Podcasts about national university system

Exciting news! Your beloved Enrollify Podcast has evolved into something even more fantastic. New name, new format, and new hosts! Introducing Higher Ed Pulse —  your weekly spotlight on the latest in higher education marketing and enrollment management. Join Mallory Willsea, VP of Marketing at Element451, and Seth Odell, Founder and CEO of Kanahoma, as they co-host this 15-minute, weekly news show every Monday morning. From headline news to social posts, insider insights to industry observations, you can expect every episode to be packed with value, wit, and a hot take (or two!).Subscribe to receive email updates every Monday morning after the episode goes live, and be sure to follow Enrollify on LinkedIn so you can join in on the conversation post-episode drop!About your new hosts:Mallory Willsea serves as VP of Marketing at Element451 —the next-generation AI student engagement platform helping institutions create meaningful and personalized interactions with students. Her insights on best practices and new trends are informed by her sector research and more than 15 years of experience. Mallory has held executive leadership roles in ed tech and at agencies spanning customer success, marketing, and business development. Her superpower is building media brands to reach, educate, and inspire forward-thinking higher education leaders.Seth Odell is widely considered one of the industry's leading enrollment marketing experts. Seth brings over 15 years of education marketing experience at some of our sector's top organizations, including Southern New Hampshire University, UCLA, National University System, and more. Today, he is the Founder and CEO of Kanahoma, the fastest-growing digital marketing agency in higher education.

We talk a lot about tips, strategies, frameworks, and components of project-based experiences, but we don't talk a lot about mindsets.   How do you develop the mindsets that allow for creativity, agility, uncertainty, and experiences that move in several directions? In this episode, Thompson Morrison and Kavita Tanna, Founders of Ustawi Movement Global expose us to a process that builds these mindsets in both students and teachers; changing them from compliant learners to creative geniuses. We peel back the layers of this process and speak with educator Linda Amici about the transformational results she has seen in her classroom. Through it, you will learn: Why agility and adaptability are the #1 future skills, and how to develop it in our learners A simple framework to transform compliant learners to creative powerhouses  How to make learning a continual conversation and not a didactic mode of delivery How to use a learning process developed in real world industries like tech/software to guide experiences in our classrooms How to help our learners reach their creative potential  Connect with Thompson Morrison: thompson@ustawimovement.global          Connect with Kavita Tanna: Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook        Connect with Linda Amici: LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter Learn More about the DIG Framework: https://www.amazon.com/Dayton-Experiment-reimagined-education-unleashed/dp/0578634392  Thompson's Bio: Thompson Morrison is the co-author of The Dayton Experiment, a book that tells a story of a five-year journey of reimagining the learning culture of a small rural school in Dayton, Oregon. A software executive deeply versed in the fast, iterative learning cycles that underpin Agile methodologies, he partnered with Jami Fluke, the principal of Dayton Middle School and High School, to reimagine the learning culture in order to unleash the creative genius of every student. From that experience, a learning framework was developed, Designed InGenuity (DiG), which has now been introduced to hundreds of educators around the world, helping to inspire the transformation of schools now on five continents. His most recent book, The Joyful Sandbox, explores how this framework is being used by schools to bring learning alive. Kavita's Bio: Kavita is a facilitator of mission-driven work with communities around the world. Now pursuing her fourth career as a Global Education Coach, she brings the life experiences of business and classroom teaching to this work of transforming learning in communities. Kavita's mission is to connect with like-minded individuals who wish to empower all people through meaningful, interconnected, and globally-minded conversations. She is a graduate of the Brain-SET Environment Certificate, through which early childhood educators are empowered to design environments with the intention of children learning in calm spaces to support the development of their brains. As a lifelong learner, Kavita is completing a Master's degree with Antioch University, focusing on creating, sustaining and regenerating transformative learning communities using systems thinking. In regular one-to-one meetings, facilitation of team gatherings and large group workshops, Kavita coaches school leaders and classroom educators to recognise the roles they play in shaping the identities, attitudes and behaviours of all learners. By co-designing learning experiences, she offers practical ideas for global and intercultural-mindedness for all learners, including parents, educators and leaders. Through her work as a passionate advocate and mentor for social-emotional-ethical wellbeing integration in the lives of all people, Kavita's vision is to co-create a harmonious world in which all living systems can flourish. Linda's Bio: Linda Amici is an educator with a passion to empower future leaders to “be