Stevens Strategy was pleased to sponsor the CIC President's Institute January 6th Plenary Session presentation by Dr. Ann Austin, entitled "Rethinking Faculty Work: Issues and Challenges in Independent Colleges and Universities." Dr. Austin is a highly regarded scholar who is noted for her research on faculty issues. Her presentation focused on the responsibility of presidents to participate in the development of policies, programs, and practices that foster academic workplaces supportive of faculty members.

For those interested in learning more, her presentation materials are provided using the link, below:

Dr. Austin's Presentation

You can find more about Dr. Austin at her web site:

Dr. Ann Austin

Turnarounds are cyclical events at most tuition-driven colleges as enrollments grow and provide excess income, then tail off, draining reserves from the growth period. Financial data over the past decade reflects this porpoising effect showing how colleges pop above zero net income and then soon dive below the surface. Most colleges accept this precarious existence as just a fact of life. Sometimes internal or external events conspire to send the college into an extended period of deficits soaking up all reserves and exhausting its short-term borrowing potential, pushing it to the very brink of its existence. This is when boards, presidents, alumni and others see turnarounds as a necessity for survival. The issue is: What do the college’s leadership and friends have to do to turnaround a college in dire straights? This question necessarily means that the college must devise a way to set itself on a course where its existence is no longer defined by bare survival at the margin. Successful colleges build resources so that future generations can count on a reputable education that imbues its graduates with the skills to meet life’s challenges.

Price as a market clearing device is sometimes distorted in higher education because of the academe's not-for-profit social purpose and endowment income, for instance. Colleges also often distort price when their governance structures make them slow to react to market forces, unable to clearly articulate goals, and inefficient in the selection of technologies to deliver services or when the determine price solely as a function of internal costs of operation. No matter how wise or foolish we may be in determining the price we charge, these prices do inform prospective students and their parents about the colleges they will consider. And despite the effects of endowments and collegiate values, price remains a balancer between demand and supply. So, many mid- to low-quality institutions are using, and more will need to use in the future, an aggressive price discounting strategy to attract students.

In what is now becoming an all too familiar occurrence, there have been two more on-campus shooting incidents in the recent weeks. While it is too early to determine whether these latest incidents were preventable, other on-campus tragedies have resulted in many commentators questioning whether concerns regarding student privacy rights have outweighed student health and welfare interests. Such queries are perhaps justified as many schools have been reluctant in the past to release information without a student's written permission, and rarely avail themselves to the exceptions allowed by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). In large part a school’s reluctance or failure to communicate critical information regarding a troubled student is either due to a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of FERPA. Those schools whose administrations, staff and faculty have a clear understanding of what the law really provides are best prepared to recognize when a credible threat exists and act accordingly.

Daily news articles are reporting that the sub-prime loan debacle will hit higher education this fall. State lenders, major national lenders like Sallie Mae, and colleges and universities are reporting that they cannot get investors to buy their sub-prime loan packages. In almost every case, where equity loans are not used, students or parents loans for education are sub-prime. No one will buy them because there is no collateral to support the default and give the lender recourse.

Should colleges and universities even care?

Yes! The reason is that many institutions are vulnerable because most non-governmental loans are sub-prime. If students are unable to find some means of borrowing money, they may have to either forsake college or find a cheaper alternative such as community college. This could prove disastrous to enrollment and budget plans. Depending on the wealth of the families of new or continuing students, colleges could face a dramatic hit to their bottom line.