Changing Higher Ed

Dr. Judy Kjelstrom is a pioneer in creating interdisciplinary programs that create well-rounded students who are well-equipped to thrive in today's rapidly changing world. Kjelstrom, the director emerita of University of California Davis' Biotechnology Program, now serves as the academic coordinator for the UC Davis Graduate School of Management. For her significant body of work, Kjelstrom was named the 2018 recipient of the James H. Meyer Award for Lifetime Achievement, which is the UC Davis Academic Federation's highest honor. Prior to joining UC Davis, Kjelstrom spent 12 years as a hospital clinical laboratory scientist, and brings both academic and industry experience to her work. She said that she wanted to do something impactful on translational medicine; however, that type of doctoral program was unavailable she went to school. In her work with UC Davis's Biotechnology Program, Kjelstrom saw her role as the captain of the ship and remains deeply appreciative of the team she led. She credits UC Davis's visionary and collaborative atmosphere for allowing faculty and students to find ways to begin addressing big problems, such as infectious diseases, cancer and global warning. "This is 21st century science," she said. "It's big science and it's team science." This type of team science requires complexity and collaboration between different disciplines; one individual cannot do it all anymore. Kjelstrom believes UC Davis's work in the area of biotechnology provides a good example of how this collaboration can be accomplished since it encompasses engineering, cell biology, microbiology and business. "The visionaries at UC David said, 'We need to create a special program that could be layered onto a student's Ph.D. in which they have that deep and narrow expertise, but we need to add that second layer where they come together and fertilize," she said. The university's Designated Emphasis in Biotechnology Program (DEB) was approved in 1997, but this sea change required significant work to get student and faculty buy-in. In 1999 Kjelstrom joined the DEB, where she worked with 10 students from a variety of disciplines. The DEB has grown exponentially. When Kjelstrom retired, the program had 240 students from 29 different disciplines. She remembers having difficulty getting the students to sign up for extra work, even though they would receive a paid internship. The faculty also were reluctant to let their students go to do this extra work. Eventually, the faculty realized the benefits of the approach. "Little by little, we had buy-in from the student population and the professors," Kjelstrom said, adding that an NIH grant helped fund this effort. Kjelstrom – who serves on the executive board of the Powerhouse Science Center, the advisory committee of the US Davis Health Clinical Laboratory Science Training Program and is an alumni of Leadership California -- also built strong relationships with the biotech community. This led to conversations about the quality of UC Davis graduates. The company partners offered feedback that while the students' technical skills were strong, they didn't know anything about important areas such as patents, teamwork or collaborative communication. This helped her realize that the program needed to help students learn the wide skill set of social and emotional intelligence as well as leadership. This knowledge helps translate into students being able to take a leadership role in both their professional and personal lives. UC Davis also empowered students to take leadership during their coursework. "I want to position my students to the point where if they're (a company) looking for a strong woman leader or a man of color, they're going to look at our students who come out of the DEB program because they are learning to do that right now," Kjelstrom said. For example, one group of female students who were concerned about inequities in the workplace decided to form a group called Equity in STEM and Entrepreneurship (ESTEME). The group, which is designed to encourage diversity in biotechnology, brings guest panelists from major companies to talk about topics related to create diverse teams. These students also are responsible for all aspects of planning these events so they learn leadership and fundraising skills. Kjelstrom encourages higher education institution leaders who want to replicate UC Davis's success to get to know the stakeholders in their own area and develop partnerships that value the needs of both partners and that put students at the center. "It's getting out of the ivory tower and getting out among the people," said Kjelstrom. "Don't use your Ph.D. title and go people-to-people, but ask them, 'what is it that we need to be successful on both sides?'" Bullet Points: Today's science is extremely complex and specialized. To be successful, you must find ways to break down barriers between faculty from different disciplines and encourage collaboration. Reach out to stakeholders to find out how graduates are doing both in terms of technical skills as well as soft skills such as teamwork, communication, and leadership. Encourage students to go the extra mile through specific focused work that will help them stretch and gain knowledge in areas outside of their discipline. In addition, give students the opportunity to take on real leadership roles during their time in school. Guests Social Media Links: Website: http://biotech.ucdavis.edu Twitter: @JKjelstrom Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/judith-kjelstrom-97b91b4/ Your Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

We find ourselves in a political climate where many say that college graduates are not ready to join the workforce. This is true in many respects, but the greater truth is that the majority of higher ed has lost its way when it comes to preparing students for life, something equally if not more important than being prepared to assume a position in the workforce. Then there is Texas A&M. Like the service academies (e.g., West Point, Annapolis, etc.), Texas A&M takes a holistic approach to education – preparing students for life, not just for a job. This holistic approach has resulted in Texas A&M's undergraduate employment rate being second only to Penn State's, and is tied for the most CEOs of Fortune 100 companies (four). These are testaments to the quality and talent its students bring to employers on day one after graduating. This is one reason for the well-known statement in Aggieland: "What do you call an Aggie five years after they graduate? Boss." Background and TAMU History Founded in 1876, Texas A&M has had a tight alignment with the military. In fact, for its first 90 years, the school only admitted male students and they were required to serve in the Corps of Cadets. After graduation, these students went on to active duty in the military while others went into the workforce, often rising through the ranks to top leadership roles. This laid the groundwork for the fundamental principles that continue to this day of preparing young men (and now women) to lead in the world. During this time, the university started empowering and enabling students to find self-solutions, identify problems and begin to identify means to solve an issue. That concept of a student-led, student-run process began at the infancy of Texas A&M. Operationalizing Texas A&M's Six Core Values Texas A&M has six core values -- excellence, integrity, leadership, loyalty, respect and selfless service. These values, which not well-specified early on, have informed the university in many ways over the years. For instance, the Holocaust Museum Houston recently recognized Texas A&M for producing more than 20,000 Aggies who stepped forward to serve in World War II and made an incredible difference in the outcome of that war on a global scale. This ties back to the core value of selfless service. Starting approximately 20 years ago, past Texas A&M presidents and staff began an exercise in which they looked back at the institution's 100-plus-year history and then put the core values on paper. That exercise became the foundational pieces through which TAMU recruits students and how it communicates with former students These core values are shared in recruitment materials and are prominently displayed across campus and permeate Texas A&M's programs and culture. They are discussed in orientation and residence halls and during a variety of leadership training programs. By the end of their college experience, students can talk about the six core values with a very specific framework and how that led them to be able to achieve certain aspects of their undergraduate and graduate experience. Texas A&M also embeds the core values as learning outcomes when developing and reviewing programs and courses. For example, when the university thinks about developing a new initiative, they don't talk about a baseline. Instead, the conversation is about whether the program is excellent, is it right and is there integrity and what is the right thing to do. The conversation is not about what might be expedient or put the university in the best light, but what is the right thing to do for the students and building individual character. Building the Next Generation of Leaders Texas A&M takes this one step further by putting students (instead of faculty or staff) in charge of organizing groups and major events. The faculty and staff members serve in advisory roles instead of being in charge of the activity. Texas A&M is very conscious and deliberate in focusing on the core values and encourages students to focus on their work ethic and the value of the work that brings the rewards. Instead of making assumptions about salary and title, the Aggies understand that they need to make appropriate progress to begin to get promotions, a process that starts with their roles at TAMU. For example, students begin their "training" as underclassmen when they join a variety of organizations. Each year, they have the opportunity to move into leadership roles as they begin to narrow their focus. In these roles, they are responsible for operations, training, budgeting or marketing. This enables students to get real-time leadership experience while in school which translates into students being ready to take on significant roles early in their careers. Texas A&M's Enrollment Processes Whereas many institutions of higher education are seeing enrollment declines and some are being forced to shutter their doors, Texas A&M, which articulates its core values and what being an Aggie is about in its recruitment materials, enrollment selection process is highly competitive (this year, over 50,000 applicants for 10,000 spaces) and it always has a wait list. The number of applications in 2018 were 20-25 percent higher than in 2016. (The 2017 applications were skewed by Hurricane Harvey.) The interest in attending the university is indicative of not only the quality of education, but also the experiences that students will have. Legacy students are not an automatic admit, but at least 25 percent do come from families with Aggie ties. The legacy student typically has the desire to attend Texas A&M as well as the drive to make top grades and a strong work ethic. In one instance, Dr. Pugh could track the Aggie heritage of a recent Texas A&M Yell Leader back to his great-great-great-great grandfather who was the first student ever to enroll at Texas A&M. Hiring Faculty Members and Staff Texas A&M's values also go out to how they hire faculty and staff. It looks for the qualities of the individual in relation to the quality of their knowledge, their ethics, and their integrity. The expectation is that these individuals will be leaders when they come to Texas A&M. Faculty are expected to be outstanding researchers, which goes hand-in-hand with the core values, and faculty are expected to be part of the local and A&M community. The Division of Student Affairs looks for candidates who align with the university's core values so they can model those values and take a leadership role. These staff members understand the role of mentorship and are expected to adopt a facilitative, advising stance so that students learn how to take ownership and solve their own problems. The staff also models service leadership concepts and encourages reflection so that students learn from both their successes and their failures, and then are able to move forward. Taking a Longer View Texas A&M is in the process of envisioning what higher education will look like in 2030 and what Texas A&M needs to be proactive in creating that vision. They are involving faculty, staff and students in these discussions and finding ways to embrace these changes. The Texas A&M Foundation has a capital campaign, Lead by Example, that includes three principles: transformational experiences for students, faculty and staff; discovery and innovation, to tackle the major problems in the world; and impact on the state, nation and world, to bring out the servant leadership. They want to encourage students to lead a life of value to commit to the betterment of the world. Wrapping Up Texas A&M offers an important example of how higher education can create an environment in which students learn not only their core discipline but also the softer skills of leadership. Texas A&M's core values infuse everything they do, from recruitment brochures and signage to their coursework and how student activities are run. This type of approach offers a way to quiet naysayers who question the value of higher education as to whether institutions prepare their graduates to succeed in the work environment. This state university puts a premium on creating a life of value – and it shows in its current and former students, the faculty, staff and administration. Bullet Points Texas A&M offers an important example of how higher education can create an environment in which students learn not only their core discipline but also the softer skills of leadership. Texas A&M's core values infuse everything they do, from recruitment brochures and signage to their coursework and how student activities are run. This type of approach offers a way to quiet naysayers who question the value of higher education as to whether institutions prepare their graduates to succeed in the work environment. The university puts a premium on creating a life of value – and it shows in its current and former students, the faculty, staff, and administration. Texas A&M, like the service academies (e.g., West Point, Annapolis, etc.), takes a holistic approach to education – preparing students for life, not just for a job. This is one reason why their job placement rate for graduates is 2nd in the nation behind Penn State, and it is tied for the most CEOs of Fortune 100 companies (four). These are testaments to the quality and talent its students bring to employers on day one after graduating. Texas A&M has six core values -- excellence, integrity, leadership, loyalty, respect and selfless service. These values, which not well-specified early on, have informed the university in many ways over the years. They are shared in recruitment materials and are prominently displayed across campus and permeate Texas A&M's programs and culture. They are discussed in orientation and residence halls and during a variety of leadership training programs. By the end of their college experience, students can talk about the six core values with a very specific framework and how that led them to be able to achieve certain aspects of their undergraduate and graduate experience. Texas A&M takes leadership development and core values one step further by putting students (instead of faculty or staff) in charge of organizing groups and major events. The faculty and staff members serve in advisory roles instead of being in charge of the activity. Texas A&M is very conscious and deliberate in focusing on the core values and encourages students to focus on their work ethic and the value of the work that brings the rewards. Instead of making assumptions about salary and title, the Aggies understand that they need to make appropriate progress to begin to get promotions, a process that starts with their roles at TAMU. Whereas many institutions of higher education are seeing enrollment declines and some are being forced to shutter their doors, Texas A&M, which articulates its core values and what being an Aggie is about in its recruitment materials, enrollment selection process is highly competitive and it always has a wait list. The number of applications in 2018 were 20-25 percent higher than in 2016 (50,000+ for 10,000 spaces). The 2017 applications were skewed by Hurricane Harvey. The interest in attending the university is indicative of not only the quality of education, but also the experiences that students will have. Texas A&M's values also go out to how they hire faculty and staff. It looks for the qualities of the individual in relation to the quality of their knowledge, their ethics and their integrity. The expectation is that these individuals will be leaders when they come to Texas A&M. Texas A&M is in the process of envisioning what higher education will look like in 2030 and what Texas A&M needs to be proactive in creating that vision. They are involving faculty, staff and students in these discussions and finding ways to embrace these changes. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Texas A&M University Undergraduate hiring Fortune 100 CEOs from TAMU TAMU's Core Values Dr. Dan Pugh Guests Social Media Links: Texas A&M Twitter: @TAMU ‏ Dan Pugh LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-pugh-a797663?lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_flagship3_profile_view_base_contact_details%3BOOVdvvyLRMao8HbjpzpHiQ%3D%3D Your Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

