Thriving

May 10, 2019 By B. Baylis Leave a Comment

The Golden Age of American Higher Education

After each major war in the history of the United States, significant growth occurred in the American higher education enterprise. All of these increases combined did not equal the growth in the three decades following WWII. The period between 1945 and 1975 could easily be labeled the Golden Age of American Higher Education.

During this time span, American higher education had the Midas touch. Everything was going well. American colleges and universities had overflowing enrollments. They couldn’t build facilities fast enough to satisfy the undergraduate student demand. Graduate schools couldn’t produce a sufficient number of PhDs to fill the faculty positions needed to teach the surfeit of undergraduate students. Public and private supporters tripped over each other as they rushed to provide the enormous increase in financial support needed to finance the vast expansion occurring. Nationally and internationally the reputation and prestige of American higher education were soaring to new heights.

During these three decades, the face of American higher education (AHE) was completely altered. AHE changed its focus. No longer was it predominantly an exclusive club for the sons of the wealthy elite, providing them with a liberal arts veneer to establish and ground them so that they could assume their “rightful place” of leadership in business, governmental, ecclesiastical, and social circles.

President Roosevelt in the Oval Office signing the GI Bill into law. The original photograph was taken by an unknown government employee as part of that person’s official duties. Thus, the photograph is in the public domain in the United States. Image courtesy of the FDR Library and Wikimedia Commons.

As WWII wound down and the nation transitioned into a post-war phase, two presidential actions had an enormous effect on American higher education. The first occurred two weeks after the Allied landing on the beaches of Normandy, France on D-Day, which began the most important battle of the war. On June 22, 1944, President Roosevelt signed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, commonly known as the G.I. Bill, into law. This bill provided a very wide range of benefits for returning World War II veterans, including educational assistance for veterans and their families.

This law expired in 1956 and was subsequently replaced by adjustments for veterans of the Korean Conflict and Vietnam War. Of the nearly 16 million World War II veterans, more than 2.2 million used benefits to enroll in a college or university and another 5.6 million participated in various career-oriented training programs. In the peak year of 1947, veterans accounted for 49 percent of all U.S. college admissions. Between 1956 and 1975, another 6 million individuals were aided by educational assistance programs for veterans and their families through extensions to the original GI Bill.

President Truman in 1945. This is an official presidential photograph taken by Edmonston Studio, which did not renew its copyright when the initial copyright expired. Image courtesy of the Library of Congress and Wikimedia Commons.

In light of the economic, demographic and educational changes occurring in the United States, by proclamation on July 13, 1946, President Harry S. Truman instituted a Commission on Higher Education, and named George F. Zook, then president of the American Council on Education, as its Chair. Truman charged the Commission

“…to concern itself with the ways and means of expanding educational opportunities for all able young people; the adequacy of curricula, particularly in the fields of international affairs and social understanding; the desirability of establishing a series of intermediate technical institutes; and the financial structure of higher education with particular reference to the requirements for the expansion of physical facilities.”

In the Commission’s 1947 Report, Higher Education for Democracy, it was noted that

“Education is by far the biggest and the most hopeful of the Nation’s enterprises. Long ago our people recognized that education for all is not only democracy’s obligation but its necessity. Education is the foundation of democratic liberties. Without an education citizenry alert to preserve and extend freedom, it would not long endure.”

The last phrase echoes the words of President Lincoln’s famous Gettysburg Address at the dedication of the Gettysburg Civil War Battlefield Cemetery.

In reflecting on President Truman’s charge to the Commission, the report stated that

“…the President’s Commission on Higher Education has attempted to select, from among the principal goals for higher education, those which should come first in our time. They are to bring all the people of the Nation:

Education for a fuller realization of democracy in every phase of living.
Education directly and explicitly for international understanding and cooperation.
Education for the application of creative imagination and trained intelligence to the solution of social problems and to the administration of public affairs.”

In spite of the new frontiers in to which American Higher Education was being pushed by the perceived new national needs and the plethora of government commissions, reports, and programs, along with the burgeoning population growth engendered by the Baby Boom and subsequent diversification of the potential higher education clientele, AHE still proclaimed itself as the legitimate heir and guardian of the liberal arts tradition. The only concession that AHE seemed willing to make was the introduction of the new model of a liberal education to replace the declining model of the ancient liberal arts.

