By's Musings

Higher Education

By Leave a Comment

Key Performance Indicators – Part II: Definition

If all of us are to begin on the same page, we need to start with the definition of Key Performance Indicators. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

To understand why Higher Education needs a new Key Performance Indicator (KPI), we must first agree on at least four items. The first two are the definitions of Performance Indicators (PIs) and KPIs. The next two are that we can and should use PIs and KPIs within the enterprise of higher education.

KPIs measure how well we are meeting our most critical goals. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

To take care of our first two necessary items we turn to a Dictionary of Business Terms: A Performance Indicator (PI) is a quantifiable measure an enterprise uses to determine its progress toward an intended result. In other words, it is an indication of how well the enterprise is meeting it’s operational and strategic goals. Since there are many goals colleges and universities set for themselves, there could be hundreds of PIs.

Constantly checking on hundreds of goals and indicators can set one’s head spinning. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

The thought of checking hundreds of goals and indicators constantly set my head spinning. This would be a huge task which would soon become tedious and most likely be an enormous waste of time. A more productive approach would appear to be to select a small number of critical goals to continually monitor, and then choose a few indicators that measure how well the organization is doing in meeting these goals. These select few are our Key Performance Indicators. The above definitions have been adapted from the KPI.org webpage  KPI Basics. 

The idea that KPIs are quantitative measurements immediately brought two well-known sentiments to my mind. The first idea was widely circulated in higher education assessment circles in the 80s and 90s in some form of the following statement: “What you value, you measure; what you don’t measure, you don’t value.”

Slide 50 of 60 from the Professional and Graduate Studies Faculty Development Day, January 9, 2004. Slide courtesy of Cornerstone University and the author and presenter, Dr. By Baylis, who at the time of the presentation was Provost of Cornerstone University.

I don’t know who originated this idea. I remember hearing it in numerous plenary and breakout sessions at accrediting agencies’ annual meetings, as well as assessment conferences.  I also know that I used it in a number of lectures and addresses to campus groups, plus several conference presentations that I made, as illustrated by the slide at left. It is from a faculty orientation program at Cornerstone University, explaining the ins and outs of our faculty evaluation and development processes.

I believe the beauty and usefulness of this statement are wrapped up in the obviousness of its meaning. You should concentrate your efforts on those goals and objectives that are most important to your organization.  Organizational values form the foundation and heart of your organization. The most important things in your organization should determine the priorities of your organization. By concentrating efforts on measuring if you are meeting the goals set around your priorities, your organization will be able to see if it is succeeding in becoming the organization you want it to be.

The second idea is embodied in the meme: “What gets measured gets managed.” It is often attributed to Peter Drucker (1909 – 2005), who is known as the founder of modern management. While it seems reasonable that Drucker could have made this or a similar statement,  I can’t find a reliable source to verify such an attribution. Whether he made such a statement or not, it fits very well with his theoretical approach to management.

An important Enrollment KPI is Student Full-Time Equivalents. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

The idea of measuring performance or the achievement of goals is the foundation of the concept of management by objective (MBO), which was introduced and popularized by Drucker in his 1954 book, The Practice of Management. The heart and soul of MBO is the measurement and comparison of actual performance against a set of predetermined standards.

I can hear some of my former higher education colleagues screaming, “What does management have to do with education?” From the very first day of my career as a college administrator, I made it perfectly clear that I believed that higher education was a business enterprise and managing it well was an absolute necessity.

The Duck Test: If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck, smells like a duck, and waddles like a duck, then most likely it is a duck. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

In the early days (August 31, 2010) of By’s Musings, I published a post According to the duck test, higher education is a business, in which I clearly stated that higher education is a business enterprise.

Six years later (May 2016), in the post The business model of all of higher education is broken – Part II, I more fully outlined my reasons for believing that higher education is a business enterprise and must be managed well.

There was a Part I introducing a series on the business model of higher education. Unfortunately, that post was completely lost in the problems of this past September when By’s Musings went down for several months with missing postings and links not working. Instead of trying to recreate the Part I post, I have decided to let the successive posts stand on their own.

In reviewing those posts on the broken business model of higher education I discovered that I never finished the series. I had a lot more to say, some of which I will interweave into this series on Key Performance Indicators. I will take up the remainder of my comments on the broken business after I finish this current series.