Since seating the 116th Congress three weeks ago, there has been a lot going on in Washington. Tom Netting of CSPEN, the Central States Private Education Network, which represents schools nationwide to public policymakers in Washington and throughout the nation, joins us to give an update on what we can expect out of the 116th Congress with respect to higher education, the 2019 Negotiated Rulemaking process, and the Education Department reorganization. The 116th Congress Given a split Congress, we can expect some changes in higher ed, and perhaps this may be what is needed to move the Higher Education Act and other policies through. Changing Players The big news coming out of the Senate is that Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) has announced this will be his last two years in Congress. He has led the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee since 2015, and he, along with Sen. Patti Murray (D-WA), ranking member of the Democratic party, have done a considerable amount of work in a bipartisan fashion. The new chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee is Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA). Rep. Scott has served in multiple roles on the committee, including chairman and ranking member, and is very familiar with the process and leadership of the committee. Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), the former committee chair, will be the ranking member. The good news is that similar to Alexander and Murray in the Senate, Scott, and Fox have good rapport and have worked in a bipartisan fashion, and we have four individuals who, despite their differences, can work together and have the opportunity to push things across the finish line. Higher Education Act Reauthorizing the Higher Education Act is one of those things which needs pushing. Reauthorization is should happen every 5 to 6 years, but has been delayed the last three times – it has been 11 years since the last reauthorization, and the previous two were in 2008 and 1998, 10 years apart. Getting this to the finish line is critical. In the last 11 years, there have been a number of changes that require legislative action. For example, students need revisions to help support them in their access to higher education; institutions need help in bringing innovation and other aspects forward; and Congress and the Department and the community need the opportunity to bring necessary reforms to the table. The HEA is one of the few remaining education issues on which Sen. Alexander has not put his stamp. Given he's a former Secretary of Education and former chancellor of the University of Tennessee, this is something very near and dear to his heart, and we expect this is high on his list of things to accomplish. Negotiated Rule Making The first session of the 2019 Negotiated Rulemaking process began last week with the Accreditation and Innovation (full) committee in session, and the three subcommittees met on Friday. For those who are unfamiliar with the Neg Reg process as it is sometimes called, there is a full committee comprised of 16 primary and 16 alternate members representing the various constituencies in higher education, and three subcommittees focusing on faith-based entities, TEACH grants, and distance learning. A significant amount of the work will be done at the subcommittee level, who will report out to the full committee for approval/disapproval of the recommendations. There are two significant differences between this and previous Neg Reg processes. First, the Department is using what they are calling consensus buckets in an attempt to gain consensus around individual issues or proposals so that if one set does contain full consensus, they can move that forward as a consensus proposal even if others do not. This is a distinct difference from the all or nothing proposals of the past negotiated rulemaking processes, and gives hope that negotiators might have a shot at completing a very ambitious agenda, or at least some pieces of it. The alternative is that for those areas which are not completed to consensus, the Department will issue its guidance which may be in opposition to many constituencies' desires. The other difference is who is permitted to speak at committee meetings. The Department attempted to limit discussion to the primary negotiator and allow the alternate only to speak if the primary was not in attendance, (in the past you had both the primary and alternate negotiator being able to speak as they saw fit), but there was pushback from the committee. Ultimately, the protocol was modified to provide for limited circumstances in which both the primary and the alternate would speak. This seemed to work out well in the full committee deliberations. Committee Meetings Report The full committee got off to a good (but late because of weather) start with discussions about accreditation and the agenda. There was some drama at the beginning – seating the state higher education executive officers (SHEEAs) and state attorneys general in the groups. It was ultimately decided that the SHEEAs would be seated on the full committee and states attorneys general will be seated as primary negotiator at a distance education and educational innovation subcommittee. Some of the biggest issues that negotiators will be examining are credit hour and substantive interaction definitions and how those impact competency-based education and federal financial aid. Much of this work will be done at the subcommittee level, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out with the consensus buckets. Schedule The current schedule is that the full committee will meet the weeks of February 10 and March 25, and subcommittees will meet in the week prior to the full committee. The formal Neg Reg process will end on March 28 if all things remain on schedule, but that is predicated on getting all the work done that is necessary, as well as achieving consensus on one or more of the various consensus buckets. We can expect to see interim reports coming out from CSPEN and the various news agencies that report on higher ed news following each of the sessions. Final Report Out Expect to see summaries for those items for which consensus was reached in early April, but for those areas that did not reach consensus, we will be left to speculate on where the conversations of the negotiations left off, where the department positioning was and what we might anticipate it to be as the process goes forward. As is the case with previously negotiated rulemaking, the Department will have the months of April and May (and probably into June) to develop its notice of proposed rulemaking, and probably will publish it in the summer for comments. The final regulations should be published on or about November 1 of this year in order for them to become effective by July 1, 2020. Giving Input to the Process If someone wishes to give input, they can find the list of participants at the Department of Education's website. Also, if you would like to access the live YouTube and streaming videos of the of the negotiations as they take place, here is the link. Department of Education Reorganization The Department of Education recently announced a reorganization, much of which is linked to the Department's notion of next-generation FSA (federal student financial aid). The Department is looking to first reform the delivery mechanism for federal student financial aid and the backend. They have started building the new system infrastructure geared towards getting better and more accessible information to the individual borrowers and students. They intend to use platforms that utilize mobile devices, as well as the web and the Internet, to bring more information to the consumer in real time on everything from their past applications to their specific loan data. The next step is how to deal with the responsibilities of the Department as it relates to the delivery of FSA. This includes the servicers and the collection activities on the far back end. There have been a couple of starts and stops with this that have resulted in the courts being involved to determine who should be involved and how they should be involved, but hopefully this will lead to a better way to do FSA. As part of the reorg, they have filled 24+ vacancies. These are high- to mid-level individuals across the entire spectrum of the higher education, including elementary, secondary, office of civil rights, and others. Hopefully, filling these vacancies will allow the Department to provide more guidance and information in areas such as Borrower Defense to Repayment Regulations and Gainful Employment. This reorg is not without some concern. There is downsizing going on at the same time, and many are concerned this is a signal to those that believe that the Department should be abolished. Additionally, there are those who view this as yet another way support both the Trump and the Republican agenda by putting people in place who favor some communities to the detriment of others, e.g. for-profit over community colleges or traditional higher education institutions. Government Shutdown The current Washington shut down has not affected the Department of Education too much as it was part of the Labor HHS appropriations bill previously passed by the Senate. However, there are a number of other agencies that affect the Department, e.g., the Federal Register – until guidance is published in the Federal Register, it cannot take effect. Thus, the Department may have completed the BDR guidance, but it cannot go into effect. Cybersecurity Cybersecurity is coming up on people's radar again, not that it should have ever left. The issue was raised at the FSA conference in two presentations by Department of Ed personnel, who stressed that this area is ever-changing. Institutional leadership must be mindful of cybersecurity as it relates to protection of personal data and compliance. The Department is saying that they can help, so reach out to them. Bullet Points: Drill down on key points of the interview: Given a split Congress, we can expect some changes in higher ed, and perhaps this may be what is needed to move the Higher Education Act and other policies through. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) has announced this will be his last two years in Congress. He chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The new chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee is Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA). The good news is that similar to Alexander and Murray in the Senate, Scott and Fox have good rapport and have worked in a bipartisan fashion, and we have four individuals who, despite their differences, can work together and have the opportunity to push things across the finish line. Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act is should happen every 5 to 6 years, but has been delayed the last three times – it has been 11 years since the last reauthorization, and the previous two were in 2008 and 1998, 10 years apart. The first session of the 2019 Negotiated Rule Making process began last week with the Accreditation and Innovation (full) committee in session, and the three subcommittees, faith-based entities, TEACH grants, and distance learning, met on Friday. Some of the biggest issues that negotiators will be examining are credit hour and substantive interaction definitions and how those impact competency-based education and federal financial aid. The current Neg Reg schedule is that the full committee will meet the weeks of February 10 and March 25, and subcommittees will meet in the week prior to the full committee. The formal Neg Reg process will end on March 28 if all things remain on schedule. Expect to see summaries for those items for which consensus was reached in early April, but for those areas that did not reach consensus, we will be left to speculate on where the conversations of the negotiations left off, where the department positioning was and what we might anticipate it to be as the process goes forward. If someone wishes to give input, they can find the list of participants at the Department of Education's website. Also, if you would like to access the live YouTube and streaming videos of the of the negotiations as they take place, here is the link. The Department of Education recently announced a reorganization, much of which is linked to the Department's notion of next-generation FSA (federal student financial aid). As part of the reorg, they have filled 24+ vacancies. These are high- to mid-level individuals across the entire spectrum of the higher education, including elementary, secondary, office of civil rights, and others. Hopefully, filling these vacancies will allow the Department to provide more guidance and information in areas such as Borrower Defense to Repayment Regulations and Gainful Employment. The current Washington shut down has not affected the Department of Education too much as it was part of the Labor HHS appropriations bill previously passed by the Senate. However, there are a number of other agencies that affect the Department, e.g., the Federal Register – until guidance is published in the Federal Register, it cannot take effect. Cybersecurity is coming up on people's radar again, not that it should have ever left. The issue was raised at the FSA conference in two presentations by Department of Ed personnel, who stressed that this area is ever-changing. Institutional leadership must be mindful of cybersecurity as it relates to protection of personal data and compliance. The Department is saying that they can help, so reach out to them. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Sen. Lamar Alexander Sen. Patti Murray Congressman Bobby Scott Rep. Virginia Foxx 2019 Negotiated Rulemaking process Neg Reg list of participants Department of Education Live streaming link Guests Social Media Links: Tom Netting LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-netting-9214755/ CSPEN LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/groups/6954716/ Tom Netting Twitter - @t_netting Your Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

In addition to enjoying the holidays, December is a good time to pause and take stock of the past year. This also is an opportune time to get out the crystal ball to contemplate what might happen in 2019. 2018: The Year in Review There were a number of very nice gifts under the tree this year, but also a lot of lumps of coal. In 2018, we saw four big themes: marketplace dynamics; Washington follies; higher ed governance failures (which includes higher ed's version of #MeToo); and the Harvard admissions lawsuit. Marketplace Dynamics: The Maturing and Decline of Higher Ed Markets In our previous blog and podcast on M&A activity in higher ed, we discussed the product life cycle and where higher ed stands in relation to this concept. To briefly recap, the product life cycle (PLC) is a marketing tool that is applied to products, but also is relevant when examining market segments or industries. The PLC is made up of four stages: The introduction stage, which is characterized by the organization building brand awareness; The growth stage, which is characterized by strong growth as the organization builds brand preference and increases market share; The maturity stage, which is characterized by diminishing growth as "competition" increases and competitors offer similar "products." This results in the implementation of multiple marketing strategies, such as cutting prices, rethinking positioning and branding, and market consolidation; and The decline stage, which is characterized by a decline in sales (which may be potentially significant). In many cases, the product (or organization) goes out of business or, as a last result, finds a buyer (leading to a merger or acquisition). Higher ed finds itself straddling the stages of maturity and decline, which is characterized by decreasing enrollment, lack of differentiation in the higher ed marketplace, and an increase in market consolidation and/or college closings. Which brings us to now. Breaking Down the Numbers. Over the last few years (2016-2018), more than 100 colleges haves closed. Many can be directly attributed to the decertification of ACICS by the Obama administration. However, the more relevant reason for many of these closures is the lifecycle and current operating environment of higher education. Over the past few years, 65 for-profits closed and seven merged with other institutions. Some of those mergers were huge (Purdue acquiring Kaplan, Strayer acquiring Capella, National University System acquiring Northcentral). In addition, 14 nonprofit universities closed and five merged while 36 public institutions merged or consolidated. This merger and acquisition activity makes perfect sense given that higher education is in the maturing to declining portions of the lifecycle. Transfer Students and Reducing Costs. We've also seen community colleges assume more of a role in reducing the costs of higher ed, as well as in degree completion. State (and other) colleges are beginning to put more emphasis on attracting transfer students. For example, Gov. Jerry Brown (D-Cal) is withholding $50 million from the