An illustration of the seven liberal arts from the 12th-century book Hortus Delicarum of Herrad of Landsberg. This image is in the public domain because it is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art. Image courtesy of Dnalor 01 and Wikimedia Commons.

The seven traditional liberal arts of Medieval times were divided into two parts. The first part was called the trivium, which consisted of three literary disciplines. The second part was called the quadrivium, which consisted of four quantitative disciplines.

The three literary disciplines were:

Grammar. This deals with the correct usage of language, both in speaking and writing.
Dialectic (or logic). This is correct thinking, helping an individual arrive at the truth.
Rhetoric. This concerns the expression of ideas, particularly through persuasion. It deals with ways of organizing thoughts in a speech or document so that people can understand your ideas and believe them.

The four quantitative or mathematical disciplines were:

Arithmetic. This deals with numbers and the simple operations involving numbers.
Geometry. This concerns spaces, spatial calculations, and spatial relationships.
Astronomy. This is the study of the stars. It is used for timekeeping, navigation, and developing a sense of place.
Music. This is the study of ratio, proportion, and sound as it is related to melody and song.

Prior to the 20th-century, with a few exceptions for professional and practical arts programs, American higher education followed the medieval liberal arts paradigm. In the 20th-century, American society transitioned from a rural and agricultural society to an urban and manufacturing culture. In response to these changes, AHE evolved along with them.

This chart is the blog author’s graphic interpretation of the 2002 definition of Liberal Education offered by the AAC&U. The chart was created using ClickChart software.

The 20th-century American higher education version of the liberal arts added several other components. These were usually framed in the sense of the answer to the question: “What foundation of general knowledge did a well-educated individual need?” These additions began with a solid grounding in the humanities and sciences, including history, philosophy, the social sciences, and the natural sciences. AHE invented the term liberal education in an attempt to describe this “slightly altered” form. To describe this new form of education, the term liberal designated the knowledge and values which freed up or liberated an individual to be more human or humane. The American Association of Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) took it upon itself to define more fully what the new liberal education should look like and involve.

American higher education became bifurcated and unapologetically splintered. While one side of campuses persisted as the solid, unyielding fortresses of the liberal arts and liberal education, the other side of campuses rapidly developed into the training ground of choice for a quickly and constantly changing workforce which needed professional, technical, and career knowledge and skills. Students flocked to American colleges and universities to study the practical arts and sciences (such as the agricultural sciences of horticulture and animal husbandry), engineering, technology, educational studies (such as pedagogy and curriculum), and career and professional studies (such as accounting, business administration, and management).

In each of the two camps of the liberal arts and the practical and professional studies, more fissures appeared. Both camps separated themselves into undergraduate and graduate schools. The undergraduate schools concentrated on providing students with basic post-secondary education, helping them acquire the skills and knowledge necessary for further study or to obtain the first position in their field. The graduate schools concentrated on assisting qualified students to do more in-depth study within their field and prepare themselves to add to the world’s knowledge base.

President John F. Kennedy speaking at Rice University on September 12, 1962. This image was originally posted to Flickr by NASA on The Commons at https://flickr.com/photos/44494372@N05/29533458786. It was reviewed on 15 September 2016 by FlickreviewR and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the No known copyright restrictions. Image courtesy of Flickr, NASA, and Wikimedia Commons.

American higher education had expanded its reach after the Civil War into the service arena with the Land Grant Act. University faculty were also drawn into national service through research projects directed toward the national defense in the lead up to WWII. After WWII these areas exploded. Rising revenues from government and industry sources transformed faculty research from an afterthought into a booming business.

President Kennedy was the superb politician and master of the one-liner. He spurred the nation into a service frenzy, with his “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” The peace corp, an outgrowth of Kennedy’s inaugural speech, became the embodiment of the ideals toward which the Morrill Act of a century earlier had pointed a growing nation.

Kennedy then jump-started the space race in his famous Rice University speech with the line: “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard…” This challenge set the tone for a decade of exploits not only in space travel but many other areas of scientific and medical research in which American research universities led the way.