My next post continues the theme A University Should be Managed as If It Were a Business. I hope to publish it next Tuesday, March 4, 2019.

By Leave a Comment

Basketball, Billboards, and Promises We Can’t Keep: a Problem in Higher Education.

My chronic fatigue still has me falling asleep “on the job.” Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

In spite of several excellent nights of sleep according to the data from my BiPAP breathing machine which is supposed to be helping me, I’m still fighting severe chronic fatigue. Thus, I’m not ready to publish the promised second post in my series on Key Performance Indicators. Therefore, I am very happy that Erik Benson, a guest author of two previous posts (Where are you? Cultural intelligence and successful leadership in a university context and  The Value of the Liberal Arts to the University), has volunteered to jump in with his essay below that actually fits very well with some of the directions I intended to pursue in my future posts.

Basketball, Billboards, and Promises We Can’t Keep: A Problem in Higher Education

In the movie White Men Can’t Jump, the two main characters (played by Wesley Snipes and Woody Harrelson) meet on a basketball court. Snipes’ character sizes up Harrelson’s as an easy mark for a hustle but needs some cash to place his bet. He assures his friend who stakes him the money that they will go out for dinner with the winnings. He soon discovers, however, that he has been hustled, and cannot make good on the promise of dinner.

Besides appealing to By’s passion for basketball, this anecdote is a classic example of making a promise one can’t keep. While funny in a movie, it is also a sad reality in higher education. There is a common expectation that a college education guarantees one a job for life. Yet a wide array of sources, from systematic surveys to social media, reveal that many college graduates (and their parents) have been left feeling that this promise has gone unmet. The college graduate who is struggling to find a job and has moved back in with his or her parents has become a common cliché.

This cliché is not baseless, nor is it limited to the “usual suspects.” As Derek Newton notes in a 2018 article in Forbes magazine, liberal arts majors are popularly associated with the college-educated Starbucks barista. Yet a recent study of the employment prospects of college graduates yielded some surprising results. It focused on underemployment, which refers to people with jobs “for which they are overqualified.”

The study revealed that a surprisingly large number of graduates with majors in business and health-related fields were underemployed, even five years after graduation. Newton observes, “In other words, for every cliché of a barista or bartender with a liberal arts degree, there were ten with a degree in business.” Considering that business or health-related fields are often sold as “safe” career choices, the reality must be shocking for many graduates. Little wonder, then, that many have growing doubts about the efficacy of a college education.

Popular manifestations of this are readily evident. Mike Rowe, the face of such shows as Dirty Jobs, is but one of the critics questioning the conventional wisdom about college education. Rowe emphasizes that he is not “anti-college,” but that he has a problem with the overwhelming push to get young people to go to college. For one thing, not everyone is “cut out” for college. For another, there are many unfilled jobs that do not require a college education, but simply some vocational training and a willingness to work. Coupled with the high cost of college, the intense pressure on young people to go is even more inexplicable. In sum, the ideal that is sold doesn’t match reality.

Rowe is not a lone voice. Even within higher education ranks, doubts abound. In a 2018 piece on the state of higher education for Christian Scholar’s Review, Jack R. Baker and Jeffrey Bilbro comment on seeing a slew of billboards along I-94 in southern Michigan for numerous institutions (including their own) rife with promises of fulfilling jobs, careers, and lives. The fact that each makes the same promise of a unique or distinctive experience is remarkably ironic. Their experience is anything but unique. Such billboards abound across the country and are but one venue of the onslaught; television, radio, laptops, and electronic devices are all flooded with such sales pitches. My own institution has ads that pop up on seemingly every webpage, and billboards throughout western Michigan trumpeting a 94% job placement rate for graduates and a chance at “a life that matters.”

This points to additional promises colleges make beyond material rewards. They offer assurances about safety, significance, and future fulfillment. Whatever the slogan, graduates are assured of a life of adventure and significance. Of course, this ties in with material results; few likely envision a life of significance as a barista. Yet there are non-material results. Christian colleges have long been seen as being an ideal venue for finding a spouse. However, besides the fact that this is not the institution’s reason for being, this ideal runs afoul of such realities as student demographics. Still, this is on oft-repeated sales pitches to potential students and their parents. Of course, this has been part of a larger narrative of Christian colleges as “safe havens” for students. This is a big selling point for parents who fear what their children will be exposed to at a state institution, and who thus want assurances that their children won’t be challenged regarding their beliefs. In fairness, on the flip side, many state institutions are marketing much the same idea of being “safe places,” albeit under different guises. Yet the reality is that a good college education exposes one to different people, divergent ideas, and deep thinking, none of which are “safe.” Put simply, we will disappoint those to whom we make that promise.