the change” the world needs. As a middle school instructional coach for the Westerville City School District and part-time faculty member for Otterbein University, she seeks to inspire those around her to embrace a growth mindset and take educational risks to innovate transformational practices. Changing the world has led Linda to opportunities that reach beyond the borders of the US. She has worked overseas on projects to bring health and clean water to remote locations in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, and the Amazon river basin in Peru. Stateside, she supports international students on their exchange year as they share culture with US host families. She is energized by learning about new cultures and working with diverse teams to solve global issues. Linda graduated from The Ohio State University with a Bachelor's degree in Education and holds a Master's degree in Curriculum and Instruction. She has had the honor of presenting and collaborating with PBL Works, the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), National Center for Urban School Transformation, and she currently serves as an AMLE Schools of Distinction Evaluator. Linda graduated from The Ohio State University with a Bachelor's degree in Education and holds a Master's degree in Curriculum and Instruction. She has had the honor of presenting and collaborating with PBL Works, the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), National Center for Urban School Transformation, and she currently serves as an AMLE Schools of Distinction Evaluator. In 2019, Linda was selected as the Sanford Inspirational Award recipient by the National University System for the state of Ohio. She has been recognized as a Great Educational Mentor by her school district, and she was awarded a Martha Holden Jennings Foundation Deeper Learning Grant to awaken learner curiosity within her educational community. She currently serves as the National Teach Plus Fellow for Ohio and is a part of the AMLE support team. In 2019, Linda was selected as the Sanford Inspirational Award recipient by the National University System for the state of Ohio. She has been recognized as a Great Educational Mentor by her school district, and she was awarded a Martha Holden Jennings Foundation Deeper Learning Grant to awaken learner curiosity within her educational community. She currently serves as the National Teach Plus Fellow for Ohio and is a part of the AMLE support team. Linda is a mother to six children, one dog, and a small herd of guinea pigs. In her free time, she enjoys reading, biking, kayaking, and keeping herself and her community strong and healthy by teaching fitness classes to all ages. Connect with her on Twitter at @LindaAmici      

Feel like you're a job hopper? You're not alone! Turns out job hopping — and switching fields — are about to become the reality for most of us, says today's HRchat guest.Joining Bill is education and workforce strategist Dr. Michelle Weise.Michelle is the author of Long-Life Learning: Preparing for Jobs that Don't Even Exist Yet (Wiley, 2021). Her book was awarded the 2021 Phillip E. Frandson Award for Literature by UPCEA (University Professional and Continuing Education Association), recognizing the author and publisher of an outstanding work of continuing higher education literature. Thinkers50 named her one of 30 management and leadership thinkers in the world to watch in 2021.Michelle leads Rise & Design, an advisory service tailored for organizations seeking to design education and workforce strategies that will prepare working-age adults for the jobs of today and tomorrow. Questions Include:  * You talk about how the future of work is the future of education. What do you mean by that? * Tell me about your book, Long-Life Learning: Preparing for Jobs that Don't Even Exist Yet - what's it about, who it's aimed at and what are some of the hoped-for learning outcomes? * You suggest that "employers will have to begin viewing themselves as not just talent consumers, but talent creators." What do you mean by this? * What advice would you give to leaders and HR managers about how to shape an effective L&D program that supports worker retention and advancement?More About MichelleHer service work includes advising BrightHive, a data collaboration platform, the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), the SkillUp Coalition, Basta, Hitch, Bayes Impact, Clayton Christensen Institute Social Capital R&D Project, and World Education's Personal and Workplace Success Skills Library. She has also served as a commissioner for Massachusetts Governor Baker's Commission on Digital Innovation and Lifelong Learning, Harvard University's Task Force on Skills and Employability, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences' Commission on the Future of Undergraduate Education.Her commentaries on redesigning higher education and developing more innovative workforce and talent pipeline strategies have been featured in The Economist, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and Harvard Business Review.In the past, she has served as Vice Chancellor of Strategy and Innovation at National University System, Senior Advisor at Imaginable Futures, a venture of The Omidyar Group. She was also the Chief Innovation Officer of Strada Education Network as well as of Southern New Hampshire University. With Clayton Christensen, she coauthored Hire Education: Mastery, Modularization, and the Workforce Revolution (2014) while leading the higher education practice at Christensen's Institute for Disruptive Innovation.​Michelle is a former Fulbright Scholar and a graduate of Harvard and Stanford.