University of California system until the system increases the acceptance and enrollment of transfer students while also meeting auditor requests to fix accounting issues. Brown's decision was based on his commitment to a 2-to-1 ratio of freshmen to transfer students. However, several system's institutions reported a ratio closer to 4-to-1. Privates are also emphasizing outreach to transfer students due to the costs to both the institution and the students. Some privates are renting space at community college, thus giving students an easily available and direct track to a four-year degree. This makes a lot of sense, especially given the current high cost of private education (e.g., one California private is charging $55,000 a year for undergraduate programs, amounts we see at Ivy League schools). Thus, students find more affordable options by first attending a community college and then transferring to a public or private institution. This approach reduces the amount of student loans needed to complete a degree. This type of approach is especially important with students who start college without a clear idea of what they want to study or their pathway to earning their degree and end up dropping out due to cost. This accounts for why we are seeing so many post-traditional students in higher education; they initially started college without understanding what they wanted to study and now are returning to complete their degrees. Having this community college low-cost option that transfers coursework to four-year colleges and university makes good sense because it minimizes the student's time to completion and cost. College Closures and Rejuvenation. We continue to see higher education closures. While higher education leaders may point to the resurrection of Sweet Briar, those types of reemergence are few and far between. Sweet Briar was an interesting case. Although the school had a substantial endowment (unlike most schools), those funds were legally earmarked for specific things and could not be used for operating funds. This is an interesting (and possibly unique) situation and will make a great case study for future grad students who want to study the process of bringing a school back from the dead. Department of Education and Washington The second theme for 2018 is all about Washington, D.C. Frankly, there are so many things, it's hard to know where to start. ACICS. ACICS is (in)famous for its accreditation of Corinthian and ITT, both of which folded, leaving 100s of 1000s of students stranded. Not surprisingly, ACICS was decertified by the Obama administration in 2016. At its height, ACICS accredited 200+ universities, but in 2016 (when ACICS lost its accreditation), most of the institutions accredited by ACICS have moved to other accrediting bodies. However, the Trump Administration has other ideas on accreditation. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos reinstated ACICS' accreditation authority this year in a process that had many missteps. However, the most egregious was that the department's senior official who made the case for ACICS' reinstatement is a former lobbyist who worked with for-profit universities, a clear conflict of interest. In her justification for reinstatement, the former lobbyist, Diane Auer Jones, said the Department of Education determined that ACICS was in compliance on 19 of the 21 applicable criteria. Equally as important, she stated that ACICS was likely in compliance with these criteria when President Obama's Education Secretary John King, Jr. removed ACICS' accreditation certification. According to the Education Department, ACICS is still "out of compliance" with federal standards in the remaining two areas but has been given another 12 months to come back into compliance. The carnage from ACICS' original accreditation still continues. Just this month, the Education Corporation of America (ECA), which was once accredited by ACICS and oversaw Virginia College, shuttered its doors, leaving 20,000 students up a creek without a paddle. In fairness to ACICS, they removed Virginia College's accreditation, but only after the college attempted to get accreditation from another accreditor and failed miserably. Gainful Employment and Borrower Defense. Changes in gainful employment and borrower defense also emerged in 2018. In relation to the former, the Education Department missed the filing deadline for the gainful employment rule so these changes cannot come into play until mid-2020. Furthermore, the Social Security Administration -- which provides the earnings data needed to calculate gainful employment -- decided not to renew the information-sharing agreement that expired in May. Because of this, the Education Department will not have the data they need to calculate earnings data. So, in essence, gainful employment is dead for now. Borrower defense is another area on which Washington gets raspberries. Regulations put in place by the Obama administration protected students whose colleges (e.g., Corinthian and ITT) closed, leaving them with degrees that were considered worthless. However, the Ed Department under Secretary DeVos rejected the vast majority of the claims. It took Congressional pressure to turn the process around, and although the process has gotten better, it still not where it needs to be. I think we can expect to see some new regulations coming out of Washington over the next year in this area. Title IX and Sexual Abuse. The Education Department put out their draft ruling on new Title IX guidance in November and, overall, colleges are not happy. The revisions make major changes to the standard that, in many cases, are as clear as mud and/or will discourage victims from coming forward. New Title IX Guidance. The first of the changes narrows the definition of sexual assault. The old standard was "unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature," and the new standard is "unwelcome sexual conduct; or unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the recipient's education program or activity." The Ed Department justified this by saying it is in line with the Supreme Court guidance, but survivors' advocates have come out forcefully and said that this new definition will put survivors' education at risk. The second major change is the standard by which sexual assault is adjudicated. Previously, the standard was that the assault was "likely to have happened." However, the new guidance provides for a higher standard, i.e., "preponderance of evidence," the same standard that is used in civil suits. This is lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt," the standard which is used in criminal trials, but it still creates a higher burden on the victim to prove that the incident happened. In its guidance, the Ed Dept stated that institutions can use either standard, but this potentially opens the institution up to lawsuits, e.g., institutions may face a lawsuit by the accused if they use the lower standard or the victim if the institution uses the higher standard. The third major change has to do with holding universities responsible. Under the previous guidance, universities and colleges could be held responsible if they "knew about or reasonably should have known" about an incident. However, under the new guidelines, the institution must have "actual knowledge" of the incident in order to be held responsible; this requires the victim to make a formal complaint through official channels. Telling a professor or resident adviser isn't sufficient – it must be reported to someone who can do something about it, such as a school official who is involved in enforcement. Additionally, schools can only be held responsible for incidents that happen on school property or at school-sponsored events, not at private, off-campus residences. Thus, if a fraternity house is located off-campus and an assault takes place there (as was the allegation in the Judge Kavanaugh – Christine Blasey Ford incident), the institution cannot be held liable, even if they have knowledge that these events have taken place in the past. Lastly, the accused will have the chance to cross-examine the victim under the new guidance, and many feel this will discourage victims from coming forward and reporting incidents. Whenever you get into sexual assault or similar types of accusations, the resolution process must be more than he said/she said. However, that is what it could come down to because of the cross-examination requirement. Many victims' advocates and lawyers are concerned that we will revert to a previous time when a woman who accused a man of sexual assault would ultimately be the one on trial because of her dress or behaviors or whatever. MSU and Sexual Assault / Harassment in Education. A subset of this area brings to light the #MeToo movement in higher ed, especially in the aftermath of the Supreme Court hearings with Justice Kavanaugh. It took a tremendous amount of courage for Christine Blasey Ford to bring up what happened to her after so many years and in such a public venue. Sadly, look at what ultimately happened – the good ol' boys network derailed the investigation before it was able to go through to a conclusion. We also are seeing the fallout from the Michigan State sexual assault case. MSU's former president has been brought up on felony charges for lying to the police, and the institution's undergraduate applications have fallen by almost 8.5 percent in the wake of the scandal. Not only is this situation tarnishing MSU's reputation, it is hitting them in the pocketbook. And maybe that's what has to happen for people to change. Higher Ed Governance Failures and the Role of the Board We are seeing a failure in the governance process in many higher ed schools. Three cases fall into this area at the following institutions: Penn State, Michigan State, and the University of Maryland. We must ask ourselves in all these situations, "Where were the Board of Directors/Regents/Trustees?" In the Penn State scandal, some Regents were brought up on criminal charges. We haven't seen that yet in the Michigan State scandal, but I believe we will. MSU's interim president has not done a great job in reaching out to the victims – it has been pretty nasty in many respects, but one must ask where are their Board of Regents? Same with the University of Maryland football coach after the player died – the board directed the university president to retain the football coach, but the president refused (rightly so). From all appearances, the majority of boards and Regents do not understand what their role is. Regents at state schools generally are political appointees, and it is considered to be a feather in one's cap to be appointed to a Board of Regents/Trustees for a state university. However, just because one is a political appointee to a board doesn't remove their fiduciary duties as a board member. More training needs to be done to ensure Regents understand their duties as well as how governance has changed over the years. This also goes for boards of private universities. The vast majority of these types of higher ed boards are made up of "friends of the president" or other large donors. This is especially egregious with many Christian colleges, whose boards are made up of religious affiliates or ecumenical personnel who have no experience sitting on the board of a multimillion-dollar organization and/or an understanding of higher ed. Fallout from the Harvard Admissions Lawsuit The Harvard lawsuit, in which a group of Asian Americans sued the university over its admissions policies, ultimately will impact a majority of higher ed institutions. Even though Harvard says that they are following the guidance from the Supreme Court, they get sued. Same with UCLA – they have been sued as well. Although a ruling is still forthcoming on the Harvard case, I think there will be ripple effects and we haven't seen the end of this. Predictions for 2019 While much of the crystal ball's foretelling for 2019 is cloudy, there are some clear indications of what lies in the future. An Acceleration of Consolidation and Closures First, we will see an acceleration of consolidations and closures in higher ed. For example, just in the last couple weeks, Moody's Investors Service and Fitch ratings both have declared a negative outlook for the higher ed sector for 2019. This is huge. We have a marketplace that is saturated. In these types of markets, smarter institutions focus on economies of scale (mergers), as well as positioning and differentiation (why is my university and/or degree different)? Carnegie Mellon and MIT have done this very well. This is one way to combat saturation, but not a lot of schools understand marketing positioning and differentiation. Consolidation (mergers) occurs for one of three reasons. Acquisition of a new technology; Market expansion and/or growth; or Eliminate competition and/or create market efficiencies. Consolidation will continue to accelerate. One need not look any further than what is happening with Pennsylvania's 21 state universities. These institutions are vying for a smaller number of students graduating from high school, so are closing multiple campuses and realigning programs to eliminate duplication. This impacts the towns in which they are located since they are the major employers, and any change they make in consolidating degrees and/or reorganizing the system affects jobs, creating a ripple effect. Closures will also increase, but we think there will be far more consolidation rather than outright closings. The trend will continue toward the mega universities -- the merger of Strayer and Capella or Purdue and Kaplan -- or more shared services between universities. We will start to see far more of this with the privates as they struggle to survive. The biggest challenge is going to be for the smaller universities that don't have strong endowments. What are they going to do? Most of these universities rely solely on tuition and/or state and federal funding to keep their doors open. They have limited research dollars coming in as compared to the Tier 1/R1 institutions. Right now, the closure rate is below 1%, but it will accelerate. The one wildcard in this is a potential recession, which could result in people going back to school to gain new skills and earn a different degree. Maybe that will help universities. The other trend that we have not talked about is how many people are disparaging higher ed, saying a college degree is not worth the money that you pay for it. This is going to hurt higher ed and its ability to bring in more students. This too may lead to more mergers and closures. Changing the Higher Ed Business Model The business model for higher ed must change. We don't see rapid transformational change in the next year. However, there will be many changes in the next five years that people will realize was part of a changing higher ed landscape as they look in the rearview mirror. Neg Reg 2019 and its Implications. The upcoming negotiated rulemaking process by the Ed Department focusing on accreditation and innovation could be very impactful, especially with its focus on credit hours and online education. Credit Hours. Moving away from credit hours as a measure of learning could be one of those breakthrough transformations that could spur the changing of higher ed's business model. Once the Ed Department makes these changes, we will begin to see more institutions using CBE and giving credit for previous learning and life experiences. If you take a look at the three colleges that have done very well using these models (Western Governors who is the poster child for CBE, Capella, and Southern New Hampshire), they have seen tremendous growth while reducing the cost to students. This is a win-win and I think we'll see more of this. Online Education. Although online education is an area that is beginning to get saturated because of for-profits, we will see far more privates and state schools moving into this area, as well as continued consolidations with online providers (OPMs), such as Learning House. Because so many OPMs exist, some of the smaller colleges will be able to expand into this area at a reasonably low-cost investment, and more for-profits will be acquisition targets. We will start seeing institutions embrace the opportunity to share online courses. This too will require changes from the Neg Reg process with respect to accreditation, but once these types of changes come out, we will start seeing sharing of courses and services as we have not seen in the education industry. Negotiations with Faculty. We will begin to see higher ed leaders toughen their stance with faculty. Market saturation with institutions and programs has resulted in price discounting, sometimes at a rate of more than 60%. This is not sustainable. According to Inside Higher Ed's 2018 Annual Survey of Chief Business Officers (CFOs), 48% of respondents strongly agree or agree that their college tuition discount rate is unsustainable. This is up from 34% in 2017. Furthermore, two-thirds of CFOs at the privates say the same thing. This is huge. Institutions must start cutting programs that are not "profitable," but in doing this, they must deal with faculty. Unfortunately, faculty look at programmatic cuts through the lens of job security instead of what graduates need to be attractive in the job market. When faculty start to do this, there will be security and jobs for nearly all. Faculty Promotion and Tenure. We will start seeing changes in how faculty are promoted and