Picture of the University of Chicago as it may have appeared in 1900. The image by an unknown photographer. It is the public domain because it was published prior to 1916. Image courtesy of the University of Chicago and Wikimedia Commons.

The American research university came into being in the late 19th century as a few American institutions took the German Humboldt University model and put a new world twist on it. In February 1900, the presidents of five American universities (Chicago, Columbia, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and the University of California) invited the presidents of nine other universities (Catholic University of American, Clark, Cornell, Princeton, Stanford, University of Michigan, University of Pennsylvania, University of Wisconsin – Madison, Yale) to meet at the University of Chicago to discuss plans to solidify the place and reputation of American universities in the research and higher education world. As a result of these discussions, the fourteen schools formed the Association of American Universities (AAU).

The initial agenda of the AAU included three items:

to bring about “a greater uniformity of the conditions under which students may become candidates for higher degrees in different American universities, thereby solving the problem of migration,”
to “raise the opinion entertained abroad of our own Doctor’s degree,” and
to “raise the standard of our own weaker institutions.”

Throughout the first half of the 20th century, as the American research university matured, the unofficial agenda of the AAU became the following four points:

inspire research institutions to emphasize a distinction between preparatory studies and higher learning;
encourage research institutions to make the idea of advancing knowledge through specialized, original research a central tenant of their mission statements;
embolden research institutions to assure the independence of faculty and students in the area of intellectual inquiry (i.e., guarantee “academic freedom” in their studies)
exhort research institutions to provide the necessary institutional structure to fully support the “research ideal.”

Radar image of Tropical Storm Humberto approaching the United States along the Texas coastline in September 2007. This image is in the public domain because it contains materials that originally came from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, taken or made as part of an employee’s official duties. Image courtesy of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Wikimedia Commons

After WWII, the AAU redoubled its efforts to push a “specialized research” and an “America first agenda.” Although world rankings of universities didn’t exist until several years into the 21st century, the 60 United States members of the AAU were recognized around the world as top-flight educational institutions. By 1975 these schools and many other American colleges were attracting students and faculty from every corner of the world.

To many inside and outside the American higher education community, the horizon for American higher education could not have looked brighter. However, to the critics and some commentators of AHE, warning signs abounded. There was a storm brewing that was just showing up on radar screens across American campuses. Just like the radar screenshot of Tropical Storm Humberto shown at the left, only small showers had landed prior to the approach of the massive body of the storm, which was getting ready to unload its full fury a short time later. Was the golden age of American higher education about to end? Spoiler alert: my next post in this series will focus on the disruptive forces which played havoc with American higher education from 1975 to the present.

March 26, 2019 By B. Baylis Leave a Comment

KPI – Part VI: Difference Between Governance and Management

Many within higher ed think management theory is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, trying to sneak into the sheepfold and devour the sheep. Image courtesy of Dreamstime, ID 28175702 © Debspoons | Dreamstime.com

In this post, I return to looking at Key Performance Indicators in a higher ed setting. While this gentle approach may seem innocuous to most individuals outside of the insular world of higher education, it is sure to raise the hackles of many of my higher ed colleagues. They will accuse me of trying to sneak the wolf (management theory) dressed in sheep clothing into the sheepfold (the university) through a back door.

Welsh Corgi working as sheepdog with a flock of sheep. Image courtesy of Dreamstime and Natalia Yaumenenka. ID 104389610 © Natallia Yaumenenka | Dreamstime.com

I am going to be bold enough to take that next step and publicly declare that I do not see management theory as a wolf trying to devour the sheep. I believe it can be viewed more like a sheepdog, herding the sheep to safety through the one and only door of the sheepfold. The sheepdog then lies down at that entrance and guards the fold and the sheep against all predators.

Education is a process that can’t be measured in financial returns. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

Many of the most familiar performance indicators are business-oriented outcome measurements. How many widgets were produced? How much did it cost to produce each widget? How much income did the firm make from the sale of those widgets? Higher education for years has claimed that since education is a process, we shouldn’t focus on or speak of educational outcomes, especially financial ones.

As I noted in my post K PI Part III, A University Should Be Managed as If It Were a Business Milton Greenberg in his seminal essay “The University Is Not a Business (and Other Fantasies)” published in EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 39, no. 2 (March/April 2004), argues forcefully and persuasively that a university should be managed as if it were a business.