Show SummaryOn this episode, we feature a conversation with Army veteran and military spouse Meg O'Grady, Senior Vice President for Military and Government Programs for the National University System. About Today's GuestMeg O'Grady has more than 25 years of experience creating outreach, transition, education, entrepreneur, and employment programs that engage the military community, transitioning service members, employers and federal agencies. She is the Senior Vice President for Military and Government Programs for the National University System where she leads a team that helps service members, military spouses and government organizations reach important milestones in their education and careers. She has led programs, campaigns and strategic partnerships across the highest levels of the armed forces, government, and corporate America.  As a senior leader in the U.S. Department of Defense, she was instrumental in creating the Spouse Education and Career Program which included launching the Military Spouse Employment Partnership with the White House Joining Forces Program in 2012. As an executive at First Data Corporation, she worked together with Syracuse University's Institute for Veterans and Military Families to develop and launch the Coalition for Veteran Owned Business, a coalition of Fortune 500 industry leaders committed to providing innovative solutions and thought leadership to grow and support veteran owned businesses in communities throughout the nation. Most recently at the U.S. Department of Labor Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS), she supported the Office of Strategic Outreach as the National Veterans' Employment Manager. Meg holds a Master of Education degree from National Louis University and was a member of the Class of 1990 at the United States Military Academy where she was an All-American swimmer. She has contributed to numerous articles and publications.Links Mentioned In This EpisodeNational University System Web siteNU Military and Veteran ProgramsPsychArmor Resource of the WeekThe PsychArmor Resource of the Week is the PsychArmor course Advising military students on higher education. In this course, you'll take a brief look at higher education and transition information for military students and be able to help them understand their higher education options.   You can find a link to the resource here: https://learn.psycharmor.org/courses/Advising-Military-Students-on-Higher-Education This Episode Sponsored By: This episode is sponsored by PsychArmor, the premier education and learning ecosystem specializing in military culture content. PsychArmor offers an online e-learning laboratory with custom training options for organizations.Contact Us and Join Us on Social Media Email PsychArmorPsychArmor on TwitterPsychArmor on FacebookPsychArmor on YouTubePsychArmor on LinkedInPsychArmor on InstagramTheme MusicOur theme music Don't Kill the Messenger was written and performed by Navy Veteran Jerry Maniscalco, in cooperation with Operation Encore, a non profit committed to supporting singer/songwriter and musicians across the military and Veteran communities.Producer and Host Duane France is a retired Army Noncommissioned Officer, combat veteran, and clinical mental health counselor for service members, veterans, and their families.  You can find more about the work that he is doing at www.veteranmentalhealth.com  

In addressing the growing need for professional learning and employee up-skilling, Kevin Boston-Hill speaks with the chancellor of the National University System, Dr. Michael Cunningham, about, among other things, the partnership National University has with Amazon to provide tuition free courses to all of its hourly employees across the nation.

Giving students options, developed in partnership with thought leaders and industry experts, will better prepare them for the future of work, and give them the skills they need to succeed right out the gate.  Michael Cunningham, Chancellor and CEO of National University System sits down with Illumination host Amrit Ahluwalia to discuss schools adoption rates of upskilling or reskilling programs, the 60 year curriculum, and how schools could adopt a subscription model.  

“Transformation” is a buzzword in today's world, and it's easy to talk about why it's necessary. But how do you actually do the hard work of bringing about change within a college or university? This week's episode of The Key features highlights from a panel session at this month's SXSWedu conference in Austin, Tex. The discussion, heavy on practical advice for leading change within and across institutions, includes Michael Sorrell, president of Paul Quinn College; Michelle Weise, vice chancellor for strategy and innovation at the National University System; and Bridget Burns, executive director of the University Innovation Alliance. Inside Higher Ed's editor and host of The Key, Doug Lederman, moderated the discussion. This episode is sponsored by Pearson Inclusive Access. 

Podcast Summary. Dr. Drumm McNaughton interviews Gerry Czarnecki, the recently retired chairman and longtime board member of National University System, about the changing role of the boards of trustees in higher education. Podcast Highlights Boards can no longer be rubber stamps. They need to ask difficult questions and analyze institutional data to help the institution make appropriate changes so it can survive and thrive. In creating an integration or merger between institutions, view decisions based on the most important factors: the students, the employees, and the institutional mission. Leaders need to spend time creating a Plan A and a Plan B. Plan A goes into effect when things are running smoothly. However, Plan B offers a way to move forward if something unexpected emerges and upends Plan A. To read the full show notes, visit https://changinghighered.com/board-evolution-catalyst-for-transformational-change-in-higher-ed/ About the Host Dr. Drumm McNaughton is a Higher Education Consultant, CEO of  The Change Leader Consulting Firm, and an international leader in transformational change for Higher Education.  The Change Leader's Social Media Links LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

Meet Seth Odell — the founder and CEO of Kanahoma, a boutique education marketing agency based in San Diego, California. Seth has had a lot of jobs...he's worked as a clubhouse manager for a minor league baseball team, managed a deli in Yellowstone National Park, worked the graveyard shift at a donut shop, and even redid Dr. Phil's kitchen. But for the past decade, he's called higher education home, leading brand and marketing initiatives at UCLA, Southern New Hampshire University, and National University System. He also founded and eventually sold Higher Ed Live — the industry's first and only live weekly web show network. Tune in to learn more about the people, the experiences, and the opportunities that inspired a young man who wasn't great at school to become a leading pioneer in education marketing.Learn more about this episode in our show notes.