assessed. Currently, faculty are promoted and assessed by their publication records. Going forward, we'll see less reliance on citations and publications and more on teaching. Additionally, faculty hiring and tenure will change. We will start seeing a review of tenured faculty every 5 to 10 years, instead of having a job for life. I don't see tenure going away anytime soon – it is too institutionalized – but employment for life will become a thing of the past in five years. Knowing Who Your Customers Are and What They Need. Many higher ed leaders have locked themselves in the ivory tower for too long, and it's time they understood what students need to be taught and what industry needs to be successful. Texas A&M is another really good example of this. They talk with stakeholder groups on a regular basis, including just completing a values survey. The institutional leaders currently are engaging in what they call Aggie 2030 to understand the future of higher education as a whole and where Texas A&M is going. This is the type of strategic planning that universities need to be doing with their alumni, stakeholders and the people who hire their graduates. Student Enrollment and Impact on Marketing Research and Spending. Another trend involves students making enrollment decisions based on their own proximity to a college. This is important for universities to realize and understand. Unless you are a R1 or major university, your students are more than likely going to come from a limited geographical pool. This has implications as to how and where you spend marketing dollars, but unfortunately, many institutions are wasting marketing dollars. As much as institutions would like to draw from a larger geographical area, institutions must put a greater emphasis on doing market research to understand where their students live and then spend the marketing dollars to get more students from that area. As the saying goes, fish where the fish are, because it's a waste of money otherwise. Harvard Lawsuit and Admissions. The Harvard lawsuit has the potential going all the way to the Supreme Court, and who knows how that will be decided with the current makeup of the Court. Cost Containment. We also will start to see far more cost containment as institutions no longer have the same level of disposable income. I think we will also start seeing the salaries of chief executives start to come down, especially as transparency hits the budgeting process. Higher Ed Funding. Cities and states will begin to fund college for students. The City of Chicago recently announced a new program where students will receive scholarships to cover costs of associate degrees that will be set up through DePaul University. And in another example, Starbucks is funding college for their people. We will start to see more of this as an employee benefit, but also as a way for businesses to invest in and retain quality employees. International Students. International students attending U.S. universities will continue to be an issue so long as the Trump administration continues to mess with immigration. This will continue to impact U.S. institutions as international students pay full tuition and universities use those funds to keep their bottom lines in the green. This is especially true with Chinese students. Because of trade wars and increased emphasis on background checks, we will see fewer Chinese students enrolling in the nation's higher education institutions. HBCUs. I think the other one to look at HBCUs. I think there could be some really good things to come out of the HBCUs over the next few years. I've no idea what it is, but the crystal ball says to keep an eye on them. Wrapping Up So long as the Trump administration is in office, we will continue to see turbulence coming out of the Department of Education and the rest of the government. One thing is for sure: it will not be boring! Merry Christmas / happy Hanukkah, and wishing all the very best for 2019. Bullet Points Looking Back – The Highlights from 2018 Higher ed finds itself in the maturity to declining stages as characterized by declining enrollments, lack of differentiation in the higher ed marketplace, and an increase in market consolidation (M&A activity) and/or college closings. Over the last few years, 2016-2018, more than 100 colleges haves closed. Many can be directly attributed to ACICS being decertified by the Obama administration, but more relevant is where education is in the lifecycle and current operating environment. State (and other) colleges are beginning to put more of an emphasis on attracting transfer students. Privates are also getting into this space due to costs to both them and their students. Some privates are co-locating at community colleges, renting space from them, and this gives their students a direct track to a four-year degree. ACICS was decertified by the Obama administration in 2016, but Secretary DeVos reinstated its accreditation authority this year. There were many missteps with this whole process, but the most egregious of these was because of a conflict of interest (or appearance thereof) of the department senior official who made the case for ACICS' reinstatement. Gainful employment is essentially dead for two reasons: The Education Department missed the filing deadline for the gainful employment rule so the changes that they want to make to gainful employment cannot come into play until mid-2020. Because of an inter-agency dispute over data sharing, the Ed Dept cannot get the data it needs to calculate gainful employment, thus essentially killing gainful employment. The Ed Department in November put out their draft ruling on new Title IX guidance. Overall, colleges and victims' advocates are not happy with the changes. There are four major changes: The narrowing of the definition of sexual assault. Suggesting a higher standard for adjudication be used, i.e., "preponderance of evidence," the same standard that is used in civil suits. Lessening the culpability of institutions and narrowing the reporting requirements. Giving the accused the right to cross-examine the victim. There is a failure in the governance process in many higher ed schools as exemplified by the Michigan State University sexual abuse scandal, and the death of a University of Maryland football player and the retaining of the football coach. More training needs to be done to ensure Regents understand their duties, and how governance has changed over the years. Looking Forward – Predictions for 2019 We will see an acceleration of mergers, consolidations and closures in higher ed. The 2019 Neg Reg process will begin a transformation of higher ed and its business model. Online education will continue its growth over the next 2-3 years. Much of this will be spurred by consolidation and strategic alliances with online providers. We will begin to see faculty promotion and tenure processes changing as a result of the need for universities to cull programs that are not financially viable. Market research will increasingly take root in higher ed, as institutions need to make smarter use of their marketing dollars by determining where their true prospective students are. Cost containment will continue to accelerate in higher ed, especially in privates where discounting has been the norm. This will find its way to the C suite and we will start to see a reduction of presidential salaries, especially at privates. We will start seeing more "interesting" ways for education to be funded. Part of this will come out of the Neg Reg process, but more city, state, and private entities will invest in their residents' and employees' futures. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Product Lifecycle: http://www.quickmba.com/marketing/product/lifecycle/ National University System: https://nu.edu Department of Education: https://www.ed.gov/ Neg Reg 2019 Process: www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2018/index.html Your Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

The higher ed sector has been relatively immune (or perhaps resistant?) to change since its inception, but in the past 10-15 years, and especially since the Great Recession, multiple things have changed, forcing changes on it. We now are seeing market forces unleashed, including consolidation, mergers/acquisitions, and closures as we've rarely seen before (and not in my lifetime). Understanding Higher Ed's Situation To put what is happening in higher ed in perspective, we examine the higher ed marketplace through the lens of the product lifecycle (PLC). This is a tool marketing applies to products, but it also is relevant when examining market segments or industries. The PLC is made up of four stages: introduction, growth, maturity, and decline. The introduction stage is characterized by the organization building brand awareness; The growth stage is characterized by strong growth, and the organization building brand preference and increasing market share; The maturity stage is characterized by strong growth diminishing as "competition" rise and competitors offer similar "products." This results in multiple possible marketing strategies including cutting prices, rethinking positioning and branding, and market consolidation; and The decline stage is characterized by sales significantly declining or having declined. In many cases, the product (or business) goes out of business or, as a last result, finds an acquirer (merger or acquisition). Higher ed finds itself in the maturity to declining stages as characterized by declining enrollments, lack of differentiation in the higher ed marketplace, and an increase in market consolidation (M&A activity) and/or college closings. There are many reasons why higher ed finds itself in this situation. First, higher ed enrollment has decreased for a myriad of factors, not the least of which is changing demographics, i.e., the numbers of the "traditional" college age student has decreased. Compounding this decrease, higher ed is becoming perceived as elitist, and many cannot afford its cost and/or the resultant student debt. In other words, institutions are competing for a shrinking pool of students, and it costs more for an education that some feel isn't worth the money spent or debt incurred. Second, there is an overabundance of education institutions – too many colleges and universities, and, with rare exceptions, they are offering the same types of programs, e.g., how many MBA programs do we need??? This has resulted in significant economic pressure on those small- to medium-sized colleges and universities who have a relatively small (or no) endowment. This pressure is compounded by cost curves that have been carved into stone over the last several decades. This is played out by larger institutions undercutting smaller institutions on price. For example, the president of the University of Virginia recently announced that tuition will be free for families earning less than $80,000 a year, and if they earn less than $30,000 a year, they will get room and board. In another example, New York University is not charging their medical school students any tuition. Both of these institutions have large endowments to be able to do this, but how can the small- to mid-sized institutions compete? Lastly, there is pressure for the nonprofit higher ed sector to figure out what to do about the out-of-favor for-profit institutions. These three reasons, aside from the fact that there are market dynamics at play – there is more supply than demand – are driving many of the changes we're seeing right now in higher ed. Mature and Declining Markets Give Rise to M&A Activity Some smaller colleges and universities under financial stress are looking for ways to solve their problems, and one way is merging with or being merged into another institution. The for-profit sector is a great example of where there has been significant M&A activity, e.g., Purdue and Kaplan forming Purdue Global, Strayer acquiring Capella, etc., as for-profits figure out their future when nonprofits are clearly in favor (and for-profits are clearly out-of-favor). This not completely changed, even with the change in administration. Mergers aren't the only solution for this problem. Many for-profits are attempting the transition to nonprofit status, e.g., Grand Canyon University and University of Phoenix. However, this isn't always the easiest thing to do because of the regulatory permissions required from the Dept of Education and the institution's accreditation body. Additionally, it doesn't solve their perception problems, at least immediately. Multiple Reasons for M&A Activity There are multiple reasons for increased M&A activity in the higher ed sector besides market forces at work, and we need to look at the reasons why M&A activity occurs. Basically, there are three main reasons: New markets / customers New technologies Gain efficiencies in operations National University System is a good example of this – they're on a buying spree and for all the right reasons. The National University System, a not-for-profit, currently has three nonprofit institutions under its umbrella: National University, the original mothership; JFK University in northern California, and the City University of Seattle, but over the past year, it has acquired Patten University for its technology and Northcentral University for its students and programs. M&A for New Technologies. In its acquisition of Patten University, NU acquired one of the best LMS systems in the marketplace. The system, which was called University Now, has been renamed Flex Course, and NU has adapted it for their own use. As part of the acquisition, National also acquired Patten's courses which were heavily competency-based. This is also a good advantage in that they have been able to teach out the Patten programs and integrate the learnings into their current undergraduate programs. One thing that was critical in the acquisition was the ability to modify the LMS to ensure NU was able to continue to satisfy Title IV funding requirements which are driven by Carnegie units. Again, due diligence was critical in this respect. The technology was relatively new, and therefore it was easier to adapt it to satisfy Title IV funding requirements when doing CBE. Ultimately, NU has great hopes that this acquisition will help them to transform the online learning experience at all its universities. In other words, National did a great job in completing its due diligence. M&A as a Growth Strategy. There are two ways that institution grow. One is through organic growth, i.e., you decide you will move into the online sector and you build your program from scratch. Many institutions have done this, and the most recent (and possibly the most famous) of these is the announced online undergraduate program at the University of Pennsylvania, the first of the Ivy League institutions to go online with a program. The second strategy is acquisition, which is how the National University System is expanding their doctoral offerings. NU acquired Northcentral University (pending appropriate WSCUC and DOE approvals), an online for-profit university that offers mostly graduate education programs at the master and doctoral levels. This fills a gap that NU had at the doctoral level and adds to its ability to offer online and blended courses. National is already predominantly online – 51 percent of its students are in synchronous or asynchronous online programs – but its acquisition of Northcentral was critical in three ways. First, Northcentral is completely online and has 24 programs, the majority of which are doctoral, an area NU wanted to expand its offerings. Second, the Northcentral faculty are high quality and located in nearly all of the 50 states. The model that they use is one-on-one similar to the Oxford Tutorial Model, which having your faculty are distributed across the country is an advantage when using this pedagogy. Lastly, National acquires a pretty efficient OPM support back-office. As far as the culture goes, NU expects they will get some real experience bringing the for-profit Northcentral University into the NU System and converting it to a not-for-profit. National's acquisitions have been very strategic in nature – they have looked at multiple opportunities and walked away from many. With these two, they've made good choices in line with their overall strategic plan and done the due diligence to ensure they are picking the right horse. Remember that Culture Issue We Had… Culture is critical when considering a merger. Years ago, when HP acquired Compaq, it was the culture differences that most impacted the success (or lack thereof) of the merger. The Purdue Global situation is a good example of the challenges merger entities can face. Purdue "bought" Kaplan, i.e., Purdue got the franchise of the online courseware from the Kaplan organization, while Kaplan retained the back-office processing and support, and the OPM. Kaplan's portion of the entity, still for-profit, is being paid for by the profits they're going to make, while the courses are offered through the not-for-profit Purdue Global. Many consider the merger between Purdue, a Tier 1 research university with a very high reputation and traditional faculty, and Kaplan, a good institution in its own right but a for-profit online, a very gutsy move – especially when one considers the faculty culture aspects. Why is there resistance to this change is relatively simple to understand. Culture. The integration of cultures is never easy. Sometimes, when two cultures come together