Learning Resources

Abstract: The capital renewal and replacement of the nation’s public higher education facilities has been a growing problem for several decades. While the need for new and improved facilities has increased over the years, many campuses simply have too many aging infrastructures that are too costly to replace. This, at a time when we have less than favorable economic conditions, only adds to the situation. As the age, size, and complexity of buildings continue to grow, so too does the amount of maintenance funding required to keep buildings in good working order. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the 50 states’ efforts of funding public higher education capital needs. This study investigated areas relating to capital needs financing, planning, decision-making processes used in each state, available funding, and future directions in the various states. Of the 50 states, 41 states responded, representing 82 percent of the 50 states.

Abstract: In this article, we discuss a method for developing and writing scenarios for a college or university. We begin by reviewing the general literature on scenarios; we then detail a scenario development project at Arizona State University. This project, conducted in 1988–89, was Arizona State University's first institution-wide, futures-based planning and scenario development effort. The focus of the project for Arizona State University was planning and programming for affirmative action. An outside consultant facilitated the group-process portion of the project and instructed university staff in scenario development. Staff in the university's Office of Institutional Analysis then developed and wrote a set of three scenarios to guide the university's affirmative action programming and planning during the decade of the nineties.

Abstract: The process of devising a financial strategy to enhance its academic distinction began at Rutgers, a large, public, research university, in 1980 with a not uncommon statement of the Rutgers Board of Governors that sounded like many other mission statements. It used the expected phrases: continue development as a national and international resource by improving quality of instruction, research, and service; increase emphasis on scholarship; expand graduate and research areas of excellence; enhance programs to serve society's needs for broadly educated, humane, competent professionals to serve New Jersey's needs in education, business and industry, public policy studies, government, and other areas. But the Rutgers board did not see the statement as a platitudinous expression to be said and forgotten, and called upon the University administration to implement the statement with all due speed. What follows is the story of its implementation and the results of that action.

Abstract: The concept that innovation and change in curriculum and teaching patterns will affect the arrangement and utilization of physical facilities is hardly novel in 1972. But perhaps nowhere has the principle been demonstrated more dramatically than at Colorado College in Colorado Springs. The college, with a faculty of 125 and a student body of 1,650, in September 1970 adopted a comprehensive plan that involved an almost total revision of the concepts of a course, a classroom, a contact hour, a unit of credit, scheduling procedures, and definitions of academic and non-academic space. This article is adapted from one by Dr. Glenn Brooks, professor of political science and assistant to the president, and Malcolm Ware, administrative assistant to the dean, describes both the planning process and the ultimate results. The original appeared in Higher Education Facilities Planning Manuals, published by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.