Apology to our listeners - Joe's audio is horrible in certain parts of this episode. Thanks for staying with us! In this episode of The EdUp Experience, we talk with Dr. Andrew Shean, Chief Academic Officer at National Education Partners. Andrew talks to us about not reinventing the wheel regarding online education. He tells the audience to go out, see what others are doing, and integrate those things (no one is alone). Faculty are still at the center of learning, so investing in faulty development that is sustained and engaging resulting in increased student engagement is a key to a healthy higher education future. Find out how NEP is working to bend the cost curve by offering an affordable education! Dr. Andrew Shean is the Senior Vice President & Chief Academic Officer at National Education Partners where he leads online instructional design, academic technology, academic operations for FlexCourse, and supports academic innovation initiatives across the National University System. Furthermore, he works collaboratively to support and implement strategic plans with the academic leadership within the system and its affiliates. Thanks so much for tuning in. Join us again next time for another episode! Contact Us! Connect with the hosts - Elvin Freytes, Elizabeth Leiba, and Dr. Joe Sallustio ● If you want to get involved, leave us a comment or rate us! ● Join the EdUp community at The EdUp Experience! ● Follow us on Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn | Twitter | YouTube Thanks for listening! We make education your business!

COVID has accelerated the higher education model’s day of reckoning so it has come faster than anyone ever expected. Colleges and universities have been facing this day of reckoning for at least five years; leaders knew that change was coming and many were focused on strategic thinking about these impending changes. However, the pandemic has forced the entire higher education business model (which includes financing, delivery systems, and who manages and controls what) to transform. Institutions have had to come to terms with the realization that they cannot continue to operate as they previously have been functioning. This episode, which focuses on the future of higher education, features Gerry Czarnecki, who served on the National University System board for nearly three decades. He now is the system’s trustee emeritus. COVID and the Day of Reckoning The higher education community currently consists of a wide variety of institutions including the Ivy League schools, community colleges, Tier 1 research universities and for-profit institutions. Moving forward, these institutions will have to figure out who their primary customer truly is—and that may cause the creation of smaller higher education communities. The institutions also will be separated by their own organizational nature and characteristics regarding their mission as well as their available financial resources. Higher education leaders don’t know where the industry will end up. The whole higher education community may fracture to become multiple communities. If this happens, the various higher education sub-communities won’t know each other well. For example, R1 institutions shouldn’t see themselves as the same as National University, which is an adult-learning organization with less than half of 1% of its students enrolling as first-time freshmen. The students at National University and the other institutions that are part of the system are, on average, 35 years of age and primarily working adults. Additionally, National and its sister institutions are entirely focused on creating a learning experience for students who are more adult. This is very different from R1 institutions, so describing a first-tier R1 institution as “an institution of higher education” is in many ways a misnomer. There is no comparison between R1 institutions and other institutions who are completely focused on educating students. These two institutions have virtually nothing in common, other than they are both called “university.” Evolving Business Models The R1 institutional business model, which depends primarily on research grants and endowments, is not as challenged, except at the undergraduate learning experience. The research institutions weren’t ready for the current situation caused by the pandemic. These universities were using the legacy model of in-classroom experience on campus for their undergraduate programs, but due to the pandemic, all of a sudden, students couldn’t be on campus and in classrooms. These institutions didn’t have the technology or the operating systems in place. These institutions are essentially using Zoom to teach virtual classes and Zoom is not a learning management system. Institutions at the other end are totally into higher education. These institutions primary are tuition and room and board-driven for their budgets. At National University, research grants are less than 1%. At the system level, research money is an exception rather than a rule. The system’s institutions also have a modest endowment, but primarily revenues come from tuition. This is a dramatically different business model. There are a massive number of institutions who are in the middle and will be redefining themselves over the next few years instead of the upcoming decade. Those “middle” colleges and universities—which are trying to combine the model of research/academic pursuit of new knowledge as well as the model of teaching students—are the ones that have a business model that will be the most challenged. They don’t have the grant money to subsidize their activities or the heavy endowment numbers to subsidize students. They face increasing pressure in trying to continue their enrollment strategy (which is being challenged by the pandemic and the upcoming enrollment cliff). They also face cost pressures to be competitive in the marketplace. This is making it more difficult to provide the same learning experience that they are used to providing. Size of enrollment and endowment will be key deciders as to whether an institution survives. In the National System of institutions (which is a non-profit organization), there are a variety of institutions, both in size and focus. One of the institutions that was the smallest no longer exists now and its programs have transferred to other system institutions – the system could not figure out how to make the economics work to keep this small university alive, so it has been closed. Embracing Online Education All institutions will need to find other—and better—ways than Zoom to teach courses online because this desire for online learning will not go away after the pandemic is over. This move wasn’t expected to happen this quickly and presents a huge challenge. This change also presents a major cost curve, which will challenge