Differentiating students' motivations, services, and cost

An arm-chair view of higher education in the U.S.A. reveals a vast number of institutions trying to emulate each other, especially the more successful institutions judged by competitiveness of admission standards and number enrolled. A framework was laid out for differentiating student motivations and therefore services at a meeting of the National Association of College & University Business Officers. This could be a game-changer in terms of appeal to discrete populations and it could save every institution money - by allowing each to avoid replicating each other by providing resources and services that mean little to some of their students.

The student typologies identified in the model (from most likely to be currently involved in traditional institutions to least likely) are:

• Wayfinding intellectuals (7%)
• Campus enthusiasts (16%)
• Junior specialists (31%)
• Evolving professionals (23%)
• Mid-career climbers (14%)
• Trajectory performers (9)

It's fairly easy to see the problem - the number of students currently enrolled who want the full traditional experience versus those who have very specific purposes in mind is roughly the same. The first three categories include 54% of the possible population who could be attracted to pursue or return to higher education and the other 46% remain underserved and likely priced out of attendance by the cost of services offered to the other groups.

Many faculty and staff are unaware that they favor the wayfinders and campus enthusiasts, largely due to these students seeking opportunity and responding when offered the chance for enriching experiences. The language used to promote opportunity as well as ongoing interactions can communicate to "less involved" students that they are somehow imposters or don't really belong in the academic world.

The evolving professionals and mid-career climbers seek opportunity to advance in the workplace and, therefore, are likely to place high value on experiential opportunities such as internships. The return on investment of good jobs is a high priority for them and the cost of education may be hard to justify, especially when coupled with lost time working years and the ongoing expense of loan repayment. Student disengagement in learning when classroom content doesn't align with their career interests is a serious vulnerability. Some universities are attempting to address this population with alternative credentialing and enhanced career preparation opportunities. Liberal arts faculty are also beginning to recognize that career interest does not stand in opposition to liberal learning. Advocates for career-readiness criticize one-off innovations that lack broad institutional integration.

A looming problem for students who seek the full traditional learning experience, is access. Many institutions, large publics in particular, have turned to honors programs to offer a richer, fuller experience for the students who qualify for these programs. The problem is - honors programs are also forms of elite hierarchy and the only way to offer more students the quality of experience that honors students receive is to scale them to larger populations.

The "Varying Degrees" report indicates that most Americans see value in higher education but that the percentage of those who endorse it has declined slightly. The compilation of "Measuring the Value of Higher Education" provides other evidence that is helpful in understanding public opinion. Democrats have greater confidence and encourage public support where Republicans are lower on both. Differences in perspective were also found across generations. Advocacy for test optional admissions and for services to support students were  lower among Boomers than among the current generation attending higher education institutions.

An often overlooked issue for colleges and universities is the look and feel of the physical campus. Modernization, cleanliness, and appearance are more important to students than many realize. The Student Voice survey indicates that most students are satisfied with the basics but believe that labs and arts facilities are not as good as students would like for them to be. Use of facilities varies by student motivation and access but whatever spaces are used must be adequately maintained and updated.

As a student affairs educator, these figures and the potential shift of institutions to more lean and focused offerings raises concern. Student affairs generally assumes, and seeks to offer, the full experience to all students regardless of their openness to it. For the institutions that by reputation and selectivity can offer everything, student affairs may be able to continue pretty much the same. However, other institutions are likely to curtail the breadth of offerings in order to remain solvent; in this model, student affairs will need to look very different if it is to survive.

One student affairs educator offered opinion in an essay advocating for universities to "reimagine themselves" by expanding the time-proven wholistic education concept to offer greater access. This is essential for those student affairs educators who champion access and inclusion. And, by the way, a different approach should not be reductionist and therefore lesser quality, but different, qualitatively comparable, and less expensive.