The tendency to make promises that cannot be kept poses a big problem for higher education. The more it is done, the more the narrative of unfulfilled promises is fed, the more doubts about the value of a college degree rise, and the more downward pressure we will see on enrollment. Put simply, the “brand” will lose its credibility, and “sales” will reflect this. It is a tendency that needs to be broken, and the starting point for doing so is to acknowledge and engage with reality, as we are doing in this forum.

References:

The Permanent Detour: Underemployment’s Long-Term Effects on the Careers of College Grads (Boston: Burning Glass Technologies, 2018).  

Jack R. Baker and Jeffry Bilbro, “How Wendell Berry Helps Universities Inhabit Their Places,” Christian Scholar’s Review 47:4 (Summer 2018), 415-22.

Derek Newton, “It’s Not Liberal Arts and Literature Majors Who Are Most Underemployed,” Forbes 31 May 2018, https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereknewton/2018/05/31/its-not-liberal-arts-and-literature-majors-who-are-most-underemployed/#7959111911de (accessed 11 February 2019).

Mike Rowe, “Mistaken Stance on the Importance of Higher Education,” Mike Rowe (17 July 2017). http://mikerowe.com/2017/07/otw-mistakenstanceonimportanceofcollegeed/ (Accessed 31 January 2019).

 

Erik and I trust that this post has provoked some thinking on your part and we hope that you will let us know those thoughts via the comment section below. At this point, I make no promises concerning my next post other than to say it will either be a follow-up to Erik’s post or the second post in my Key Performance Indicators series. Even after 10.3 hours of sleep last night, according to the readout on my BiPAP, my body is telling me it’s time for a nap. Until next time, I’ll snore away!

By 1 Comment

Key Performance Indicators – Part I, Introduction

With each new attempt to open up the topic of Key Performance Indicators, I hit a brick wall. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

In my post Getting Back in the Saddle from Tuesday, January 21, I indicated that my next post would be about a proposal for the introduction of the Admissions Multiplier Effect, a new Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for higher education. On multiple attempts to compose such a post, I found myself running into a brick wall.

The brick wall was more like a series of hurdles I kept tripping over. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

However, on closer examination, the brick wall turned out to be more like a series of hurdles over which I kept tripping.

 

The Baylis problem-solving methodology focuses on three questions. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

As a mathematician by training, during my college days I developed my own approach to problem-solving. My approach was centered around three questions. These three questions formed a basic methodological approach which I used in every mathematics, statistics, or science class I ever taught. My three questions were the contextual foundation in each of the three statistics textbooks I coauthored.

 

Baylis Problem-Solving Methodology involving three questions. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

The first question and beginning point is “What do I know?” Once that has been established, the second question is “What do I want to know?”

 

Map out the best path from Point A to Point B. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

If I know where I am and where I want to go, I can then plot out a course that answers the third question “How do I get from what I know to my destination of what I want to know?”

 

Most of the blood, sweat,  and tears are shed during the hours of training. Once you’ve done the heavy lifting, it becomes easier to do it a second time. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

Faced with any problem, if you can answer these three questions, you have reached the crux of this problem. You have completed the most difficult task in solving this problem. You’re done with the majority of the heavy lifting. You are generally finished with the shedding of the blood, sweat, and tears. The hard work is almost complete. The only thing left to do is to follow the path that you laid out.

 

I have used this methodology to solve problems not only in all aspects of my personal life, but I have also used this approach in every mathematics, statistics or science course I ever taught. I included these questions in each course syllabi I distributed to students. I encouraged my students to test the effectiveness of the method in their encounters with problems.

 

In addition, these questions formed the contextual foundation of the three statistical textbooks I coauthored. I view statistics as a problem-solving tool. We included these questions in the opening paragraphs of the Preface of each textbook. Throughout the textbook, the three questions were the outline we used to present our version of a standard “Statistical Method” of problem-solving. We continued to reemphasize them as we introduced each statistical tests. The statistical tools such as ANOVA, chi-square, correlation, F-test, MANOVA, path analysis, Pearson-r, regression,  Spearman-rho, t-test, and z-test,  become parts of the path to be taken from what one knows to what one wants to know.