Very early in his essay, Greenberg proclaims, “ Presumably, a ‘business’ involves the hierarchical and orderly management of people, property, productivity, and finance for profit.” The primary counterarguments of academicians to Greenberg’s position hinge on three concepts in this sentence.

We need to dig further into the idea of “Hierarchical Management” and the difference between governance and management. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

In this post, I will begin to address the first of these counterarguments, the concept of “hierarchical management.” To understand the problems created by the use of the term hierarchical management we need to have some familiarity with the difference between the general concepts of governance and management. We also need to look at the typical governance structures of colleges and universities, and the usual management formats of colleges and universities. These two topics are too involved to address in depth in this one blog post. I will take each of them up in subsequent posts. This idea will require more in-depth excavation.

Governance refers to the relationships among people in an organization. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

The origins of the two terms automatically set the stage for a huge battle in the academy over their applicability to higher education. The term governance historically came from the disciplines of social and political sciences. Without digging into the finer points of the definition, this ancestry would usually imply that it must primarily deal with relationships.

Governance has many definitions, but most center on two related ideas. The first idea concerns how decisions are made. What are the processes of decision making within the organization? Who has a voice in making decisions? The second changes the focus to how those decisions are implemented. How is power or control exercised within the organization? What is the locus of authority within the organization?

The typical view of the concept of management is to get employees to work harder to make more money for the company. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

On the other hand, the term management originated within the realm of the business world and was then fine-tuned within the disciplines of economics and business. This ancestry automatically makes it suspect to the academy, which believes that given its origin, it must naturally deal with productivity and finances. These concepts are antithetical to many citizens of the academy.

The four tasks of management. Image courtesy of the author, created by using ClickCharts.

Most modern definitions of management view it as a process of four interwoven tasks. The first of these tasks is Planning, the selection of appropriate organizational goals and the best array of actions to achieve those goals. The second task is Organizing, the establishment of assignments and an aura of authority that encourage and allow people to work together to achieve the organization’s goals.

The third task is Leading which involves motivating, coordinating, inspiring and energizing individuals and groups to work together to achieve the organization’s goals. The fourth task is Controlling which has two primary aspects. The first is assessing situations by establishing accurate systems of measuring and monitoring how well the organization has achieved its goals. The second is redirecting the course of operations when it is apparent that the organization is not achieving its goals.

Modern universities consist of four major groups of individuals. These groups are students, faculty, administration, and governing boards. In subsequent posts, we will examine the historical development of these groups, their relationships with each other, and their roles in governance and management.

From the definitions of governance and management, we see much common ground with one major difference. The major difference is their primary focus. Governance focuses on relationships, while management focuses on tasks. In subsequent posts, I will deal with the idea of shared governance and hierarchical management. I hope to convince you that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

To get to the point of being able to discuss these topics, my next post will be this Friday, March 29. It will be a short history of the development of the modern university and the four major groups of individuals that comprise the university.

March 15, 2019 By B. Baylis Leave a Comment

KPI – Part V: Scoring Rubric for Guiding Principles Factor

Scoring Rubric for Baylis/Burwell VMI. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

This post is a continuation of my previous post [KPI – Part IV: Guiding Principles]. It will describe the scoring rubric we selected to use to assign points to institutions on the Guiding Principles Factor of the Baylis/Burwell Vitality/Morbidity Model.

Two different approaches to building our scoring rubric. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

There are two different directions which we could have taken to develop our scoring rubric. The first way was an ultra-quantitative, spreadsheet approach attempting to measure the quality of the statements of institutional Mission, Vision, and Core Values, and the institution’s efforts to live out those statements in their actions.

This type of approach is typically called the objective approach. However, if by objective you mean “not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts,” this direction is far from being truly objective. There are many points of subjectivity present in the quantitative scoring of the various components and in the weighting factors used in combining component scores to obtain a final score, where the raters’ biases and opinions enter into the equation.

A panel of higher education experts weigh the evidence and make judgments on each aspect of a particular factor. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

The second approach is a more holistic approach which is typically labeled as a subjective approach. It relies on the use of higher education experts, who have had years of training and experience in the field of higher education, to evaluate the institution in a number of ways.