as Purdue and Kaplan are attempting to do, they merge like oil and water. And that's one of the most important things that folks doing mergers and acquisitions must think about – how the cultures align – because more than anything else, it is culture that can destroy a merger and eliminate the efficiencies that the merger is designed to take advantage of. Take for instance the merger of Kaplan and Purdue. Kaplan, a for-profit, and Purdue, a R1 university, are very different cultures, especially when it comes to faculty. Regardless of the high quality of Kaplan, an institution which has stayed pretty much out of trouble in terms of the scrutiny of the for-profit community, Kaplan's online degree programs themselves are a challenge to Purdue's "in classroom" campus programs that a R1 institutions are experienced in providing. Faculty, and especially traditional, research faculty, generally tend not to like a lot of change, nor are they wild about online education. And we can just imagine what a traditional, research faculty such as Purdue's felt about merging with a for-profit online institution. From all reports, the faculty was furious when the merger was first announced – their "brand" was being diluted by this incorporated new global entity called Purdue Global that included a for-profit institution. The merger has progressed, and faculty and administration appear to have come to a truce, at least for now. That said, Purdue is spending significantly to market Purdue Global – it is in almost every market with TV and radio ads – while trying to keep marketing positioning separate between Purdue and Purdue Global. It has yet to be seen as to whether they are able to keep their faculty happy about it or the branding separate, but that's a whole different kettle of fish. The Future of the For-Profit Sector The for-profit sector is not going to disappear, as much as much of higher ed would like it to. However, there are market forces at play here too, and the for-profit sector may morph its way towards a higher concentration of those who survived to be distributors of OPM or programs. An example of this is MOOCs. When you look at several of the MOOC organizations, e.g., Udacity, EDX, etc., these organizations are not just providing learning experiences, they are turning into distributors of traditional degree programs, including even graduate programs for R1 universities. This, plus being obvious merger targets, will continue the upheaval in this sector. We believe that we will see more mergers and less of the organic growth from for-profits, including for-profits becoming part of nonprofits similar to what is happened with Purdue Global, as well as mergers to share back office services. One example of this is TCS Education System, who provides back-office services for a number of institutions. These types of mergers could have a major impact in the online space, especially for small to medium-sized institutions, as it is almost impossible for them to establish the infrastructure to do an effective job in online education – the only way for them to get and/or stay competitive in the online space is to "outsource" back-office functionality. Federal Funding and Accreditation There are also a number of changes in regulatory and accreditation factors between Obama and the Trump administrations that are impacting higher ed. Federal Funding. In a recent talk given by Secretary DeVos, her current position is focused not on the change in the standards but rather more on making Title IV funds available for a broader variety of learning experiences. She conveyed a pretty strong feeling that we should not be committing all postsecondary education funding to what we now call hire traditional higher ed, but to improve the flow of federal funds to retraining programs. Accreditation. There are not a lot of people who believe that we will move dramatically away from the kind of accreditation process we currently have for a myriad of reasons, despite the upcoming Neg Reg process which begins in early 2019 focusing on accreditation and innovation. Big changes from in accreditation will need to include a willingness to think in competency-based terms. This will require a major shift away from the strict Carnegie method of determining learning, to more of a competency-based approach to assessing learning outcomes. Simply put, it is much more important to know that people are learning and being able to demonstrate learning outcomes than it is to demonstrate how long they sat in a seat. However, changing this mindset will be very challenging as it has been this way for well over 100 years. Additionally, those with marketing backgrounds know that accreditation is the university system's greatest barrier to entry. It is important that universities meet a quality level, but the current system requires institutions develop prima facie evidence of quality, and many potential competitors get frustrated before they get accredited. This could be one reason why the accreditation system as we currently know it does not (and will not) change. Three Things University Presidents Should Consider Before Merger If you are considering merging with another institution, there are three things you should consider. First, culture. You must examine the cultures of the two organizations to ensure that they are mergeable, i.e., that the two cultures are not contrary to one another. There are clear differences between for-profit and not-for-profit cultures, and you must "test the water" and see just how much of a business the for-profit institution sees themselves as vs. it being a learning institution. Second, regardless as to whether it is a for-profit or not-for-profit entity, does the acquired institution have the programs, faculty and administrative support that is consistent and that will integrate effectively with your own. This is critical but especially critical with respect to faculty. Faculty generates and own the content, and it is essential you have a group who can drive the learning experience for students. That's not something that you can import easily – you must make sure that it fits your own model about how it's going to work. Thirdly, you have to look at the institution as a business. You (obviously) don't want to take on something that is so broken that it cannot be fixed no matter how hard you try. For example, you have to ask yourself, are they hopelessly lost as a business model? Are their programs of interest to the marketplace? One of the biggest challenges institutions are having today is pruning and culling their programs, and leaders must have the courage to look faculty in the eye and say, "by the way, that course is costing us lots of money, and you only have five people in it. We know you may like it, but we can't continue to teach a course that students don't want." That can be a really tough academic decision, but one that must be made. Wrapping Up We believe that the disruption going on in higher ed has just started and that surviving and thriving in the higher ed space will take intense focus to fine tune the systems, processes, and cost structure if institutions are going to compete and survive. Competition for the adult student has heated up dramatically. Whether we like it or not, this is not only because more traditional institutions have decided to get into the market, but also because multiple institutions are now competing on price, including those that have state subsidies federal subsidies, and/or have large endowments. This can make it very difficult for smaller institutions to compete against as it allows larger institutions to "give away" of their offerings. Bullet Points: The higher ed sector has been relatively immune (or perhaps resistant?) to change since its inception, but in the past 10-15 years, and especially since the Great Recession, multiple things have changed, forcing changes on it. We now are seeing market forces unleashed, including consolidation, mergers/acquisitions, and closures as we've rarely seen before (and not in my lifetime). Higher ed finds itself in the maturity to declining stages of the product lifecycle as characterized by declining enrollments, lack of differentiation in the higher ed marketplace, and an increase in market consolidation (M&A activity) and/or college closings. Some smaller colleges and universities under financial stress are looking for ways to solve their problems, and one way is merging with or being merged into another institution. There are multiple reasons for increased M&A activity in the higher ed sector besides market forces at work, and we need to look at the reasons why M&A activity occurs. Basically, there are three main reasons: New markets/customers, new technologies, or gains in efficiencies in operations. Culture is critical when considering a merger, but the integration of cultures is never easy. We believe that we will see more mergers and less of the organic growth from for-profits, including for-profits becoming part of nonprofits. The Ed Department under Secretary DeVos believes it should not be committing all postsecondary education funding to what we now call hire traditional higher ed, but to improve the flow of federal funds to retraining programs. Big changes from in accreditation will need to include a willingness to think in competency-based terms. This will require a major shift away from the strict Carnegie method of determining learning, to more of a competency-based approach to assessing learning outcomes. One reason why the accreditation system as we currently know it does not (and will not) change is that accreditation is the university system's greatest barrier to entry. If you are considering merging with another institution, there are three things you should consider: Are the cultures mergeable? Does the acquired institution see themselves as a business vs. being a learning institution (or vice versa)? Does the acquired institution have the programs, faculty and administrative support that is consistent and that will integrate effectively with your own? Is the acquired institution in good financial situation, or is it so broken that it cannot be fixed no matter how hard you try? Are they hopelessly lost as a business model? Are their programs of interest to the marketplace? The disruption going on in higher ed has just started, and that surviving and thriving in the higher ed space will take intense focus to fine tune the systems, processes, and cost structure if institutions are going to compete and survive. Competition for the adult student has heated up dramatically. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Product Lifecycle: http://www.quickmba.com/marketing/product/lifecycle/ National University System: https://nu.edu Department of Education: https://www.ed.gov/ WASC Senior College and University Commission: https://www.wscuc.org/ Guests Social Media Links: Gerry Czarnecki Twitter: https://twitter.com/gerryczarnecki?lang=en Gerry Czarnecki Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/theczar/ Gerry Czarnecki website: http://gerryczarnecki.com/ Your Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com and drumm@thechangeleader.com

Higher ed institutions are grappling with declining enrollment. The old ways of recruiting students that institutions used during the "go-go" years 15 years ago no longer work – there is far more competition for a shrinking pool of "traditional" students, student demographics have changed, and numerous other reasons. This has resulted in deep discounting of tuition, institutions investing in "climbing walls and lazy rivers" on campus, and other ways to attract prospective students. Yet, on average, only 11 percent of students accepted actually enroll at the college. In essence, (prospective) students control the enrollment process in most situations. As the saying goes, "putting old wine in a new bottle doesn't work," nor does enrolling students the "traditional" way of buying lists, etc. Higher ed must change their enrollment strategies – put new wine in new bottles – starting with understanding how to market in this new normal. What's Changed, and Why Marketing Is So Important Now Over the past 10-15 years, three major changes occurred that changed higher education, and specifically higher ed enrollment. The first of these was student demographics – there are fewer students graduating from high school than there were even 10 years ago. Add to this a myriad of factors, including increasing income inequality, etc., and the result is fewer "traditional" students available as prospects. The "go-go" years of the 2000s when nearly every higher ed institution in the country was seeing increasing enrollment and was patting itself on the back for a great job it was doing at marketing and recruiting was a false flag – institutions were merely riding a demographic wave. Those days are over, and we are seeing declining numbers of students graduating from high school. The second major change was the Great Recession, which is still affecting enrollments. When the economy tanked in 2008, many parents saw their kid's college savings disappear overnight for two reasons: their stock portfolio was wiped out and/or the home equity that they had planned to borrow against to pay for their children's education was no longer there. This, coupled with the cuts at the state and federal levels for education, raised the cost to students of an education; we're seeing this effects in the form of increased student loan debt. In some ways, this is a double whammy – fewer traditional-age students, and then there are fewer among them who can pay full price or even a significant percentage of the price. This has led to significant tuition discounting as a way to attract more students. This discounting is analogous to what happens in a product lifecycle when a product moves from market maturity to decline; what is used to get people to buy is reducing prices. Lastly, there is increased dissatisfaction and distrust with higher ed institutions and/or higher ed as an industry. People, and especially parents and students, increasingly are questioning the value of a college degree, whereas, in the past, it was a given that a college degree was going to pay off. The Changing Marketing Game The higher ed "marketing game" has changed significantly in the past 15 years. Yes, there are definitely fewer high school students considered to be the traditional students (18-24) going to college, both from a numbers and a percentage of the total students, but what has increased are the numbers of what are called "post-traditional" students, those students who are 24-70 years old, who do not study full-time during the day and are not in residence. This number has increased significantly and is now 73-74 percent of all college students. There are multiple reasons for this, but they boil down to three basic reasons: They need a degree to be able to get a job; They want a degree to get up higher up the ladder where they are working, or They want more money in their current job. Which brings us to the current challenge that institutions are facing. There are significant marketing challenges that institutions must overcome given that the majority of today's students are post-traditional. For example, when attracting traditional, 17-year-old students, you know how and where to reach them: they are in high school, they will be signing up for the PSAT and SAT, and you can buy their names and send them communication materials directly. However, with post-traditionals, students can be anywhere and it's a marketing challenge to figure out how to reach them. This has given rise to a new industry online for recruiting students, but most institutions are using these so they aren't as effective as they used to be. Fortunately, the cost of advertising, specifically digital advertising, is decreasing, and it can be used to target much more narrowly. What Is Positioning and Branding, and Why Is It Critical for Higher Ed Positioning and branding are two of those things that if you ask 100 people for their definition, you get 100 different answers. We define positioning as the space that your institution or your brand takes up in the minds of the external audience. It is what you represent to people who are thinking about going to college, their parents, or any of the other audiences that you deal with. Positioning answers the question: what is the one thing that unique, different and better about us in the eyes of our customer vs. the competition in the higher ed marketplace that has them either hiring our graduates or wanting to attend our institution. Branding is the strategy behind trying to reinforce and/or change that positioning in people's minds. It is the act of creating an intentional strategy behind what we stand for, i.e., the words and phrases that we want people to use when they talk about us and think about us. What makes that statement critical is the emphasis on the "the one thing people remember." Marketers would love to have people remember 10 or 15 things about a brand because we as marketers know all the great things about the brand. However, institutions are very lucky if you get people to remember one thing, and so you must be very deliberate and tough on yourself and the and the people who are working on the brand strategy to say, "folks, we've got one thing and we need to figure out what that one thing is." Take for example Nike and their "Just Do It" campaigns. That is the one thing that you remember about Nike. Oklahoma and football. Texas