 

Returning to the original problem proposed by this post the introduction of a new KPI for higher education raises a number of other

questions, such as:

  • How do we know if a college is meeting its operational and strategic goals? Image courtesy of Presenter Media

    What is a performance indicator (PI)?

  • What is a key performance indicator (KPI)?
  • What are the standard KPIs for higher education?
  • Many in higher education reject the idea that higher education is a business. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

    Why do so many in higher education believe that higher education is not a business?

  • Why do so many academicians shun the use of performance indicators in higher education?
  • Why do I strongly believe the enterprise of higher education should be managed as if it were a business?
  • What are the admission and retention processes used by colleges? How can we tell if a college is meeting its admissions, retention and graduation goals successfully? Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

    What are the primary aspects of the admission and retention processes in higher education?

  • What are some of the KPIs that are related to the admission and retention processes in higher education?
  • What is my definition of the Admission Multiplier Effect (AME)?
  • Why do we need to introduce the AME?
  • How should we introduce and use the AME?  

 

The figurative brick wall I hit in the first paragraph of this post was the magnitude of work necessary to provide reasonable and intelligible answers to the three questions of the Baylis Problem-Solving Method.

 

To answer all these questions in one post on which I have imposed a 1000-word limit is an impossibility. In fact, I am not sure how many posts it will take me to answer all these questions. The best thing that I can do is to dive into the pool and start writing.

 

Since I am fast approaching that self-imposed limit of 1000 words for each post, I will close out this post. In my next post, I will address the question of “What are performance indicators?” Since I haven’t written the upcoming posts yet, at the end of each upcoming post, I will indicate the topic of the next post. Since I am also still trying to address some health issues related to a chronic-fatigue condition, I can’t guarantee my continued ability to maintain the substantial writing schedule that I have laid out for myself. For this reason, I have asked some friends and colleagues to step in and publish a guest post now and then. If any of my readers would be interested in taking a shot at writing such a post, please contact me and we’ll talk.

By Leave a Comment

Getting Back in the Saddle

Finally, back in the saddle and at least writing something. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

It’s been so long since I’ve posted something. Even though I am still fighting medical problems, I’ve been overrun with that urge to get back in the saddle and start writing again.

Reading today’s (1/21/19) Harvard Business Review Management Tip of the Day, I had a thought. Share this on By’s Musings to let people know that I’m still alive and thinking.

How to Work with Someone Who Bugs You

Some people have a way of getting on your nerves. They are as annoying as a blaring trumpet. Image courtesy of Presenter Image

Sometimes you have to work with a colleague you don’t particularly like. They may not be toxic or difficult — they might just get on your nerves. To work with them productively, remind yourself that while you won’t get along with everyone, there is potential value in every interaction. Think about the other person’s point of view: Why do they do the things that annoy you? What might be motivating them? And how do you seem to them? It also helps to approach conversations with a problem-solving mindset:

Working together and sharing thoughts can put the puzzle together quicker. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

“I don’t feel like we are working together as effectively as we could. What do you think? Do you have any ideas for how we can work together better?” If that doesn’t work, try asking for their help: “You’ve been around here longer than I have. What should I be doing more or less of?” This can ease tensions and reboot a difficult relationship because it shows that you value the person’s experience.

Adapted from “How to collaborate with people you don’t like,” by Mark Nevins

Admissions Multiplier Effect – a new proposed KPI for colleges and universities. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

Stayed tuned to By’s Musings because next Tuesday, January 28, I will be publishing a post on my proposal for a new higher education Key Performance Indicator: the Admissions Multiplier Effect.

Hopefully, I will also be able to outline so what is ahead for me, the projects I’m planning for Higher Ed By Baylis, LLC, and the future posts in this blog.

By 4 Comments

American Higher Education Has Lost Its Lodestar!

This post has been very difficult to write and has required multiple drafts. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

American Higher Education (AHE) has lost its lodestar. This post has been a lot harder to write than I thought it would be. At first, I was extremely excited to write this post. However, as I began to compose it, I immediately hit a number of roadblocks.