the institutions in the middle. The pandemic has forced an acceleration for online education. National University had a strategic plan of where it wanted to go—to become a completely asynchronous online university. COVID did the institution a favor because it forced faster movement than the system could have done on its own without facing stakeholder repercussions. National was founded an in-person institution, but by a couple of years ago, it had transitioned to a point where half of its classes were in-person and the other half online. The pandemic has accelerated this transition by 3-5 years and the system’s institutions are now totally online as of today, and all but one institution in the system has transitioned to asynchronous online education. As a result, the system is liquidating real estate, including selling the university’s system’s headquarters, and getting out of leases, as classrooms are no longer needed. Increasing Board Accountability Corporate America has gone through a massive transformation in relation to its boards. However, this transformation has not been completed. These boards are far more fiduciary, independent and focused on their role on strategy, governance and oversight than they were two decades ago. CEOs have accountability to boards. That transformation has not yet happened in higher education, and while this change is beginning to emerge, higher education boards are far behind corporate boards in completing this transition. This has a lot to do with the fact that these institutions and systems utilize volunteers as board members. It is hard to ask volunteers to spend the time and do the amount of work that is necessary. In comparison, many corporate board members are paid to serve on boards. Thus, the higher education president or chancellor tends to be the key player in the institution’s decision-making processes. However, tension builds when the enterprise is at risk and trustees start asking whether the institution is going to make it. Furthermore, non-profit boards still have the same fiduciary duties as their corporate counterparts – they can be held legally liable and professionally responsible for mistakes. Ultimately, this period of change will not be an easy transformation for higher education boards.  Trustees need to know that they are going to have to spend more time doing this work, especially during this pandemic, and accreditors will need to relent in their unwillingness to allow institutions to pay trustees.. Three Recommendations for Higher Education Trustees Czarnecki suggested several takeaways for higher education trustees: Make sure you completely understand the educational model that exists at your enterprise, as well as what higher education is. How does the organization operate? Understand the rules as well as shared governance. Be well informed and educated about what is going on. Trustees’ top responsibility is making sure the right leader (president or chancellor) is in place to run the institution. Board members need to be actively engaged in deciding the strategic focus of the enterprise. Don’t delegate this to the CEO. Bullet Points The changes created by the pandemic—which are accelerating the change that already was underway—may cause higher education community to split into groups based on their mission and the students they serve. Institutions are going to end up differentiating. For example, research institutions are focused on learning, knowledge advancement and education. The faculty is learning and advancing knowledge, and then teaching students. In comparison, other institutions are focused solely on teaching students. These differences have implications for business models. Research institutions primarily are financed through research grants and endowments, but the pandemic has brought forward issues related to undergraduate education. These universities have focused on a legacy model that focuses on on-campus classroom experience. However, they have not done well with the transition to online education in the wake of the pandemic. They primarily have focused on using Zoom for classes; this needs to change in the future if they plan to appeal to students. Colleges and universities that are trying to combine the model of research/academic pursuit of new knowledge as well as the model of teaching students are the ones that have a business model that will be most challenged. They don’t have the grant money to subsidize their activities or a large endowment to subsidize students. They will face increasing pressure to maintain their enrollment strategy and cost pressures to be competitive in the marketplace. The size of enrollment and endowment will be key deciders as to whether an institution survives. The pandemic has forced an acceleration for online education. All institutions will need to find other—and better—ways than Zoom to teach courses online because this desire for online learning will not go away after the pandemic is over. Higher education is far behind corporate boards in focusing on accountability and transparency. This has a lot to do with the fact that these institutions and systems utilize volunteers as board members. Because the work of trustees has not been brought up-to-date, the higher education president or chancellor tends to be the key player in the institution’s decision-making processes. However, when the enterprise is at risk (as it is in this pandemic), tension builds and trustees start asking whether the institution is going to make it. They also have to realize that they have a fiduciary responsibility when serving on the board. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: National University System: https://nu.edu Department of Education: https://www.ed.gov/ Guests Social Media Links: Gerry Czarnecki Twitter: https://twitter.com/gerryczarnecki?lang=en Gerry Czarnecki Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/theczar/ Gerry Czarnecki website: http://gerryczarnecki.com/ The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: Website: https://thechangeleader.com Website: https://changinghighered.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