A&M and the Corps of Cadets. What is the one thing that your "customers" remember about your institution? And how do you know what that is? All Established Universities Have A Brand One of the critical things that university presidents must remember is that they already have a brand because any institution that's been around for a while has a reputation in people's minds. Your university stands for something already – you are not starting from scratch. Being already established is actually more difficult than starting from scratch because if you want to change the way that people perceive your brand, you have to first undo what they currently think and then create new positioning in their minds. That's one thing. Second, your brand is and must be foundational to the strategic planning process every institution should go through in every five, six, eight, 10 years, but far too many institutions view those things as completely separate, i.e., the planning process on one side of the house, and developing the marketing and branding strategies on the other. That is a mistake. Your brand is the promise that you're making to the world, and your strategic plan has to be focused on those things that we need to do to improve our institution. They are inextricably related and wholly dependent on one another. The way people view brand should be this: "What are we doing and what are we not doing to deliver on the brand promise that we are making to people." I think if every institution going forward had an execution plan for their strategic plan with part of that being how are you going to market your institution, it would be part of part and parcel of your planning process. How to Change Your Brand Established institutions already have a brand, and that can be difficult to change. Your first step is to conduct market research external to your institution. Brand perception is not about what your faculty think, or what your university president thinks. Brand perception is what people external to the university think you stand for – your prospective students, their parents, people who hire your graduates and support your institution. Most people have the perception that market research can be very expensive and take a long time and it can, but it doesn't have to. There are both complex and simple ways research can be done. For example, many institutions who already have a good understanding of their brand successfully do online focus groups with parents and students and guidance counselors and even their alumni which is cost effective and can gather good information. For those institutions who are less sure of their brand, we recommend more in-depth surveys and interviews / focus groups. Either approach can work – it depends on how much do you already understand about your institution brand right, how much are you are you trying to change it, and what you need to learn. Many institutions rely on what appears to be a simple way to do this market research, i.e., asking student applicants three basic questions: (1) how did you hear about us, (2) what did you hear about us, and (3) what attracted you to us. Unfortunately, this doesn't necessarily work, because people have a hard time answering those questions. Most brands have been around for a long time, so when people are asked about how they first heard about the institution or what they heard about it, they don't give you an answer that you can take to the rely on. For example, if you were asked when did you first hear about Starbucks, you would give me an answer that may or may not be correct, but the problem is I don't have any statistical reliability when or how you actually heard about it. Marketing experts are students of people, i.e., their behavior and how they respond to particular questions. For example, with Americans, you can ask them a question and it is their nature that they want to be helpful so they give you an answer, but it is not necessarily a reliable answer. Hence, you must ask probing questions. Instead, we recommend having one-on-one conversations with people in which the researcher asks more probing questions that dive more deeply into their answers so as to get a solid understanding of what people believe and why they believe it. Red Flags that Suggest Your Branding is Tired It's important that you that you understand what the people what people think about the brand and whether it needs to be sharpened, and one of the flags that higher ed marketing people can use is enrollment. For example, if enrollment is declining, that could be a sign that a brand could be tired or that your value proposition is off, i.e., people don't understand why they should spend the money to attend your institution, they don't know what they're going to get from it in terms of the education they are receiving or the career outcomes they'll get. Besides declining enrollment, another flag is lack of alignment. Institutions must have their strategies, structures, and processes all working together, and branding is one of your strategies. As part of the structures, institutions must ensure they have the right kind of people in enrollment, that they are well trained, and can take care of the students. All of those things have to be in alignment. Branding is not the only thing that would cause enrollment decline, but it is certainly something to consider. President should ask themselves what are we doing around brand strategy? When is the last time we did market research? When was the last time we sharpened our brand's language? What is our value proposition? Unfortunately, most academics don't understand these basic questions, which is why many institutions are turning to the business community to find their leadership. Ensuring consistent and well-targeted brand language is critical to driving enrollment, especially when we take into account the number of generations who are currently going back to school. With the predominance of the post-traditional student, language becomes more critical. Not only do you need to figure out how to market to them, you need to understand where to market to them and what attracts them to your institution. Thus, your marketing equation is much more complex than it is with traditional students (18-24 years old). For example, post-traditional students have busy lives. They have jobs and families; they are looking not only at what is the value of your education at your offering in terms of what's going do for them but also the convenience factor – where your institution is located and can they get there easily on evenings or do their degree via online education. There are three key things that presidents must be aware of when it comes to marketing and branding. Do market research on a regular basis. Institutions must understand what the external market thinks about them. This is probably the most critical. Integrate branding in the strategic planning process. Ensure that your marketing materials are consistent across the institution to ensure the institution speaks in one voice. Is the look and language consistent or inconsistent? Is the tone we are sending consistent? Starbucks is a great example of this, but there are great examples of excellent branding in higher ed that include Harvard, Carnegie Mellon, MIT, and UC Berkeley. You cannot be all things to all people – you must know what your one thing is. You're competing for mindshare, and there are so many different messages out there, what is the one thing you want to be known for. Branding doesn't have to be hard. It doesn't have to be laborious. It doesn't have to be difficult – it can be very simple and straightforward. There are a lot of really good models out there for how to do and how to do branding, just start and you'll be amazed at how much you learn if you start with good market research, you'll be amazed at how much you learn and where it can take you. Bullet Points: Higher ed institutions are grappling with declining enrollment. The old ways of recruiting students that institutions used the "go-go" years 15 years ago no longer work. Over the past 10-15 years, three major changes occurred that changed higher education, and specifically higher ed enrollment. Student demographics have changed. The Great Recession impacted college affordability in multiple ways. There is increased dissatisfaction in higher ed, analogous to people saying "where's the beef." Residential programs are not attracting the same number of students as before. Competition is growing, putting the "hammer" in the hands of the prospect. You have to market where the prospective students are. With 70+ percent of all students today post-traditional, new marketing strategies are critical for higher ed institutions. Positioning answers the question: what is the one thing that unique, different and better about us in the eyes of our customer vs. the competition in the higher ed marketplace that has them either hiring our graduates or wanting to attend our institution. Branding is the strategy behind trying to reinforce and/or change that positioning in people's minds. All established universities have a brand. Brand perception is external to the institution, not internal. Do market research on a regular basis. Institutions must understand what the external market thinks about them. This is probably the most critical thing institutions can do to ensure their brand is fresh. Brand research doesn't have to be expensive. Integrate branding in the strategic planning process. Ensure that your marketing materials are consistent across the institution to ensure the institution speaks in one voice. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: https://thechangeleader.com Guests Social Media Links: Guest Twitter: @thechangeldr Guest Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/deborahmaue/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-change-leader/about/ Your Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

Carol Aslanian is a market researcher who helps colleges build strategies and new programming to increase enrollment by focusing on post-traditional students, those students who used to be called "adult students." Carol began her career in higher education research in the 1980s at the College Board. Her first project in the post-traditional student world was called Youth and Direction for a Learning Society that got hard data to help colleges grow the population of older students coming back to school at two-year and four-year colleges by talking to employers about their needs. The Current Higher Ed Marketplace The demographics of the "typical" college student has changed in the last 30-40 years. According to the College Board, 70 percent of all undergraduate students are made up of what now is called post-traditional students – students who do not study full-time during the day and are not in-residence. The remaining 30 percent are traditional students, those who study full time and are in-residence. Of this 70 percent, 19-20 percent of students study full-time online, and the other 50 percent are individuals who do blended programs, i.e., some classes on campus. The reason we are seeing a surge in post-traditional students, besides the demographics of the high school population being stagnant or decreasing in many areas throughout the United States, is that we now have a large number of students who began their degree but didn't finish. These students had less than two years of credit and dropped out, disenchanted with the college experience and/or the direction that they were going, and went into the workforce. They are now coming back to college 5-10 years later, knowing the career that they want and are focusing on that. There are three primary reasons why post-traditionals come back to school. First, they need a job; second, they want more money; and third, they want a promotion; all of which need a college degree. This is a marked change from 20 years ago, where the majority of students headed off to college and finished in four years. Now, those that go to college and finish in four-years make up less than 25% of the market. The Evolution of The Current College and Distance / Online Education In the 1980s and 1990s, many colleges and universities had special units called continuing ed, extension, adult and professional development, etc. These units specialized in educating working adults – the 25-year old population which worked full time during the week – by offering evening or weekend courses to enable them to start and/or complete their degrees. Although adult students were not the primary focus of universities, so long as these units brought in revenue, the institution was pleased as the revenue supported other areas. Online education got its major start in the 1980s driven in large part by the University of Phoenix in 1989 and the advent of Blackboard in the late 1990s. Fast forward to 2010, higher ed adopted the concept that age no longer predicted the way people learn, which began tearing down the segregation of adult / post-traditional students from the traditional student. Online education has grown astronomically over the past 20 years, to where 1 out of 5 undergraduates in this country study fully online. The most recent statistics from Eduventures say that in 2016, 16-17 percent of all undergraduate students are fully online, and that percentage increased to 19-20 percent in 2017. This is despite the for-profit sector losing market share over the past few years, primarily because: many institutions in the public and the private sectors are entering the online marketplace; post-traditional students prefer to learn with an institution located within 100 miles of where they live; and the reputation of for-profit education has tanked. One example of this is Central Michigan University. Central Michigan used to have "campuses" on the military bases as a convenience for their adult military students, but they now have a huge online presence which makes sense for the military adult student because of deployments. What Post-Traditional Students Want Post-traditional students' thoughts around education differ from those of traditional 18-24-year-old students. They want programs that are Convenient for them and fit into their lifestyle and their work hours. Post-traditionals typically choose institutions within 100 miles of where they live, and the majority within 40 miles. They do not want to give away their weekends as previous adult students did. Time to completion is important. They want to finish their degree fast, three years or less, and are willing to forgo summers off or long breaks between terms. Structure and compressed courses work well. Terms of 6-8 weeks are preferred, as are online and blended programs / courses. According to the Babson Research Group, 54 percent of all students take blended programs. This makes perfect sense when viewed through the lens of research from Aslanian Market Research. These students typically say, "I'll get in there once a week, but please don't make me come in three times a week." Building Programs for the Post-Traditional Market Market research is critical for understanding the potential for going after post-traditional students, as well as why current programs are not attracting the numbers that universities want or need. Market research must answer five key questions: How big is the market / how many post-traditional students are there in the local geographic area? What do these students want in terms of programs? How do they want these programs, i.e., what format and schedule? What marketing channels must be used to attract them? Who is your competition and how do you differentiate yourself? Aslanian Market Research does its market analysis of the student population within a 100-150 mile radius of the institution, and talks with both prospective and current post-traditional students. They feel it is critical that you work on the basis of demand – those who have done it instead of those who want to do it. You must also study the competition, what previous research conducted by extension sites / divisions of continuing education says, and talk to the faculty and administration about their viewpoint. All these things are required to come up with a set of recommendations of how a college can attract the post-traditional population to the campus. The majority of institutions do not understand marketing sufficiently. Consequently, they don't spend what it takes to enroll this population. For example, most institutions give the traditional student incredible discounts on tuition – in some cases up to 50 percent – but are not giving the post-traditional student the same levels of discounts. Additionally, they are not investing in marketing to this demographic. Why not divert some of the money to the population that makes up 70-75 percent of the pool of eligible students? Transitioning the Institution and Resistance to Change Transitioning an institution for recruiting and educating post-traditional students requires change management, and change is not easy for most universities. A recent example of this had a university president on board with the proposed changes, but the provost was concerned because s/he knew that s/he must deal with academics to get them to change – which isn't the easiest thing in the world. The key to making this argument is having the data that supports the changes and answers the questions as to what the market is demanding, but equally important is having leadership that builds trust and a transparent process that includes collaboration. "People