The first roadblock related to the way I process thoughts and ideas. As many of you know, almost a decade ago two traumatic brain incidents drastically changed my life. After a burst aneurysm caused the implosion of a benign meningioma attached to my right temporal lobe, I started having trouble finding words. I found myself fighting a case of oral aphasia.

Nine months later, I experienced four tonic-clonic seizures within a thirty-minute timespan. When I awoke from a four-day coma, I found myself no longer thinking in terms of words. I was now processing thoughts and ideas in terms of pictures. Words became my second language. Visual images were now my first language. This meant that in order to communicate with people, I had to translate back and forth between pictures and words.  

My mind was overflowing with pictures that spoke to this issue of American higher education. However, translating those visuals into words was much more difficult and slower than usual. If I was able to compose other posts, why had this particular post become so problematic? 

During my struggles with this post, I had a eureka moment. In the deep recesses of my mind, I found a perfect word, LODESTAR, that covered four aspects of the topic I wanted to address.

First of all, a lodestar is a fixed point of reference, which can be used to describe the position or motion of one object relative to another object.

There have been dramatic changes in both American higher education and society during the past century. AHE needs a lodestar to position itself in relation to American society.      

Secondly, as a fixed point, a lodestar can be used as the foundation of a guidance system to help individuals get from one point to another, particularly when they are lost. AHE has lost its way. It needs a GPS. 

It is wandering aimlessly from one crisis to the next. Headline after headline decries its loss of effectiveness in serving the needs of American society, its declining support in public circles, and its strident and stubborn insularity. 

In article after article, questions are raised about the declining confidence of American society in higher education, and the seeming indifference of AHE to the external demands for change. The internal conflicts among the primary actors within AHE are laid bare to the public, exposing all to criticism and contempt.

Comparisons between education for life and career education are plentiful. The philosophical and theoretical bases for liberal and professional education are made public for everyone to pick a side.  

In analysis after analysis critics and proponents explore hypotheses about the rising cost of higher education, the short and long-term effects of the staggering debt load that students and institutions are accumulating, the commercialization of higher education, and the adjunctification of the faculty.

Thirdly, lodestars are models of propriety. They live by fixed values and principles, no matter what the cost to them or their institutions. Currently, it seems that every week brings another scandal to light in American higher education. No segment of AHE has escaped unscathed. 

Finally, a lodestar is an inspirational leader. I challenge you to name one individual in educational circles today who inspires others to follow him or her. 

Individual campuses may have local lodestars. However, where are the likes of Ernie Boyer, Lee Shulman, John Dewey, Mortimer Adler, Maria Montessori, Paulo Freire, Bertrand Russell, Maxine Greene, B. F. Skinner, James Conant, and Martin Buber? At this junction of time, the enterprise of American higher education has no one individual who stands out ahead of the rest of the field.

As I was pulling my thoughts together for this post, a political/media circus in America made the term lodestar a laughing matter and a joke. How could I seriously use it in this post about American higher education?  I decided that I could use it, and must use it because it is the right word to use.

Having settled on the inclusion of the word lodestar, there were still two major stumbling blocks with respect to this post. The first related to the format I have used in all my recent posts. After I translated the pictures in my head into words, I took another step. Since I am not an artist and can’t draw an intelligible sketch of anything, I went and found free pictures that would duplicate as closely as possible the visions in my head. I did this to help my readers understand my thought processes.

In this case, I drew a complete blank. I found nothing that came close to communicating my thoughts. Thus, I have no visual robes to wrap around my verbal thoughts. I decided to go ahead and present the unadorned thoughts to my readers. I do have one question for my readers: Which style do you prefer? The verbal thoughts augmented with pictures, or the naked thoughts by themselves? Please tell me in the comment in the box below. I will use this rough survey to help me determine how I will proceed with my future posts. The second stumbling block was the 1,000-word limit. This will require multiple posts on this topic which will follow in future weeks. 

In my next post, scheduled for publication on Tuesday, October 23, I return to my roots as a mathematician and an institutional researcher. I will introduce a new Key Performance Indicator (KPI) that I developed. I call it the Admissions Multiplier Effect. I believe it provides important information that is not otherwise available and should be featured on the dashboard of every institution of higher education.     

By 2 Comments

Repurpose or Build Anew

How should we improve or fix a broken structure? All images in this post are courtesy of Presenter Media.