Episode Summary The Change Leader CEO and President Drumm McNaughton and Aurora University Vice President for Marketing and Communications Deb Maue share their insights during the second annual wrap-up of happenings in higher education. This show notes offers a follow-up on the pair’s predictions for 2019 as well as insights on what to prepare for in 2020. Mergers, Consolidates and Closures 2018 Prediction for 2019: There would be an acceleration of mergers, consolidations and closures in higher education. What happened: This proved to be true. In November 2019, Education Dive reported that from 2014-2018, there were 1,234 colleges and universities that closed, including 129 non-profits, 11 publics and 1,094 for-profits. It shows that higher education is in a mature or declining market and will continue to experience headwinds in the future. The most surprising example of this was University of Alaska, where the governor initially wanted to cut $80 million from the budget, but dropped the amount to $40 million. This level of cuts is unheard of and it had to do with campaign promises. The university system was looking at consolidating three campuses into one, but geographically, this made no sense. System leaders also are looking at programmatic and faculty cuts. This will have far-reaching consequences, and may put the institution’s accreditation into jeopardy. However, several mergers made strategic sense. For example, National University System acquired Northcentral University, which is fully online with masters and doctoral programs. This merger allows the system to provide more programs for its students. Another example is Arkansas System, which absorbed Henderson State, a private non-profit. This opportunity to share services helps Henderson financially; in addition, its brand equity will increase by being part of the system. In both cases, these institutions moved quickly instead of waiting. They viewed the opportunity to merge as a strategic decision instead of being forced into making the move as a last resort. Neg Reg 2019 2018 Prediction for 2019:  The Neg Reg 2019 process would begin a transformation of higher education and its business model. What happened: This process proved to be groundbreaking in many ways. For instance, the Neg Reg negotiators came to consensus on every topic, which is unheard of. The Department of Education did put forward a number of ambitious goals and participants pushed back on a number of them before coming to consensus. The negotiators put the items under consideration into three buckets – accreditation agencies, innovation (including distance education and CBE), and teach grants and religious schools. The Department published the rules on accreditation agencies on November 1 in the Federal Register so these rules will go into effect July 1.  Some of the critical things include Accreditors are no longer delineated as regional or national and they now can compete against each other. Accreditors also can now reach out beyond the state or region they initially were restricted to and work with institutions in other parts of the nation. Student transfers should become much easier because of these changes. However, the innovation bucket was not finalized. People are anticipating that new guidance will come out for discussion shortly because the Department of Education just ended its Competency-based Education (CBE) experiment. However, because this guidance wasn’t published by November 1, these changes won’t go into effect on July 1, 2020. If President Trump is not re-elected, these changes will be up for reconsideration. A major issue for this bucket is how to measure learning. Right now, accreditors and institutions primarily measure learning by credit hours. However, this isn’t truly a good measure of learning.  Competency-based education looks at the knowledge and skills that a student acquires (or has coming into a program). Moving toward this way of measuring learning would be a major shift for higher education, especially for distance education. There also is talk coming out of Washington, D.C. about how to engage the business community more to identify the proficiencies that students need. This could also be put in the innovation bucket, The future of the third bucket -- TEACH grants and guidance for religious colleges and universities – is still unclear. Online Education 2018 Prediction for 2019: Online education will continue to grow in the next 2-3 years, spurred by consolidations and strategic alliances with online providers. What happened: This happened over the last year with the increase of online students; however, the rate of increase slowed. Western Governors and Southern New Hampshire University both topped 100,000 students and Grand Canyon University topped 90,000. However, there also have been major drops, including Phoenix (which was at 490,000 students at the beginning of the decade but now has about 90,000, a significantly lower enrollment). The most interesting thing is online program management (OPM). Bridgepoint Education continues to expand into this market as is Grand Canyon. Then there is Online Degree, which is turning the OPM marketing on its head. This company, which is growing, is attracting college dropouts to earn their GE requirements for free. Additionally, the movement from for-profit to non-profit is in a disarray. Grand Canyon illustrates this, having received approval for non-profit status by the IRS. However, the institution will still be treated as a for-profit by the Department of Education for the purposes of receiving federal funding. Universities that got into online education thought they would draw students nationally. However, online is now becoming hyper-local outside of the big players. The student base for online is the same as the prospective student base who would attend classes in person. This makes the marketing to these students easier. The number of post-traditional students is decreasing. Whether this will continue will be based on the economy. If it sours, people will go back to school to distinguish themselves. On a positive note, Moody changed its outlook from negative to neutral because they’ve seen some growth in some sectors. However, the demographic changes are beginning to be felt and will culminate in The Cliff in 2025.  Additionally, 1 in 3 higher ed CFOs believe that the sector is in trouble, and they are the ones that know what is going on the best. Tenure and promotion 2018 Prediction for 2019: Changing faculty tenure and promotion policies as a result of universities needing to cull programs that are not financially viable. What happened: This is still emerging. We believe that faculty are not getting tenured as quickly, especially at private institutions. Additionally, tenure doesn’t mean lifetime employment anywhere given that low-performing programs will be cut, putting faculty at risk for losing jobs.  