I remember Harold Heie once confessing that he used to think perceptions of academic quality were based on the faculty and then one day concluding that these perceptions were much more influenced by the appearance of the buildings and grounds. Seems that a similar mindset affects how people perceive hospitals. If the hospital looks nice, people will come, regardless of whether you live or die while you’re there! And if people are significantly influenced by the “halo effect” when it comes to life and death situations, I can only imagine how great that influence is when it comes to an academic setting. Just something I think about during budget time as I argue for more spending on academic quality. J
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/hospitals-as-hotels/#more-3783
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Class size and student achievement
The typical story is that a reduction in class size, especially to the magic number of about 15 in seminar-style courses, can play a significant role in student achievement. But, as with the economy, the “average” increase that results hides great variability in who actually benefits. Turns out, students who are typically low achievers in class do derive some benefit from smaller classes and more direct attention from instructors, but it’s the already high achievers who more often see the big increases in performance. I guess that supports our emphasis on small classes and more engaged learning approaches in Honors courses, but what do these results tell us for how we should address the other end of the ACT scale? I’d always assumed that a similar approach would apply in this context as well, but this evidence would seem to call some of that philosophy into question.
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i21/21a03001.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i21/21a03001.htm?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Competitive strategy & JBU?
In preparation for my “Strategic Theory” class, I’m reading Michael Porter’s HBR article on competitive strategy. Here are some of my reflections, particularly about how these theories might apply to an institution like JBU.
1) I’ve probably spent most of my time, perhaps because I’m a “middle manager” on “operational efficiency” instead of “strategy.” I think some of that’s because our strategy is fairly well defined as an institution already (interdenominational, comprehensive, regional, high quality, small, head-heart-hand, etc.). Some of that’s because we don’t really don’t have a strategic planning process at JBU. And some of that’s probably just a personal predilection (because, despite studying some forms of strategy most of my life, I think the quest for a “strategic” holy grail big decision is overrated, and the slow accumulation of lots of good little decisions is typically underrated).
2) Using Porter’s categories, we appear primarily to be a “differentiation” organization (the big area competitors for higher education being NWACC, UofA, and Phoenix, so we’re the differentiated “Christian” alternative to all three and neither the “low-cost” nor “highly focused” alternative). We also appear to be following a “needs-based” positioning strategy in which we appeal to a specific segment of customers (Christians interested in higher education) vs. “variety-based” (a trade school, for example) or “access-based” (primarily on-line, as an example).
3) The main trade-off that we appear to be making is by focusing on “Christ over All” and “Head-Heart-Hand” in terms of the faculty, courses, and content we teach. Those will be impossible for a UofA, Phoenix, or NWACC to match, at least in our traditional programs. For KLRC and the Centers, that also appears true, though I wonder whether the same is true in terms of our G&PS programs. It doesn’t appear to be that way from the students’ perspective (we’re more the “convenience” option than the “Christian” option in these areas according to their feedback).
4) Given that we’re also emphasize convenience and quality, is our strategy more to “straddle” at least these two trade-off areas (convenience and quality), and does that make us vulnerable to competition on these grounds (a point Pat has been making for a long time that if the UofA ever really started competing with us in G&PS, we’d be in trouble)?
5) I appreciate the idea that “the essence of strategy is choosing what NOT to do,” but not doing anything is a bad strategy as well, so this could just as easily be said that the essence of strategy is choosing what TO do, which seems so much more elementary when phrased this way. But hey, that’s what academics do, right? We say extremely simple things in novel ways.
6) I also like Porter’s idea that all activities need to “fit” together as part of an overall package of linked activities if it is going be a sustainable (10 years or more) strategy, but that again sometimes begs the question of what to do and what not to do. Does “nursing” fit into the JBU system of linked activities? Yes, maybe, no? I could pick any of these and make a good case that our “strategy” calls for or excludes this choice. I guess what I’m struggling with is that the dividing line between terms is often fuzzier than an article like this might imply. Strategy and operational effectiveness can look a lot alike. Ditto for “management” and “leadership.” I hear people trying to make distinctions between these categories that in my practical experience are pretty much meaningless.
