extremely inefficient to have thousands of humans with very-expensive-to-get PhDs teaching the same World History 101 course in thousands of physical classrooms every semester when Crash Course: World History offers the same information with a far higher production value for free on YouTube.

Uh huh.  Self education only takes you so far.  We'd all be freaking geniuses if all learning took was watching a video or reading a book.  Take a look at the learning losses during Covid after transitioning from face to face to online learning.  The data points to losses between 1/2 year to 2 years based on testing results.  Further, most rural colleges aren't employing high numbers of Ivy League grads.  The real contraction point is falling population and thus falling enrollment.  Closing a satellite campus while financially expedient to the system exacerbates populations shift and most times also destroys the tax base supporting the system.  It's a downward spiral ultimately benefiting neither the system or the taxpayers.

If only most college students were interested in deep learning rather than just getting a credential . . . . .

[Wahoo Redux]

As for content delivery, it is extremely inefficient to have thousands of humans with very-expensive-to-get PhDs teaching the same World History 101 course in thousands of physical classrooms every semester when Crash Course: World History offers the same information with a far higher production value for free on YouTube.

Uh huh.  Self education only takes you so far.  We'd all be freaking geniuses if all learning took was watching a video or reading a book.  Take a look at the learning losses during Covid after transitioning from face to face to online learning.  The data points to losses between 1/2 year to 2 years based on testing results.  Further, most rural colleges aren't employing high numbers of Ivy League grads.  The real contraction point is falling population and thus falling enrollment.  Closing a satellite campus while financially expedient to the system exacerbates populations shift and most times also destroys the tax base supporting the system.  It's a downward spiral ultimately benefiting neither the system or the taxpayers.

If only most college students were interested in deep learning rather than just getting a credential . . . . .

Students are weird.  They want the job passport but they also don't just want online classes or videos, and they resent professors who are too hard or too easy.  What online offers is convenience.

[spork]

As for content delivery, it is extremely inefficient to have thousands of humans with very-expensive-to-get PhDs teaching the same World History 101 course in thousands of physical classrooms every semester when Crash Course: World History offers the same information with a far higher production value for free on YouTube.

Uh huh.  Self education only takes you so far.  We'd all be freaking geniuses if all learning took was watching a video or reading a book.  Take a look at the learning losses during Covid after transitioning from face to face to online learning.  The data points to losses between 1/2 year to 2 years based on testing results.  Further, most rural colleges aren't employing high numbers of Ivy League grads.  The real contraction point is falling population and thus falling enrollment.  Closing a satellite campus while financially expedient to the system exacerbates populations shift and most times also destroys the tax base supporting the system.  It's a downward spiral ultimately benefiting neither the system or the taxpayers.

It's not a downward spiral when knowledge becomes less costly to distribute, because knowledge has increasing returns. E.g., monks hand-copying manuscripts in Latin -- which for the most part only clerics could read -- compared to printing presses churning out books in the vernacular. While the required Pearson World History 101 textbook costs $75 and is 600 pages of non-narrative drivel, the student can get the same information in a more comprehensible format for free from Crash Course.

If all a person does in the classroom is recite content, they're going to be replaced by a far less expensive alternative.

Edited to add: I find it amusing that people think outsourcing content creation and distribution is outlandish for universities, but they don't bat an eye at watching a Netflix-distributed TV series made in South Korea -- instead of writing a script, hiring the actors and crew, and contracting with a TV channel themselves.