This is the initial post in my Point versus Counterpoint thread. The proposal that I wish to address is the following: “When faced with the profound challenge of making significant changes to an existing program, facility or policy, what is the best approach for an institution to take?” Should the organization remodel the existing structure, or tear it down and completely rebuild a new structure from the ground up?

What happens when the pieces don’t fit together just right? You get a lot of pushing back and forth.

I have seen battles over this question severely divide more than one campus. Many times within education, these battles degenerate into classic clashes between traditionalists and disrupters, between evolutionists and innovators, or between the old guard and the young Turks.

In the quintessential debate approach of Point versus Counterpoint, it would be incumbent upon me to select a side on the “Repurpose or Build Anew” question. During my 50 years in the academy, I have been known as a traditionalist who studied and revered the best aspects of education’s rich history.

During 35+ years as a college administrator, I also had a reputation as being an approachable leader who listened carefully and made thoughtful decisions based upon all the evidence. These two characteristics might suggest that I should assume a role as a supporter of the “repurpose” side.

However, throughout my career, I have been acknowledged as an educational entrepreneur. I have been recognized for my ability to think outside the box while still accommodating those inside the box. Often I championed new and different approaches to problem-solving when the old methods were not working. I have been known for pushing for innovation and change when change is needed.

On the Rogers Adoption/Innovation Curve most of my former colleagues would place me in the Innovator or Early Adopter segments. I have always been known as someone who was eager to find new solutions to long-standing problems and pushed the limits on how the technology could help. These characteristics would suggest that I should assume the role of a supporter of the “build anew” side.

Even though I have had a 60+ year love affair with education, I am deeply concerned about its future. Given my recent work on the financial models of education and my research into the demise of more than 1600 American colleges or campuses since 1950, I see so much that is broken in American higher education that I often wondered where it is heading.

Since this is my blog, I will take an owner’s prerogative and assume the compromise position of favoring “Building Anew, Except in Very Limited Cases, When Repurposing Is Appropriate and the Most Feasible Approach.”

Why do I believe that “building anew” is the best choice for American higher education? Let me count the ways that I believe American higher education is in trouble.

  1. American higher education has lost its lodestar. Where is the inspirational, values-based, principled leadership that developed the most advanced, highest quality system of higher education in the world?

  2. The three segments of American higher education (public, non-profit private, and proprietary) treat each other as enemies and competitors rather than allies.

  3. The basic financial model of American higher education is broken. How can a system survive that relies on billions of dollars annually from endowment and donors, and complains when those donors ask for something in return? How can a system take billions of dollars from public coffers and then balk at questions of accountability? How can a principled-system saddle its consumers (students) with more than $1.3 Trillion in debt load?

  4. The internal structure of most institutions of higher education in American consists of isolated silos which have little to no communication with each other. Within most colleges, the right hand has no idea what the left hand is doing.

  5. American higher education has seemingly pushed the individuals who should be the most important persons in the system, the students, to the periphery. Investors are only interested in their Return on Investment (ROI). Administrators and faculty bicker constantly, bitterly accusing each other of sabotaging the enterprise and only looking out for their own self-interests. Students and parents complain incessantly that no one is listening to them.

  6. Many students, parents, and politicians act as if education is an entitlement rather than a labor-intensive, responsibility. Debates on whether students should be given the rewards of education without the expending the hard work to earn them are waged privately across campuses and publicly in the media.

  7. American education has fallen into the trap of the “Procrustean Bed” thinking one form of education fits all students and one measuring stick is sufficient for all institutions.

  8. Society rallies around the banner of American higher education raised as the clarion call for social mobility. Community leaders then throw their hands up in despair when the data show it is not working. They conveniently forget that history suggests and the data show that education institutions tend to be excellent reflections of our society and not particularly effective change agents. Yes, there are individual victories. However, there have been too few to change our society as a whole.

Do you have a piece of the puzzle that I have missed. Please let me know what it is.

Readers, it is now your turn to engage in this conversation. Are there problem areas that I have missed? Please let me know now. In future posts, I intend to individually address each of the above areas. Readers, if you have a different take on those areas, you will an opportunity to weigh in on those areas at that time.

My next post, scheduled for Tuesday, October 16, will begin to address the issue of the lost lodestar of American higher education. Thank you for joining this journey. Enjoy your coffee and the conversation.