7) Porter’s concern that the “growth imperative is hazardous to strategy” hits close to home. Does this mean that we shouldn’t have added G&PS (because they blur our Christian and quality distinctives and are more replicable by our competitors) or that we shouldn’t be headed toward on-line education (for similar reasons)? Does this mean that my “innovation fund” idea is misguided in that it assumes growth, both in terms of quality and quantity? Does this argue that we should stick closer to our somewhat fundamentalist roots in terms of our conversations about various hot-button topics? Or should I be thinking more in terms of “no more centers and no more radio stations” instead of “no more growth in academic programs”? In some ways, Porter’s point about “deepening distinctives” is what I’ve seen us doing with our integration of faith & learning efforts, our formal evaluation emphasis on quality teaching, our all-campus recruiting campaigns, etc. In all of those cases, we’re emphasizing that we’re different from the UofA, NWACC, and Phoenix, so these actions reinforce our strategic choice instead of moving us away from it. And Porter’s point about growing by adding “stand-alone” units could in theory include the Centers and KLRC, all of whom have their clear, separate, and self-funded identities.
1) I’ve probably spent most of my time, perhaps because I’m a “middle manager” on “operational efficiency” instead of “strategy.” I think some of that’s because our strategy is fairly well defined as an institution already (interdenominational, comprehensive, regional, high quality, small, head-heart-hand, etc.). Some of that’s because we don’t really don’t have a strategic planning process at JBU. And some of that’s probably just a personal predilection (because, despite studying some forms of strategy most of my life, I think the quest for a “strategic” holy grail big decision is overrated, and the slow accumulation of lots of good little decisions is typically underrated).
2) Using Porter’s categories, we appear primarily to be a “differentiation” organization (the big area competitors for higher education being NWACC, UofA, and Phoenix, so we’re the differentiated “Christian” alternative to all three and neither the “low-cost” nor “highly focused” alternative). We also appear to be following a “needs-based” positioning strategy in which we appeal to a specific segment of customers (Christians interested in higher education) vs. “variety-based” (a trade school, for example) or “access-based” (primarily on-line, as an example).
3) The main trade-off that we appear to be making is by focusing on “Christ over All” and “Head-Heart-Hand” in terms of the faculty, courses, and content we teach. Those will be impossible for a UofA, Phoenix, or NWACC to match, at least in our traditional programs. For KLRC and the Centers, that also appears true, though I wonder whether the same is true in terms of our G&PS programs. It doesn’t appear to be that way from the students’ perspective (we’re more the “convenience” option than the “Christian” option in these areas according to their feedback).
4) Given that we’re also emphasize convenience and quality, is our strategy more to “straddle” at least these two trade-off areas (convenience and quality), and does that make us vulnerable to competition on these grounds (a point Pat has been making for a long time that if the UofA ever really started competing with us in G&PS, we’d be in trouble)?
5) I appreciate the idea that “the essence of strategy is choosing what NOT to do,” but not doing anything is a bad strategy as well, so this could just as easily be said that the essence of strategy is choosing what TO do, which seems so much more elementary when phrased this way. But hey, that’s what academics do, right? We say extremely simple things in novel ways.
6) I also like Porter’s idea that all activities need to “fit” together as part of an overall package of linked activities if it is going be a sustainable (10 years or more) strategy, but that again sometimes begs the question of what to do and what not to do. Does “nursing” fit into the JBU system of linked activities? Yes, maybe, no? I could pick any of these and make a good case that our “strategy” calls for or excludes this choice. I guess what I’m struggling with is that the dividing line between terms is often fuzzier than an article like this might imply. Strategy and operational effectiveness can look a lot alike. Ditto for “management” and “leadership.” I hear people trying to make distinctions between these categories that in my practical experience are pretty much meaningless.
7) Porter’s concern that the “growth imperative is hazardous to strategy” hits close to home. Does this mean that we shouldn’t have added G&PS (because they blur our Christian and quality distinctives and are more replicable by our competitors) or that we shouldn’t be headed toward on-line education (for similar reasons)? Does this mean that my “innovation fund” idea is misguided in that it assumes growth, both in terms of quality and quantity? Does this argue that we should stick closer to our somewhat fundamentalist roots in terms of our conversations about various hot-button topics? Or should I be thinking more in terms of “no more centers and no more radio stations” instead of “no more growth in academic programs”? In some ways, Porter’s point about “deepening distinctives” is what I’ve seen us doing with our integration of faith & learning efforts, our formal evaluation emphasis on quality teaching, our all-campus recruiting campaigns, etc. In all of those cases, we’re emphasizing that we’re different from the UofA, NWACC, and Phoenix, so these actions reinforce our strategic choice instead of moving us away from it. And Porter’s point about growing by adding “stand-alone” units could in theory include the Centers and KLRC, all of whom have their clear, separate, and self-funded identities.
The Great Disruption ends?