The first thing these experts are asked to do is to read the institution’s published documents and judge whether they believe the institution has selected values and behaviors that represent those of a quality institution of higher education. The institutions are scored on the following three-point scale:

Is the institution a stellar citizen of the higher education community or a devil in disguise? Image courtesy of Presenter Media

-1 Totally inadequate for a quality institution of higher education

0 Barely adequate for a quality institution of higher education

+1 Describes a high performing institution of higher education

The higher education experts are then asked to judge whether the behavior of a given institution matches its stated beliefs using the following scale:

In the opinion of the higher education experts does the institution’s behavior match its stated values. They will weigh the evidence and make their decision on their training and experience in higher education. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

-1 Behavior doesn’t come close to its stated values. The institution fails to meet its own stated standards

0 Behavior barely meets its stated values or standards.

+1 Behavior exceeds the expectations set by its stated values.

A quality institution of higher education should be beyond reproach. In light of this, the panel of higher education experts is asked to make two more judgments. The first judgment involves the institution’s track record with those entities and agencies to which the institution is responsible. Does the institution meet all of its required reporting deadlines and fulfill all obligations to federal and accrediting agencies? Institutions will be scored on the following scale:

The institution has done everything it could to move it to the top of its class. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

-1 The institution has failed to meet more than one reporting obligation or legal requirements.

0 The institution has met all requirements and obligations but has occasionally been late or hesitant in making results public.

+1 The institution has gone of out its way in meeting requirements and obligations. It has made been completely transparent in all of its operations.

The final area of concern for the panel of experts deals with the reputation of the institution. The panel will judge whether the institution is held in high esteem by various entities such as higher education as a whole, the general public, students and prospective students, and employers of the institution’s graduates.

Is the institution a stellar citizen of the higher education community or a devil in disguise? Image courtesy of Presenter Media

The scoring scale for this area of concern is as follows:

-1 The reputation of the institution is tarnished in a number of areas with a number of groups.

0 The reputation of the institution is considered “run-of-the-mill.” It is not outstanding in any area.

+1 The reputation of the institution is stellar with all groups with which it deals.

To determine a factor score for Guiding Principles, the sub-factor scores are summed. Total scores are assigned as follows:

If the total sub-factor score is -3 or less, the assigned factor score is -1. Any institution in this area should be considered in trouble and possibly dying.

If the total sub-factor score is -2 to +2, the assigned factor score is 0. An institution with a score in this area is just hanging on and should be considered just surviving.

In institution in this category is considered a top-tier or elite institution. It is truly thriving. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

If the total sub-factor score is +3 or more, the assigned factor score is +1. An institution with a score in this area is doing well and should be considered to be thriving.

With the institutions we have examined we have found a predisposition away from the thriving side of the scale. It should not be surprising. Most observers will readily say that the overwhelming majority of colleges and universities are either in trouble or just surviving. There are few elite, or top tier institutions that are really thriving.

Next Tuesday, March 19, I will take a break from this series of post on Key Performance Indicators and publish a special post inspired by the scores of birthday wishes that I received this past week. It may be unusual to throw a big celebration for someone’s 73rd birthday. However, after a series of traumatic brain incidents more than a decade ago, scores of doctors wouldn’t have given you a plug nickel that I would make my 73rd birthday. Thus I will publish a post celebrating an unexpected decade of extra life. What would you do with an extra decade of life?

March 12, 2019 By B. Baylis Leave a Comment

KPI – Part IV: Guiding Principles

We want our college built upon a rock solid foundation so that it will withstand all the storms that come its way. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

In this post, the fourth in a series on Key Performance Indicators, I continue my consideration of the eight factors of the Baylis/Burwell Vitality/Morbidity Model. This post focuses on the factor Guiding Principles (GP). The Guiding Principles of any organization, particularly Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL), form the foundation upon which that organization is built.

The Guiding Principles of an organization are the basis of the blueprint for its current and future success. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

However, Guiding Principles are not just the foundation. They also provide the basis for the plans and blueprints on which a thriving organization can be built. The current and future success of any organization is dependent on that organization staying committed to the foundational principles upon which it is built.

