Learning Resources

Abstract: Colleges and universities have a traditional way to meet new needs. When there is a new research initiative, degree program, or student support function, institutions add space. Despite good intentions, their siloed structures, poor strategic planning, and history of continuous expansion mean that institutions adapt by adding. The result: Campuses are overbuilt and underutilized. Instead of shared spaces and seamless, supportive experiences, we’re left with sprawling campuses and spiraling costs. With enrollments, research funding, and our climate all changing, it’s time for a new model and a new mantra: Grow in place rather than add more space.

Abstract: Administrators at colleges and universities across the country face mounting concerns over enrollment rates, curricular rigor, and climbing real estate costs. These challenges are particularly daunting for liberal arts institutions, many of which have pivoted or are pivoting to STEM programs out of necessity. Cross-disciplinary colocation strategies can enhance hands-on learning opportunities while optimizing spatial and financial resources. This article explores the planning approach to forming mutually successful partnerships between dissimilar academic programs through mission-oriented cross-functional collaboration, including examples of tools and processes for data-informed decision-making.

Abstract: The president of Carlow University identified the university’s town-gown relationships as needing assessment as the institution embarked on a significant campus revitalization that required close coordination with the City of Pittsburgh. We developed a four-quadrant framework of best practices based on an extensive literature review. To assess town-gown interactions against the framework, we interviewed city and higher education leaders, reviewed the City of Pittsburgh’s and university documents, and analyzed the university’s social media presence. Our process generated specific, actionable recommendations that resulted in the university reorganizing senior leadership position descriptions and responsibilities, revamping its social media strategy, and aligning organizational efforts to increase its visibility.

Abstract: In 2009 the Arizona University System (supporting over 130,000 enrollments) through its Board of Regents directed its board president and the presidents of Arizona State University, University of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University to create an operational plan that reflected the board’s vision, goals, and strategic directions. A primary objective was to transform the system (or enterprise) vision into concrete goals and outcomes that would directly connect to financial decision making at the system and university level. The backdrop for higher education planning and budgeting expectations included the continuation of severe reductions in state funding, rapidly increasing student tuition and fees, and a call for greater accountability. The planning processes were characterized by the integration of board and presidential discussions, inclusion of constituent debate, identification of strategic choices, and approval of outcomes focused on measuring performance. The integration ran across and within three organizations or levels that included the Arizona Board of Regents, its system administration, and the three universities.

Abstract: Consortia, their impact on cooperating institutions, and critical factors in inter-institutional planning were the subject of a recent study for the United States Office of Education, directed by Harold L. Hodgkinson of the Center for Research and Development in Higher Education at the University of California at Berkeley. The critical issues, according to the study findings, are problems of reciprocity and autonomy, coordination of programs among diverse institutions, and strategies for campus involvement and leadership. The following article, by three staff members of the New Hampshire College and University Council—one of the consortia in the Hodgkinson study—is devoted to a discussion of the process of consortium decision-making, touching on the three key issues. The authors are: Lynn G. Johnson, the Council's associate director in charge of academic programs; Dr. William W. Barnard, consultant and coordinator of a two-year Cooperative Curriculum Project, and Douglas W. Lyon, coordinator of January Term Programs and communications coordinator.