support what they help create." Change depends mostly on the trust that employees have in their leadership. There are four types of people you must deal with in change: early adapters who love change, the "wait-and-see" crowd, cynics who will never change (and will not give you a reason why), and skeptics. In the change process, skeptics are your best friend because they will tell you when something is not going to work and give you reasons why. There are many pros and cons for faculty when it comes to online teaching. One professor from Florida Atlantic University stated that he liked online because there was more of an opportunity to have one-on-one time with students vs. being in a huge lecture room, but that teaching online was more time-consuming – students will reach out at 11 PM with a question about an assignment. Competition for the Post-Traditional Student The competition also can play a role in driving distance education. For example, other than Penn, none of the Ivy League schools are implementing distance education, but when Harvard and others begin looking at what Penn is doing, they may move in this direction. One way in which they may do this is by implementing distance certificate programs. In some ways, their certificate programs already cater to an international audience, and this is one way that they could move toward implementing distance education. New Trends in Higher Education One of the hot trends in the education marketplace is badges. Currently, the degree market makes up about 60 percent of students, the certificate market between 18-20 percent, and the remaining 20 percent take individual courses. Although there has been talk about badges and competency-based programs for a long time, according to current market research, there is not a lot of call for badges and competency-based programs yet. The hype around badges is similar to what we saw a few years back around MOOCs. Competency-based education may be different. For CBE to become more mainstream, it will require a change of perspective from the Department of Education. To wit, Western Governors is fighting massive fines from the Ed Dept because someone there said what they are doing was tantamount to a correspondence course vs. an actual academic institution. That has huge implications for CBE, and the jury is out on this one. What the future will hold is not clear, but for now, badges and CBE are farther and fewer between and do not surface to any degree noticeable in current research. Three Keys for University Presidents Three key things university presidents must consider when establishing programs, growing, etc. over the next five years when it comes to the post-traditional population: Pay more attention to and refocus your outreach and marketing (including marketing budget) toward the post-traditional student. Most institutions are placing their focus on and making their largest investment in the traditional enrollment of 18-year-olds coming directly from high school, whereas 70+ percent of the students are post-traditionals. Marketing dollars would be better spent on those post-traditional students who live within 100 miles of the institution. There are multiple advantages to this, including you can market more efficiently, and more quickly determine who is your competition.Additionally, post-traditionals generally are not asking for scholarships and grants. Consider adding blended and online programs instead of new traditional programs – this is where the market is heading and people want, especially if most of your students come from with 100 miles. For those students, the blended structure works very nicely. Courses should be 6 to 8 weeks in length and run continuously throughout the year so students can accelerate their learning and finish as quickly as possible. Post-traditional students are very cost conscious – tuition and fees are important to them. However, when those students who study at private institutions are asked the question "did you take the least expensive program," 60% say no, which tells us that they also want convenience, acceleration, reputation, and content. Aslanian Market Research has three new research reports that can be downloaded from their website dealing with the post-traditional undergraduate, graduate, and online markets. Their website is www.educationdynamics.com. The Crystal Ball Here's what we expect over the next 5 to 10 years. The overseas market is beginning to grow. The international market has been slow to catch on in regards to online learning, but it is beginning show little glimpses of interest as institutions begin to cater to minority populations, first-generation students, etc. The online and the blended concept will begin to work more internationally than it has in the past. The resurrection of colleges doing business with businesses will grow. With online and blended programs that colleges and universities can tailor to companies, they can regain the business partnership market whereby they provide education training needs for nearby businesses, something that waned in the last 15-20 years. Two good examples of this are Amazon and Starbucks. Mergers and acquisitions have started, e.g., National University, a nonprofit, acquiring Northcentral University, a for-profit institution; Purdue University and Kaplan; and Strayer acquiring Capella University. This is a normal market consolidation as online education grows, and we will see more of them. Bullet Points The demographics of the "typical" college student has changed in the last 30-40 years. According to the College Board, 70 percent of all undergraduate students are made up of what now is called post-traditional students – students who do not study full-time during the day and are not in-residence. The remaining 30 percent are traditional students, those who study full time and are in-residence. Post-traditional students' thoughts around education are different than those of the traditional 18-24-year-old student. They want programs that are Convenient for them and fit into their lifestyle and their work hours. Within 100 miles of where they live, and the majority within 40 miles. They do not want to give away their weekends as previous adult students did. Time to completion is important. They want to finish their degree fast, three years or less, and are willing to forgo having summers off or long breaks between terms. Structure and compressed courses work well for this population. Terms of 6-8 weeks are preferred, as is online and blended programs / courses. Market research is critical for determining both the potential for going after post-traditional students, as well as understanding why current programs are not attracting the numbers that universities want or need.It must answer five questions: How big is the market / how many post-traditional students are there in the local geographic area? What do these students want in terms of programs? How do they want these programs, i.e., what format and schedule? What marketing channels must be used to attract them? Who is your competition and how do you differentiate yourself? The majority of institutions do not understand marketing sufficiently. Consequently, they don't spend what it takes to enroll this population. Transitioning an institution to recruiting and educating post-traditional students requires change management, and change is not easy for most universities. The key to making this argument is having the data that supports the changes and answers the questions as to what the market is demanding, and faculty who trust leadership. People support what they help create. Three key things to consider wrt the post-traditional population: Pay more attention to and refocus your outreach and marketing (including marketing budget) toward the post-traditional student. Consider adding blended and online programs instead of new traditional programs. Post-traditional students are very cost conscious – tuition and fees are important to them, but they also want convenience, acceleration, reputation, and content. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Case Studies: https://www.educationdynamics.com/case-studies Market Research: https://www.educationdynamics.com/e-books Guests Social Media Links: Education Dynamics website: https://www.educationdynamics.com/ Twitter:https://twitter.com/EdDynamics Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/educationdynamics/ Drumm's Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

Dr. Dewey Clark is a very special university president. Unlike most of his contemporaries, his undergraduate degree is from the school he is now leading, and following graduation, was invited to work on staff in admissions which he did for nine years before going off for a 24-year career in business. This experience has conditioned his thinking about higher ed. He understands that a university or college must be run like a business, and he brings that mentality and work ethic to his job. He also understands that college should be both an education and an experience and that the culture of any institution starts with the top. He takes this very seriously – interviewing EVERY person who is hired at North Carolina Wesleyan. Thus, he ensures all new people see and buy into his vision, one that a college is an amazing place where young people can go and develop in the way that he did. Dr. Clark has been in the president role for 4 ½ years now and has put his imprimatur on the college. When he took over, enrollment was at 575, and it is more than doubled to over 1100. He did this by applying business principles to the college. They first examined their market and positioning. Their previous approach was scattergun, attempting to recruit up and down the East Coast, but after doing market research, they found the majority of their alumni and current students were from Eastern North Carolina and Southeast Virginia – 75 percent – and the remaining 25 percent from 40 different foreign countries. They contracted their market area to Eastern North Carolina and Southeast Virginia, and it started paying immediate dividends. Second, they examined their messaging and found their approach wasn't effective, especially from a marketing dollars perspective. They swapped their marketing foci to doing radio and billboards in their target areas, which also paid dividends. They also examined their enrollment processes to ensure that each potential student received the personal touch. This includes including Skype and telephone calls and emails, etc., and for the campus visit, they roll out the red carpet – everything is choreographed down to the littlest detail such as who they eat lunch with. They knew that recruiting has changed in the past 35 years, from handwriting letters to prospective students with a lot of phone calls, to the 21st-century social media of Facebook and Instagram, but the personal touch is still important. Today's students are technology driven, so you have to meet them where they are. Email is almost a thing of the past, except that you have to be aware that you are also recruiting the parents – the decision to attend is going to be made on the way home from the campus visit, and they need to feel good about the place their daughters and sons might be going. In some ways, there are two or three different messages that need to go out – one to the students, one to the parents, and one to the business community. For example, students generally are not concerned about things like security, but their parents certainly are. Your business community, those who will be hiring your graduates, want to know that your curriculum is up to date and it is meeting their needs. One of the areas of foci for the college is enhancing its career services area. NC Wesleyan starts helping students think about their career from the day they step foot on campus, e.g., what does your resume look like, are you prepared to do an interview, do you understand what a cover letter is or etiquette dinners, job fairs, etc. It has made a big difference as companies who are hiring their graduates are starting to take notice. One of the things that make NC Wesleyan special is their freshman orientation, which they call Rock the Mount. They include three things that are not typical to a traditional orientation. First, they bring in outside speakers to motivate the new students, including a graduate from 30 years ago who talks about the college from their perspective and how it prepared them for the world. Second, the new freshmen line up and go through a tunnel where Dr. Clark shakes their hand with current students cheering them on. This makes it a very exciting time for them. Lastly, they invite current students and vendors from the town to get students connected to their fellow students and community – this year they had well over 100 organizations there, including student organizations who participated. For many, this is their first time away from home, and NC Wesleyan helps them find their "new family" to help them through the process. One of Dr. Clark's biggest challenges was getting the town to embrace the college, and how he is done it through programs such as Rock the Mount has been ingenious. Through things like that, he has added over $110 million to the economy of the local town. Dr. Clark leveraged his deep business background to change NC Wesleyan's culture. Prior to coming back to Wesleyan, he worked at MBM, a food distribution company that grew from $100 million in annual revenues when he first started to a $7 billion company that was bought by Warren Buffett in 2012. His role was to put together the organization's strategic plans and budgets, and he leveraged these skills to be successful in the presidency. Dr. Clark is very numbers driven, very analytical, and his leadership style reflects this. This is not exclusive of people – Wesleyan is a high touch place – but he wants his key managers to be focused on numbers and try to improve them. For example, he will send out a picture of something that shows an improvement with a message "good quality" to celebrate the good things that they have done. Conversely, if there's something that needs to be improved, he will write "bad quality" with the picture. He wants everyone to think that when they leave campus on a daily basis, they think "it is better than when we came here this morning." He believes strongly that if everybody has that mindset, they will become a very special place. And it is. In the most recent US News and World Report that had regional rankings, North Carolina Wesleyan was ranked 37 in the Southeast. Three years ago they were 63. There are three secrets to making this work. First, the role of planning and the budgeting; Second, creating a culture of continuous improvement Lastly, Ensuring your hiring practices are in line with your culture. You have to have a group of "game changers," people who will go that extra mile to make sure that the college and everything it is working right. Creating a sustainable institution is a challenge. You can't cut your way to sustainability – you have to make money, because at the end of the day if you don't make money you're out of business. You must quantify all the big decisions that you make, whether it is a new major or program or sport, and then you have to hold yourself accountable to make sure that you're hitting those targets. There frequently is a "growth curve" in introducing new programs, and there must be a path for them to get to a point where they are profitable. However, there are some things that will never be profitable, so you must look at the whole basket of what you're doing and determine if there is a value added to keep them. This concept of sustainability is critical. For example, NC Wesleyan's target from day one has been 100 new students a year and he's averaged about 95 over the last three years. He understands that growth costs money, but it is easier to grow to become sustainable than to stay flat or decline. You try to qualify as many things as can, but it's hard to quantify everything. For example, you can attempt to quantify culture through retention which isn't the best metric (there may not be one), but you know it's the right thing to do and so you do it. Another example is career services – providing these services to students is the right thing to do, but it is difficult to quantify. The first hundred days of the president's tenure is critical – in some ways, new presidents feel like they are drinking water out of a fire hose and are torn in multiple directions. Some of the key things that new presidents must do include: Carve out time for yourself and your family and who you are, simple things like reading a book or taking time for vacations or getting a good night sleep. You cannot do this job with the sprinter's mentality – you must look at this as a marathon. Celebrate successes. NC Wesleyan had lots of successes early on and sometimes they stopped celebrate and sometimes he pushed everybody to the next level when they should have stopped and celebrated. Celebrate every new milestone. Have a list of what you want to improve and make it time bound. Every year at graduation, he tells his team to come up with a list of 100 things that they want to improve before the students come back in the fall, and they publish it and get it down. Keep your list at 100 things, and include in that list what you doing for yourself personally, what you doing for yourself professionally, what you doing for the college. Management by walking about still works, but know there is a fine line between micromanaging and not showing interest at all. People need to feel that you care about them. Bullet Points: Drill down on key points of the interview: College should be both an education and an experience The culture of any institution starts with the top. If you want to grow, you should start by examining your positioning and branding. Where are your markets? Where do your students come from? Who hires them? Market research is the key. Market messaging must be current and go to where your prospective students are. Students STILL want the personal touch in recruiting. Higher ed has more than one customer. You must market to parents and businesses also. Quantify as much as you can to get continuous improvement. There are some things that are difficult to quantify but do your best. You get what you measure. Planning and budgeting are critical. A plan without a budget is a pipe dream. Ensure your student orientation is special. This is the first time many of your students have been away from home, and finding their "new family" is critical for them. Have game changers in every department – people who go the extra mile to make the college special. You cannot cut your way to sustainability – you have to grow. As a new president, ensure you carve time out for yourself and your family. It's a marathon, not a sprint. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Dr. Dewey Clark North Carolina Wesleyan College Rock the Mount The Change Leader Guests Social Media Links: North Carolina Wesleyan Twitter: https://twitter.com/ncwesleyan Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NorthCarolinaWesleyanCollege YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/NCWesleyanCollege Your Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