Typically, the foundational principles of an organization are bound together as a set of three statements which form the pillars which support the organization. The three pillars consist of a Mission Statement, a Vision Statement, and a list of Core Values. Although closely related, these three statements are distinctly different in their purpose, format, and point of view. In what follows, I will address these three pillars in a university setting.

Mission Statement

A Mission Statement articulates a university’s reason for being, or raison d’être. A mission statement looks outward and justifies the existence of the university based upon its external environment. A university can only survive and thrive if it has a reason to exist within its environment.

A good mission statement should be simple and concise but at the same time elegant. It must be well-publicized internally and externally. Everyone in the university should recognize and accept the mission. This includes the board, the administration, faculty, staff, and students. It should be easy for individuals outside the university, particularly prospective students, to find and understand the mission.

Vision Statement

A Vision Statement is an explicit announcement of what a university desires to be and what it wants to accomplish. It is a forward-looking proclamation of the university’s mid-term and long-term objectives. It is meant to serve as a guide or roadmap for internal decision-making. Strategic and tactical plans and initiatives should align with and adhere to the tenets of the vision statement. These include staffing, facility, programmatic, and budget decisions.

A good vision statement should be precise, concise, and most definitely memorable. All constituencies of the university should know and be able to recall the major points, if not the exact wording, of the vision statement.

A good vision statement should be aspirational. It should drive the university to reach beyond its current status. It should also be inspirational, pushing all constituencies to action on behalf of the university.

Core Values

The Core Values of a university are the fundamental beliefs that the university collectively holds. They are derived from the university’s mission statement and they dictate how the university behaves. Core Values look inward and describe the nature of the organization.

The expression of a core value should be a descriptive statement of a collective belief of the university. Core values serve as self-guiding principles that dictate how the university should act and behave as an organization. As collective values, it is expected that all constituencies individually give assent to and agree to conduct themselves accordingly.

It is important and imperative that individual and collective agreement with the beliefs and behaviors included in the core values be verifiable. The university should have the ability to demonstrate that, as an organization, it is upholding its core values. For all individuals who chose to align themselves with the university, the university is entitled to expect that they will abide by and exhibit the stated core values. This includes the board, administration, faculty, staff, and students.

Examples of common organizational core values include honesty (tell the truth), integrity (know and do what is right), respect of others (treat others as an individual would like to be treated), and accountability (willingness to take responsibility for one’s own actions). Examples of common academic core values include scholarship (commitment to the creation, organization, and dissemination of knowledge), student centeredness (commitment to student learning and serving students by meeting their needs and desires), and service (meeting the needs of the various communities associated with and around the university).

Scoring Rubric

As I noted in my previous post, KPI Part III, A University Should Be Managed as If It Were a Business, each of the eight factors in the Baylis/Burwell Institutional Vitality Model would be scored on a three-point scale of THRIVING (+1), SURVIVING (0), or DYING (-1).

Please take note that I will be publishing a special post on Friday, March 15. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

Since I am fast approaching my self-imposed 1,000 word limit per post, I will postpone the explanation of my scoring rubric for this factor to my next post. Although I have been trying to stick to a Tuesday publication schedule, since the ideas are so closely tied to the content of this post, I will publish a post on the scoring rubric for the factor Guiding Principles this coming Friday, March 15.

I will return to the regular publishing schedule with a post on Tuesday, March 19 which focuses on the first of the three counterarguments, hierarchical management, raised by academics against Milton Greenberg’s argument that a university should be managed as if it were a business.

March 5, 2019 By B. Baylis Leave a Comment

KPI Part III, A University Should Be Managed as If It Were a Business

As noted in the previous post, Key Performance Indicators – Part II: Definition, the theme of this post was going to be A University Should Be Managed as If It Were a Business. In all of my previous roles, as a university administrator or the creator of this blog, I made no efforts to hide my sentiments concerning this proposition. It was always one of my operating premises.

When the wheels fall off an organization, it will fail to run. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

In 2016, I started a series of posts on the theme The Business Model of All Higher Education Is Broken. Even in the title of the series, I attempted to make the point that institutions of higher education (IHEs) must view themselves as business enterprises. As an academician, I believe that institutions of higher education must be more than businesses. However, if they don’t operate using the best business and management techniques then they will surely fail, which is what we have seen with 2,000 American IHEs since 1950.

