Top 10 developments for higher education

There are some years where not much of note has signaled change but 2023 has been very different. Steve Mintz offered the top 10 developments for higher education, listing issues that will be familiar to most educators who pay attention. Higher education as a social and political dividing line, declining public trust, alternatives to college, an expanding governmental role, and hyperpoliticization are on the list.

As if to respond to the top 10 developments in 2024, Mintz' subsequent opinion suggested that it's time for institutions to think outside the box in their approaches to organization, curriculum, ways of teaching, and assessment. The first recommendation, one that will challenge student affairs educators, was to reconsider the bureaucratic divisions of academic and student affairs in order to better align cocurricular and extracurricular with academic goals, involve more faculty, and relate academic and career advising more purposefully. Recognizing the impediments to change that are part of the higher education scene, Mintz later offer 10 changes that colleges and universities need to implement.

Republicans plan to target affordability and accountability in the proposed College Cost Reduction Act. Democrats' opposition of the sweeping measures included in the Act are reflected in their Roadmap to College success, which includes provisions for affordability, access, and supporting students.  Review of the Republican provisions provide fair warning for how they view higher education and how they see federal policy controlling it. Conservative efforts are progressing at a rapid pace with 84 bills in 28 states and at the federal level now being considered to put controls in place for higher education institutions.

With the highly controversial 2024 U.S. Presidential election on the horizon, the politicization of higher education is becoming a major issue, with conservative candidates throughout the ballot claiming "wokeness" and violation of freedom of speech. Campus responses to the Supreme Court reversal on affirmative action are likely to draw greater scrutiny and the risk of dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts is significant, which necessitates stronger defense if institutions are to be able to "create and advance structures in higher education that are just, equitable and inclusive." Democrats defended diversity initiatives during the U.S. House Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development Committee meeting. Education world wide may see changes as key elections take place across the globe in 2024.

It's difficult to determine if lack of confidence contributed to politicization or politicization led to lowered confidence. An article in the U.S. News and World Report related declining public confidence to politicization, cost of attendance, and access. Edge Research identified many of the same concerns noted in the U.S. News and World Report and attributed the negativity to news sources highlighting concerns rather than benefits of higher education achievement. It may not matter what or how the concerns emerged. The point is that higher education faces a barrage of challenges and negotiating them simultaneously will challenge educators of all types, ranks, and places.

Politicization is reflected in numerous legislative initiatives across the country, including challenging tenure, curricular control, DEI offices/programs, and accreditation. An Indiana legislative bill demanding "intellectual diversity" sounds reasonable, except that it mandates post-tenure review of faculty by governing boards, a move that could threaten the careers of faculty whose scholarship does not conform to the preferences of board members. Civil rights groups are pushing back on the Indiana legislation as well as numerous other anti-DEI measures in other states. On the other hand, whether or not President Biden's support of HBCUs will bring Black voters back to the Democratic party is yet to be determined.

Being humiliated in the public's eyes has frightening potential as higher education leaders navigate public scrutiny and regulatory whiplash. Some of the critique is based on questioning what proportion of young adults really need a college degree, especially since the return on investment has declined in recent years. As questions loom, it's not surprising that state higher education officials identified workforce preparation as the major concern for their institutions. Preparation for careers in a knowledge-based economy and improving return on investment of time and money indicators for higher education are integral to the workforce development focus and this is the benefit that students expect. With this in mind, research indicating that states' contribution to post-college outcomes are low is a clear vulnerability.

Addressing what students want and recognizing issues about which they have concern is essential. The faculty's focus is central to students' experience, with students and their families expecting teaching to be their core function. Yet this expectation is often not actualized in campus culture and rewards. If institutions want to be perceived as benefitting the public, they need to do more than post their commitment to teaching on the website. The headlines for higher education, with the number of issues educational leaders face, require attention to fulfilling "their mission as purveyors of a liberal education, producing students well-equipped to participate in today's unstable, uncertain, unpredictable and extraordinarily diverse global environment." And solutions will likely only come from reaching across entrenched political perspectives.

Elite higher education institutions are at the center of the scrutiny of higher education, which was demonstrated during the House Committee hearings on anti-semitism. Derek Bok's book, Attacking the Elites, is one of several critiques that warrant consideration of how elitism plays out in an era of populism. Steve Mintz equated elite higher education's dilemma to that of a Greek tragedy saying that privileged institutions need to "recenter themselves and to declare, quite boldly, that their purpose is to produce global citizens who serve the world... to ensure that those fortunate enough to attend or teach at an elite university are respectful and are able to interact civilly in a world of discord."