Jeri Prochaska and Tom Netting of CSPEN, the Central States Private Education Network, represent higher ed institutions nationwide to public policymakers in Washington and throughout the nation. CSPEN is focused on making sure that the education industry has all the information that's coming out of Washington. They believe communication is the key, thus allowing the industry to advocate for itself. Here's their latest from what is going on in Washington. Legislative Gridlock Over the HEA Results in Regulatory Guidance. In the absence of action from both houses of Congress, we are seeing the Trump administration pushing through political agendas through as regulation in lieu of statutory guidance, and they have been massive. This is no more evident than in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Under the law in 1955 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act is supposed to be reauthorized process to bring it up to current day every 5-6 years, but this latest renewal did not get as far as it should have. The House completed mark up but did not bring a bill to the floor, and the Senate didn't get that far despite having multiple hearings. Given the legislative stalemate and partisanship in Congress, the HEA is not expected to come to a vote until 2019 or 2020. Negotiated Rulemaking. Negotiated rulemaking is the process by which the Department has individuals from higher education and interested communities come together to discuss proposed changes to regulations. The negotiated rulemaking process for the borrower defense to repayment regulations, gainful employment regulations, and others areas have been going on, but the proposed rules have not yet come out. The next round of negotiated rulemaking will take place in January – March 2019, focusing on "accreditation and innovation," with subgroups focusing on online education, definition of credit hour, direct assessment, competency-based learning, and how all of those are delivered and how federal financial aid might be utilized in the delivery of all those different modalities. That process will conclude with the development of regulations that are proposed, probably mid-summer 2019 and published in final form by November 2019 with them going into effect July 1, 2020. To find out more, go to the Department of Education website. The deadline for application to participate is Nov 15. Borrower Defense to Repaying (BDR). Many of the regulations including the borrower defense to repaying regulations and gainful employment, that were put in place by the Obama administration are being contemplated for revision or repeal by the Trump administration. In instituting the borrower defense to repaying, the Obama administration took the fundamental premise that if a student was defrauded because of a school employing illegal or deceptive practices that encouraged them to take out student loans to attend that school, their student loan should be forgiven. The Trump administration challenged this, but the courts have ordered the administration to continue with this process until new regulations are put in place. Because of the timeframe, this will not happen until mid-2020. Of the 32,601 applications received by the end of June, only 96 borrowers have actually had their debt canceled. Ninety-nine percent of the applications that have been processed were denied. Two decisions were recently handed down by the courts along these lines. The first stated that student who didn't file an application is not eligible for relief, that only those who followed through on the opportunities afforded them by the Department can seek relief. Over 100,000 have done so. The second decision stated that regulatory stays and a repeal of the delay in the implementation of those regulations the Trump administration has put into place are no longer valid – it was deemed to be arbitrary and capricious – the result is that those regulations that were scheduled to take effect in 2016 actually went into effect on October 12. What we're seeing is that the needed guidance in this transitional period is lacking, and the new administration needs to tell everyone how the regulations should be implemented while developing the new regulations that set asunder the interim guidance. Gainful Employment. Similar to the borrower defense to repayment and final rules that we had hoped would be published in final form by November 1, the BDR court cases indicated that the Department would not meet their November 1 deadline for either borrower defense or gainful employment. That means that regulations that have been in effect and gone through two iterations of review under the Obama administration (2009 and 2012/14), are in place and will remain so while new regulatory proposals that would eliminate the loss of eligibility under certain criteria will be potentially repealed. Those regulations will not go into effect until July 2020. There is some belief that under statutory authority and regulatory capability that the Secretary of Education might provide an opportunity for early implementation of some of the changes under the gainful employment rule, but we must wait and see what the Department publishes in their final regs which are likely to come out before the end of the year. Additionally, it is unknown whether schools will have the opportunity for early implementation and what that timeline might be as opposed to the normal implementation of July 2020. Credit Hour. The higher education community has been waiting for their turn in line with the Department to focus on issues related to changes made by the Obama administration on how to calculate the number of hours of outside preparatory time and other facets of what goes in the determination of a credit hour. This has a significant impact on federal financial aid and online education. This will be taken up in the next round of negotiated rulemaking. Bullet Points: Drill down on key points of the interview: Expect the Higher Education Act to be renewed in 2019 or 2020 The courts are stepping in on the Borrower Defense To Repayment in multiple ways, blocking changes until 2020. Negotiated rulemaking is proceeding slowly in the cases of BDR and Gainful Employment. Expect guidance to come out by the end of Nov 2018. A new round of negotiated rulemaking will begin in Jan 2019, focusing on accreditation and innovation, with subcommittees on online education, a definition of credit hour, direct assessment, competency-based learning, and how all of those are delivered and how federal financial aid might be utilized in the delivery of all those different modalities. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: CSPEN Hill Day Change Management Negotiated Rulemaking Guests Social Media Links: Jeri Prochaska LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeri-prochaska-537a9512/ Tom Netting LinkedIn – https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-netting-9214755/ CSPEN LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/groups/6954716/ Jeri Prochaska Twitter - @jeriprochaska Tom Netting Twitter - @t_netting Your Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

Dr. Scott Cowen is the personification of a proven crisis leader. When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, Scott was just six years into his tenure of 16 years at Tulane. Katrina's devastation was massive – over $650 million in damages to the University alone. There was no playbook for what needed to happen – up to this point, no university had encountered such devastation – and the decisions that need to be made were made at the moment as all critical crisis management is done. Scott made the decision to stay on campus and ride out the storm. In the aftermath, there were no telecommunications, no phones, no TVs – all you knew was what you could see in the local area. And it was bad. He was eventually evacuated via helicopter from on the Mississippi River, six days following the storm. He didn't realize the breadth of the destruction until he arrived in Houston. That evening, after seeing the destruction on television, his reaction was, "I don't know what I can do. There is no one that I can call to give me guidance, there is no book I can take out of the library, there is no consultant that I can hire. I don't know how I'm going to do it." The University was shuttered for the entire fall term and didn't reopen until spring. But it came back stronger than it ever was. Scott's first actions were making a list of everything that needed to be done to rebuild the institution, minute by minute, day by day. Once they got the leadership team located in Houston, they operated the university out of a hotel suite. The leadership that he learned while in the Army as an infantry officer was critical. It was not shared governance, it was command-and-control. That didn't mean that he didn't consult others – he had a team of people around him who he consulted and worked with, including faculty, but there wasn't the time to do the usual broad consultation of stakeholder groups required under normal situations – things had to be done immediately and quickly move to the next thing. Having the right people on the team was critical – people who could move quickly and make choices and decisions in the heat of the moment. There was (and always will always be) second-guessing, especially in the press, but decisions regardless of the challenges must be made based on the best information at the time and executed upon. Scott stated that in a crisis, you're doing two things simultaneously. First, you're trying to survive, and second, recovering which requires transformation. Somewhere in there, you have to do put together a transformation plan to take you to that next level, and that takes a team. Scott had a group of five former presidents that advised him on the transformation plan and its implementation. In a transformation, start with defining the objectives and what success looks like. For Tulane, it was three things: being financially viable; doing the things to maintain the quality, stature, and reputation of the institution; and discontinuing those things that don't contribute to being an outstanding institution. Scott stated that it wasn't his doctoral degree or academic education that prepared Scott to be a leader, but the experiences in the military and that of an athlete that gave him the drive and skill set to be successful. The lessons he gained in the military, stayed with him his entire life. There are three key things to leading in a crisis. The first of these is leadership, and especially the ability to make a decision without having all the facts (which is impossible) but relying on experience. The second is having an advisory team who can help you talk through the decisions that need to be made. The last of these is having a plan to execute on. It is critical for a leader to understand what the situation, the reality of what is going on in a crisis. Having good information is critical, because, without good information, all the decisions that you make will be wrong. In a crisis, hope is never a good strategy. Transformation is all about rebuilding and making something better, and that is what Scott and his team set out to do. Transformation should always have as a component reimaging, creating something that is better, a reinvention. At a time of crisis, you have the opportunity to rethink the future. This can be done with the right leadership. Your best leaders (1) understand reality; (2) are resilient / have high emotional intelligence and interpersonal skills that allow them to make principled decisions based on the facts at hand; and (3) are adaptable and can react to various conditions. One of the key things that universities fail to do is develop good leaders. It's not in the majority of curricula, nor is leadership development required throughout an institution. The reasons given for this are that "leaders are born," or that leadership is "too squishy" to be in curricula. We know good leadership when we see it, and we know bad leadership even more quickly, and the consequences are severe. Scott stated that the inclusion of a public service requirement into all undergraduate curricula was the most transformative action that he took coming out of Katrina, and it connected them more closely with community, but more importantly, it changed the student demographics of those came here – many students stated they wanted to go to Tulane because they wanted to be part of the greatest recovery that ever happened in the history of the United States. This had a very positive effect on the type of student that they got at Tulane, and improved recruitment, retention, and graduation rates. (Outside of the military academies, Tulane is the only research university in the United States that integrates a public service requirement into its core curricula.) The lessons of service that he gained in the military, stayed with him his entire life. Three takeaways from his book Winnebagos on Wednesdays. First, there is a lot of innovation going on in higher Ed right now. It's not really known because it's going on at smaller colleges that are not "name brands," but it's happening, and it's beginning to spread. Second, despite all the criticism of higher ed right now, the return on investment is as high today as it was years ago. Lastly, we need to rethink how we can increase social mobility in higher ed. Key takeaways from the interview: There is an opportunity to make things better coming out the other side of a crisis. Three keys to leading in a crisis: (1) the ability to make a decision; (2) having a team who can talk through the decisions that need to be made; and (3) a plan to execute on. Start with defining the objectives and what success looks like. Ensure planning is meticulous and comprehensive. There are so many things that have to be done, and without planning, you miss critical things Make lists of the various tasks you need to accomplish and update them as frequently as needed. This is your "project plan," your guide to what has to be done. Understand the reality of the situation. Having good information is critical, because, without good information, all the decisions that you make will be wrong. Hope should never be a change strategy. Crisis leadership is command-and-control, not shared governance. There isn't the time to debate the course of action. You never have all the information and you can't wait for it. Make your decision as best you can and move on to the next one. There will always be critics, but you have to do what you think is the right thing. The inclusion of a service component in curricula can change student demographics for the better and can have a positive effect on recruitment, retention, and graduation rates. Shared governance does not mean shared decision-making. Shared governance is advisory, but the buck stops with the president and the board of an institution. There is a lot of innovation going on in higher ed right now – it's not really known because it's going on at smaller colleges that are not "name brands." Despite all the criticism of higher ed right now, the return on investment is as high today as it was years ago. We need to rethink how we can increase social mobility in higher ed. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Scott Cowen led Tulane through the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Now he has ideas on how to fix higher education. Winnebagos on Wednesdays: How Visionary Vision Can Transform Higher Education Shared Governance Does Not Mean Shared Decision Making Good to Great Scott Cowen: http://www.scottcowen.com/ Guests Social Media Links: https://twitter.com/TulaneScott Your Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com