Too many universities live in a fantasy world chasing rainbows, leprechauns, and illusory pots of gold. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

Milton Greenberg in his seminal essay “The University Is Not a Business (and Other Fantasies)” published in EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 39, no. 2 (March/April 2004), argues forcefully that a university should be managed as if it were a business.

Very early in his essay, Greenberg proclaims, “ Presumably, a “business” involves the hierarchical and orderly management of people, property, productivity, and finance for profit.” The primary counterarguments of academicians to Greenberg’s position hinge on three concepts he introduces in this sentence: hierarchical management, productivity, and profit. In three future posts in this series, I will separately tackle each of these counterarguments.

Eight Factor Model of Institutional Vitality developed by By Baylis and Ron Burwell. Image copyright by Higher Ed By Baylis, LLC. Image courtesy of By Baylis and Ron Burwell. Constructed using ClickCharts Software

But first I return to present my argument on why universities should be run more like businesses. In studying the 2,000 deceased IHEs, Ron Burwell and I noticed eight factors that we believe contributed negatively to their vitality and their eventual morbidity. The eight factors are shown in the diagram to the left.

Although the eight factors are obviously not completely independent of each other, they are sufficiently different to warrant separate consideration. Additionally, that consideration would take up too much space for one blog post. Thus, I will address each of the factors in upcoming posts.

Mind Map of the Guiding Principles Factor. Image courtesy of authors By Baylis and Ron Burwell. Constructed using ClickCharts Software.

To give you a taste of how I will be introducing and treating these factors, I present a Mind Map Diagram on the right illustrating the three components which define the Guiding Principles Factor.

Under each of the three components, the diagram presents the major ingredients that go into measuring the success of the organization in that component.

A reasonably informed person weighing the evidence should be able to make an informed judgment. Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

In order to simplify our study, without losing the crux of discovering the reasons why institutions failed, we have chosen to use the straight-forward three-point scale of Thriving, Surviving, and Dying. Instead of attempting to construct complicated, quantitative scales to measure each subfactor of our eight factors, we are going to use a subjective approach similar to Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s take on defining pornography: “I may not be able to define it. But I know it when I see it.”

Vitality/Morbidity Index (VMI) Gauge indicating an institution is greatly struggling in the Guiding Principles Factor. Image courtesy of Presenter Media

With each component in our factors, most reasonable observers can easily determine whether: 1) an organization is extremely successful and thriving in terms of this component, 2) just barely getting by or only surviving, or 3) failing badly and falling far short of success or flat out dying. This approach permits us to use a simple gauge to illustrate the vitality/morbidity level of an institution.

We will also associate a three-point numerical scale with our three categories: Thriving (+1); Surviving (0); Dying (-1). We then added the scores across all eight factors. Repeating this process for each institution in our database of closed colleges and universities, we were not at all surprised to find that the total score of each closed institution was negative. No closed college had a total positive score. Some individual factor scores were positive but they were outweighed by a much larger share of factors with negative scores.

If this model is to have predictive capabilities it must also work with all types of institutions. We have tried our model out on a number of institutions that we identified as thriving, surviving, and outright struggling.

Is the wrecking ball set to knock down your institution? Image courtesy of Presenter Media.

In this process, we did find a number of colleges that were still operating which had negative VMIs. In each of these cases, the colleges involved could easily be classified as struggling or just barely surviving. They were definitely not thriving.

Although I believe that it is difficult to “kill a college” it is not impossible. Just ask the constituencies of Newbury College (MA), College of New Rochelle (NY), Green Mountain College (VT), and Hampshire College (VT).

For institutions that we identified as thriving, just as we expected each of them had a total VMI that was positive. What about the struggling institutions with positive VMIs? We believe that these institutions must address the factors that are negative or “zero” or they could be heading for more serious trouble.

In the post above I outline several different directions that I could go with my next post. At this point, I am working on a post that delves more deeply into the VMI Factor Guiding Principles which I introduced in this post. Watch for it next Tuesday, March 12, 2019.

February 28, 2019 By B. Baylis 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.