Meeting the competition: inside Brown University's future project - Special report: policy

University Business, Nov, 2002 by John Immerwahr

When Public Agenda released its report for Brown University's Futures Project in ear|y October, many of us felt like the proverbial flies on the wall. Here, finally, was what we had always suspected college and university presidents, faculty, and state legislators believed: that surviving in this unprecedented, competitive environment is going to take nothing short of a hat trick. At least.

The 47 stakeholders interviewed for The Project ranged from the presidents of Ohio State, Tulane, and U Maryland, to the chancellor of UC Berkeley, four-year and community college professors, and any number of state legislature higher education committee chairs. They were guaranteed anonymity vis-a-vis their remarks, and met in seven groups behind closed doors, in sessions lasting for two to three hours each, between November 2001 and Nay 2002. Here, in an abridged format, are highlights of those very candid discussions; for the complete and unabridged version of the report, including the names and functions of the discussion group members, methodology, and a copy of the workbook used by the discussion leaders, please visit www.futuresproject.org.

THE SIX THEMES

To what extent are university and college leaders and governmental leaders who set the higher education system's policies ready for the challenges raised by the new competitive arena? Public Agenda reports that six main themes emerged from The Futures Project discussions. They were:

* Growing awareness of competition

* Caught in the squeeze

* Academics vs. legislators on greater flexibility and autonomy

* Controversy about assessment and accountability

* Competition for the best students

* Disadvantaged students left behind

GROWING AWARENESS OF COMPETITION

Discussion respondents were intensely aware of growing competition in the academic arena. The shape of the competition varied widely, depending on both the participant's region and the nature of the educational institution, but participants had a strong sense of mounting pressures from for-profit and virtual institutions, new technologies, and the expansion of competition from existing institutions.

One of the most vigorous areas of competition is for prestige. As one Research I president explained: "The competition is intense, driven by our boards, the states, and the applicants (they all have copies of U.S. News & World Report). The state government considers what our position is, and it is pushed by the craziness about lists: who is in the Top Ten, who is in the Bottom Ten."

These presidents also talked about competition for high-quality students and bidding wars for faculty members, especially those who could bring in big research grants. While the universities at the top are engaged in fierce competition to stay there, other academics talked about "mission creep," as their institutions attempted to make themselves more competitive by moving up the prestige ladder. A faculty member characterized it this way: "There was a big push at my institution to move up from tier three to tier two, and eventually tier one. Our historical mission is to serve the community around us, but going to a higher tier will shoot that mission out of the water."

For respondents from regional institutions, the competition often centered on the idea of building "market share," especially of students in profitable programs. Several respondents from four-year institutions disclosed they were now competing much more actively with the two-year institutions in the same regions. But competition between regions was another big issue. And the new technologies, especially distance education, are allowing regional institutions to compete on an international scale. Said one community college president: "Many of us, by charter, are defined as local institutions, but the competition has forced us to behave as though we are national institutions."

On the issue of for-profit enterprises such as the University of Phoenix, most respondents agreed that they are operating largely in specialized markets, yet, "[Students] have to come to us, but Phoenix goes to them, wherever they are. Our extension operations are badly damaged by Phoenix. Today it is hard for us to break even there, when it used to be profitable." Another university president admitted that Phoenix was now training much of the support staff at his own institution. Still another added: "I have a confession: my daughter sold out and now she teaches for the University of Phoenix in their distance education program. They trained her for a year before she even logged on; we can't quite do that." Competition was not nearly as significant a factor, however, for legislators and academics from less populated parts of the country, or from academics who serve primarily disadvantaged students.

CAUGHT IN THE SQUEEZE

Many discussion participants worried about the convergence of two factors: declining public revenues and a growing number of new competitors, especially the for-profits. The main concern was that new competitors would "cherry pick" the most profitable programs. The traditional system has allowed colleges and universities to use "profitable" operations to support other "unprofitable" operations, such as the fine arts and the liberal arts, scholarships for disadvantaged students, research, and community services. But now, as one president plainly put it, "We have become public-located institutions, whereas before, we were public-supported institutions."