I like David Brooks a lot, and, as usual, he offers one of the more compelling summaries of what this historic transition (to Barak Obama's presidency) might mean in the long view (a return to the "concensus pragmatism" of the late 50s and early 60s before the Great Disruption of the late 60s and early 70s fragmented our society and our national conversation). While I appreciate the thought, and I do see some truth to his argument (Millenials look more like the Greatest Generation than they do like Boomers or Xers), I think Obama is more a reflection of the Globalization trend than a return to an older order. And I think modern technology will just continue the trend toward fragmentation instead of bringing us back together in some type of concensus. But I do hope that Brooks is right and I'm wrong on this one. We'll see.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/opinion/20brooks.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/opinion/20brooks.html?_r=1
The coming salutory effects of the Bologna Process?
This article is about how some of the lessons of the Finnish higher education world might apply to us, but its larger question is whether the Bologna Process in Europe will eventually end up transforming American higher education as well. The implication is that we have a lot to learn from a system where degrees are completed in three years, credits are easily transferable between institutions, the focus of higher education is on students and not faculty (teaching instead of research), and credits are determined on the basis of how much time it will take to complete various learning objectives instead of how much time a student spends in a seat.
I particularly like that last piece. I recall being allowed to go through material at my own pace for awhile in elementary school. I loved it, and I got two or three grades ahead. Then I got caught up in the “system” and was forced to be in class with everyone else doing what everyone else was doing, so I had to basically sit there for a couple years while others caught up. Ugh! Perhaps this move in Europe toward learning objectives instead of seat time will eventually help open up our accreditation systems a bit more? Just a thought.
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i20/20a03301.htm?utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en
I particularly like that last piece. I recall being allowed to go through material at my own pace for awhile in elementary school. I loved it, and I got two or three grades ahead. Then I got caught up in the “system” and was forced to be in class with everyone else doing what everyone else was doing, so I had to basically sit there for a couple years while others caught up. Ugh! Perhaps this move in Europe toward learning objectives instead of seat time will eventually help open up our accreditation systems a bit more? Just a thought.
http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i20/20a03301.htm?utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Cost shifting at public institutions
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/01/15/delta
The basic conclusion is that privates are increasing tuition but putting that increased tuition back into instruction and services. Publics are increasing tuition but not putting that money back into instruction and services. They’re just shifting revenue sources from government funds to student funds. The implication is the public universities will at some point need to be more responsive to student needs and desires as students pay more and more money for education at these public institutions. From what I've seen, that's still a long ways off.
The basic conclusion is that privates are increasing tuition but putting that increased tuition back into instruction and services. Publics are increasing tuition but not putting that money back into instruction and services. They’re just shifting revenue sources from government funds to student funds. The implication is the public universities will at some point need to be more responsive to student needs and desires as students pay more and more money for education at these public institutions. From what I've seen, that's still a long ways off.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
De-Hyping College Admissions
Contrary to popular belief, most students only apply to a few schools (3.71) and get accepted at most of the schools they apply to (2.99), especially their first choice (88%). According to the author, the stories about increasing competition as students apply to more and more schools and get into fewer and fewer are mostly an “urban legend” that apply only to a very narrow range of institutions at the very top of the educational ladder (and more so with Asian Americans).
What the author does not demonstrate, however, is whether these still relatively low levels of college comparison shopping are up or down from previous decades. If could be that these low levels are still dramatically higher than they were even a decade or two ago. I applied only to one college, for example, so by that comparison, applying to 3.71 would be a huge increase over 20 years. Just a thought.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/01/13/admissions
What the author does not demonstrate, however, is whether these still relatively low levels of college comparison shopping are up or down from previous decades. If could be that these low levels are still dramatically higher than they were even a decade or two ago. I applied only to one college, for example, so by that comparison, applying to 3.71 would be a huge increase over 20 years. Just a thought.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/01/13/admissions
Monday, January 5, 2009
The end of postmodernism and the rise of transnationalism?
Been awhile since I gave these matters much thought, but having come of age during the heydey of this postmodern turn, I'm glad to see it ending in favor of these "transnational" conversations.
http://chronicle.com/news/article/5733/after-postmodernism-a-historian-reflects-on-where-the-field-is-going?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
http://chronicle.com/news/article/5733/after-postmodernism-a-historian-reflects-on-where-the-field-is-going?utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Peer instruction works?
Here's yet another story on how peer instruction (flip model, engaged learning, etc.) has been shown to be successful. The sentence at the end, however, suggests, as one might suspect, that a combination of peer instruction and professor-led discussion is probably the most successful strategy.
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/01/05/peer
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/01/05/peer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
