The ACPA leadership team
wrote a thought-provoking piece in mid-February calling to question blame that
is being directed at student services for the rising cost of higher education
in the United States. The statement includes a reminder about the pedagogical
potential of all spaces and programs on campus and how our work outside the
classroom has a significant effect on student learning. In addition, the
authors outline several factors that have created growth in staffing and
programming among student services, which has led to the belief that
"administrative bloat" is one of the causal factors in increased cost
of higher education. While I agree with the authors that external factors have
led to increased staffing and therefore increased costs passed along to
students, we in fact should shoulder some of the blame. Let me explain.
An analogy you likely have
heard and that a former colleague of mine would often use is that the
high-stakes game of college admission (particularly at tuition-driven
institutions) creates a market that student services often struggle to meet. He
would tell our student services offices that Admission was in the sales
business and they were selling families and prospective students on the notion
that our institution was similar to a luxury vehicle. Like a luxury vehicle,
our institution was top-of-the line, set the standard for the industry and had
all the bells and whistles. And while rising cost was an issue, what's a little
bit more money when you were getting the best thing out there? The problem was
- or so the analogy goes - that while the luxury vehicle was being sold out
front, the work behind the scenes in the maintenance shop was really only
suited to handle used cars that could get by without much attention or with
inferior service. So while costs are high up front, the level of service being
provided could never live up to the needs of the customer who had high
expectations for a superior experience. Keeping up with the front of the
house does not necessarily mean more administrators, nor can it necessarily
mean a bigger budget or more programs. So how do we keep up and insure
that our services are up to par for the entitlement that ever-increasing
tuition costs are creating while at the same time removing the blame that is being
placed on us?
The leadership team's
article says that the compounding factors that have caused administrative bloat
are partially to blame for rising costs. So it's not the additional staff, per
se, but rather the issues that have led to increased staffing that are to
blame. I would agree with that sentiment, but I don't think it frees us from
responsibility. What we have right now is a problem of adaptation vs
innovation. When budgets get pinched and tough questions are asked of us, we
tend to adapt the current services and programs we have to meet an emerging
need. We enhance one aspect of what we do and scale back on another. This
adjustment masks the deeper need for change and re-inventing our services.
While adapting and tweaking programs and services is healthy and
necessary, it also allows for the perpetuation of our ability to cling to
"what we've always done." While we know we should always be
assessing and re-thinking the services we provide, the adjustments we then make
are often just temporary until we have to adjust again. Adaptation ends up
being the band-aid; innovation is systemic and can create sustainable change.
Disruptive innovation
has shaken American higher education to its core. New methods of delivery, new
opportunities for connection between faculty and students and a shift in how we
think about the value of traditional education have us talking. What started as
static in the background of our conversations has now been amplified and what
is invigorating to those of us who see the potential is also scaring those of
us who adhere to traditional views of higher education. So how can we
incorporate the disruption and stir things up in our own areas of the field?
How do we re-think the services we offer? We should look at structure, at the
scope of our reach, at maximizing our willingness to share perspectives on
knowledge and by leveraging our influence through social media and new
technologies.
To get back to the
analogy of the luxury vehicle, innovation will allow us to demonstrate our
ability to create sustainable systemic change and provide service to our
students that matches the high expectations they have upon agreeing to join us
for their college experience. An increasingly higher price tag should equate to
increasingly better service. Higher education cannot and should not be immune
to the open market. So are we partially to blame for rising college
costs? Absolutely. But it is hard for justify that thought; when I look around
my own institution, I feel we are under-staffed and over-worked as we try to
serve our students. It is clear that there are many systems and processes
in American higher education that are on shaky ground - and some that are
broken. In times of budget cuts and blame, agency matters. We have the
ability to take ownership of our capacity for change and innovation and to
create change that will strengthen the understanding that our students and
parents (and our critics) have about our vital support of the academic mission
of our institutions. The seismic shift in higher education is happening
and so far many of us have tried to maintain our balance and stay alert - but
it is time that we take our place alongside the innovators.
This year's ACPA conference
is about re-invention and the timing could not be better. Let's use the
opportunity to talk about innovation and change and prepare ourselves for what
lies ahead - these are challenging but exciting times to serve college
students.
You can find me on Twitter
@pottscharlie or email him at cpotts@gustavus.edu