One way this may play out is through alliances that may allow faculty to be shared between institutions. Market Research 2018 Prediction for 2019: Market research will increasingly have a place in higher education as they focus on identifying where students are coming from. What happened: We agreed that this hasn’t come true. Deb noted that there are some institutions that are doing a solid job in doing market research using statistical methods and other research methods to position the institution. However, there are still “haves” (which are big institutions) and “have-nots” based on funding being available to do this type of research. Cost Containment 2018 Prediction for 2019: Cost containment will accelerate, especially in private schools. This will find its way to the C suite where there will be a reduction of presidential salaries, especially in private universities. What happened: There wasn’t a reduction in salaries, but cost containment is becoming more evident. One-third of CFOs are concerned about their finances. Student debt exceeds $1.5 trillion, the highest ever. Low income students must work 15+ hours a week to afford their education. The discounting rate is commonly at 60 percent. Higher education enrollments are under 18 million, the first time since the Great Recession. However, institutions can’t cut their way to grow; instead, it’s important – and CFOs are increasingly trying to find ways -- to put money into areas that will give a good return on the investment. These include market research and proactive boards to steer the institution. Additionally, faculty and staff are starting to understand that higher education is a business and there is a relationship between revenues and expenses. Presidents are being more transparent about budgets as a way to education the institutional stakeholders. 2018 Prediction for 2019: We will start to see more interesting ways for education to be funded. Part of this will come from the NegReg process. More cities, state and companies will invest in their employees’ future. What happened: While there hasn’t been much movement on this, we note that the movement in the OPM markets, as well as the changing accreditation process. There has been growth but not as far as funding of education. This is part of the reason why there have been so many mergers and closures – institutions still are too reliant on tuition for their budgets. Higher education is beginning to partner with businesses to provide stackable and micro credentials for employees. However faculty buy-in is needed because they will be responsible for providing the content. 2019 Surprises We also note a number of things that happened in 2019 that surprised us. These included: Varsity Blues. This represents the worst in higher education and U.S. society when people with money can buy dishonesty at universities. Admissions lawsuits. The federal judge upheld Harvard’s use of affirmative action in its admission decisions, but it’s going to be appealed. There’s a similar lawsuit against UNC from the same group. Title IX. Three undergraduate women from Yale filed a class action lawsuit against Yale and its fraternities alleging that the fraternities control the campus social scene in a biased manner against women and fostering a culture of sexual harassment runs rampant. Lawsuits about false marketing. Career Education Corporation settled a five-year lawsuit brought by 49 state attorney generals over its marketing. A similar lawsuit happened to Phoenix, which is now considered to have a toxic brand. These lawsuits taint the for-profit education sector. Title IX. New guidance, which is at OPM, is coming out that changes the criteria from preponderance of evidence instead of clear and convincing evidence, the same as what is required in civil suits. This process had over 100,000 comments on this and will have major landmines. Predictions for 2020 Changes are coming in how fundraising is done at major institutions. Donor relations are changing in that people are returning donations and unnaming buildings. Institutions are going to be far more wary of accepting donations without doing significant background checks. There will be an acceleration of closures and mergers. There were big ones in 2019, such as Purdue with Kaplan and Strayer with Capella. There will be more closures in private non-profits. There is an overabundance in the market and a correction. Rising costs and discount rates of 60 percent or more will be common. Institutions will increase their partnerships with businesses to develop curriculum and credentials tailored to the businesses. Free tuition will not be the norm. Otherwise, taxes will need to be increased. More lawsuits about free speech, admissions policies and sexual assault will be filed. The Title IX rollout will be a mess. NCAA will need to look at restructuring, such as paying Division I athletes. This has other ramifications. For instance, this decision would give student-athletes the status of employees, which then gives them disability. That has additional cost ramifications for institutions. NegReg 2019 will turn into NegReg 2020 and things won’t be rolled out in a timely basis. If there is a new president, there could be significant rollbacks in the guidelines. There will not be any resolution in credit hours vs. competency-based education in relation to learning. The Department of Education will punt this issue to the accreditors. With the changes to the NACAC regulations, there will be decreased ability to predict the size of incoming fall class. May 1 will be less of a critical date in knowing what the fall enrollment will be and the recruiting cycle will change.   Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Guests Social Media Links: Guest Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/deborahmaue/ https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-change-leader/about/ The Change Leader’s Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

In this episode, Claire Leong joins the podcast to discuss our call to embrace the power of biblical vulnerability. God created us to live in authentic connection with Him and with others. When we don't feel known, we can feel very isolated, misunderstood, and insecure. There is so much empowerment in vulnerability and this episode will shed some fresh light on it! About the SpeakerClaire Leong may have been born in the Midwest, but growing up on the west coast has made her a California girl at heart. Growing up in Northern California, Claire established her love for academics, theater, and God – she became a Christian when she was 15 years old. She moved south and earned her Theater degree at UCLA, married her incredible husband Ben, and they now have their two girls, Melody and Hazel. She currently works in the IT department for National University System, and spends her off hours having fun with her family, crocheting, and serving God with her voice and her talents. Through various life challenges, Claire has come to appreciate our need for connection with others, and how Satan can use isolation to keep us from seeing and believing in God’s word.Episode Notes1 John 1:5-9 - Living in the light gives us authentic connection to God and others and brings healing. Confession of sin: we have to confess to find healing! Wrestling to be approved vs "known" We feel so separated when we have things we're hiding- because we are! Hiding brings insecurity. Sometimes we feel