Although 2023 represented some return to stability after the 2020-21 pandemic, there are numerous issues that will challenge higher education leadership in 2024 and beyond. With the likelihood of continuing, and perhaps escalating, dissension about higher education, clearly asserting the values of a university will be paramount. Presidents serve many constituents as they navigate defining and communicating the education value proposition and helping oversight boards thing strategically is critical. Dan Edelstein's opinion was that the essential values include that universities are places of learning, they are places to distinguish fact from fabrication, learning comes from interaction with others, and orthodoxy has no place here. Edelstein's advice might be useful to higher education Presidents who expressed confidence in their own institutions but uncertainty about higher education in general. The annual Provosts' survey identified the need for AI policy, concerns about free speech, DEI, and several other areas as their top concerns. 

International educators - please avoid missteps of U.S. higher education

One of the challenges international higher education faculty and staff face is determining what is transferrable in other national and cultural contexts. The dominance of U.S. higher education, and the assumption of its superiority, can result in unknowingly transporting an idea that clearly does not fit in other cultures, and perhaps is failing even in U.S. higher education. In the case where it is failing, U.S. institutions often have a very difficult time letting go.

One anachronistic element of U.S. higher education is Greek organizations - fraternities and sororities. The result of grass-roots student interest in the early 20th century, fraternities and sororities sprung up to provide enriching out-of-class experiences such as debate societies, sports, self-governance, and even lodging and food. As higher education embraced a wholistic philosophy, the things that fraternities and sororities offered were democratized - offering them more broadly to all students. As this happened, Greek organizations drifted to a focus on primarily what they offered in terms of social opportunity.

I was a member of an undergraduate fraternity, and my wife and daughters were also affiliated during their undergraduate years. I know Greek organizations and know that many are good and provide an important belonging place for their members. However, in regard to systemic relevance, they now stand as bastions of socio-economic and cultural separatism and sometimes contribute to anti-intellectual cultures. Such is the possibility at the University of Maryland, which just suspended all of its Greek organizations for conduct that "threatened the safety and well-being of members of the university community." Maryland reversed is broad suspension of all Greek organizations and retained only 5 for further investigation. Of course, the Fraternity Forward coalition issued a restraining order and plans to continue to pursue litigation against Maryland. Some of the national organizations that have affiliates at Maryland threaten legal action as well. When an institution has to act this broadly, something is wrong systemically and that is the conclusion that an unfortunate number of institutions need to confront.

Right of association adherents will say that institutions cannot prohibit student associations such as Greek organizations. Case law demonstrates that they are correct. However, as far as I know, case law does not require an institution to support and provide resources to organizations that it does not officially recognize. Colleges and universities could choose to simply say "enough already" and push these organizations into an independent status and inform students to affiliate with them at their own risk.

A second example of anachronistic practice is competitive intercollegiate athletics. I have long been an advocate for U.S. higher education to stop pretending that athletic programs such as the University of Michigan and Ohio State University are "college teams." They haven't been for quite some time and continuing the fantasy is expensive and harmful to institutions that strive to compete with the likes of teams that are essentially semi-professional farm teams for the NFL and NBA.

The number of institutions that break even or make money from Division I NCAA competition is somewhere around 10%. In the other cases, students are charged to underwrite the deficit. Demonstrating how real intercollegiate athletics might work, some less competition institutions have used the creation of new athletic programs as a recruitment incentive.

Charlie Baker, Chief of the NCAA, finally announced a possible strategy to allow big-time athletic programs to compensate their players. Such a strategy would reward student work and that turned into the question of whether or not student athletes should be allowed to form unions. Baker's proposal would allow Division I athletic programs free rein in determining compensation related to athlete's names, images, and likenesses. For a mere $30,000 annual investment in athlete support, institutions would become part of a new subdivision with the highest revenue sources and the best records. These wealthy and successful programs have proposed the Baker model for years. Two institutions' faculty representatives expressed support for paradigm change in the NCAA, equating it to an opportunity to heal long-term problems.

There are numerous things that international higher education planners and leaders should avoid and these two anachronistic practices are among the most egregious.