like people won't understand our brokenness, so we stop sharing the dark places of our hearts- this isn't how God intended us to live! He wants us to live free and live known. Admitting our junk & sin doesn't make us less worthy of God's love. His grace isn't based on us, it's just placed on us- so there's no need to stay hidden. Social media is one of the biggest deceivers of connection. We find meaningful connection in the hardest of times. But we have to choose to bring ourselves out of isolation. Practical: Have planned time in your schedule where you connect with people and have opportunities to talk on a deep level.God wants to know us and for us to be known by others. We are purified by Jesus, we just have to own our brokenness and let others in. We need to take initiative to invite others into our lives, struggles, and hurts. Vulnerability is intentional emotional exposure. There's a lot of empowerment in vulnerability. Lead by example if others don't do this with you- it gives them permission to be more open with you and ultimately God. We need to be patient and gracious with those we share our hearts with- it's more about being known and honoring God than about their response. Galatians 6:4 "Let everyone be devoted to fulfill the work God has given them to do with excellence, and their joy will be in doing what’s right and being themselves, and not in being affirmed by others." (TPT) Challenges:1. Think about something that you're really afraid to tell someone. Own it. And then find someone trustworthy you can talk to about it. 2. If you are not already set up on a recurring date with someone to connect, then add that into your schedule. Find time to be in each other's lives: to be open, honest, and feel connection. Support the show (https://tithe.ly/give_new/www/#/tithely/give-one-time/678206?giving_to=Woven%20In%20Truth%20Podcast)

In addition to enjoying the holidays, December is a good time to pause and take stock of the past year. This also is an opportune time to get out the crystal ball to contemplate what might happen in 2019. 2018: The Year in Review There were a number of very nice gifts under the tree this year, but also a lot of lumps of coal. In 2018, we saw four big themes: marketplace dynamics; Washington follies; higher ed governance failures (which includes higher ed’s version of #MeToo); and the Harvard admissions lawsuit. Marketplace Dynamics: The Maturing and Decline of Higher Ed Markets In our previous blog and podcast on M&A activity in higher ed, we discussed the product life cycle and where higher ed stands in relation to this concept.  To briefly recap, the product life cycle (PLC) is a marketing tool that is applied to products, but also is relevant when examining market segments or industries. The PLC is made up of four stages: The introduction stage, which is characterized by the organization building brand awareness; The growth stage, which is characterized by strong growth as the organization builds brand preference and increases market share; The maturity stage, which is characterized by diminishing growth as “competition” increases and competitors offer similar “products.” This results in the implementation of multiple marketing strategies, such as cutting prices, rethinking positioning and branding, and market consolidation; and The decline stage, which is characterized by a decline in sales (which may be potentially significant). In many cases, the product (or organization) goes out of business or, as a last result, finds a buyer (leading to a merger or acquisition). Higher ed finds itself straddling the stages of maturity and decline, which is characterized by decreasing enrollment, lack of differentiation in the higher ed marketplace, and an increase in market consolidation and/or college closings. Which brings us to now. Breaking Down the Numbers.  Over the last few years (2016-2018), more than 100 colleges haves closed. Many can be directly attributed to the decertification of ACICS by the Obama administration. However, the more relevant reason for many of these closures is the lifecycle and current operating environment of higher education.  Over the past few years, 65 for-profits closed and seven merged with other institutions. Some of those mergers were huge (Purdue acquiring Kaplan, Strayer acquiring Capella, National University System acquiring Northcentral). In addition, 14 nonprofit universities closed and five merged while 36 public institutions merged or consolidated. This merger and acquisition activity makes perfect sense given that higher education is in the maturing to declining portions of the lifecycle. Transfer Students and Reducing Costs. We’ve also seen community colleges assume more of a role in reducing the costs of higher ed, as well as in degree completion.  State (and other) colleges are beginning to put more emphasis on attracting transfer students.  For example, Gov. Jerry Brown (D-Cal) is withholding $50 million from the University of California system until the system increases the acceptance and enrollment of transfer students while also meeting auditor requests to fix accounting issues. Brown’s decision was based on his commitment to a 2-to-1 ratio of freshmen to transfer students. However, several system’s institutions reported a ratio closer to 4-to-1. Privates are also emphasizing outreach to transfer students due to the costs to both the institution and the students.  Some privates are renting space at community college, thus giving students an easily available and direct track to a four-year degree.   This makes a lot of sense, especially given the current high cost of private education (e.g., one California private is charging $55,000 a year for undergraduate programs, amounts we see at Ivy League schools).  Thus, students find more affordable options by first attending a community college and then transferring to a public or private institution. This approach reduces the amount of student loans needed to complete a degree. This type of approach is especially important with students who start college without a clear idea of what they want to study or their pathway to earning their degree and end up dropping out due to cost.  This accounts for why we are seeing so many post-traditional students in higher education; they initially started college without understanding what they wanted to study and now are returning to complete their degrees. Having this community college low-cost option that transfers coursework to four-year colleges and university makes good sense because it minimizes the student’s time to completion and cost. College Closures and Rejuvenation. We continue to see higher education closures. While higher education leaders may point to the resurrection of Sweet Briar, those types of reemergence are few and far between.    Sweet Briar was an interesting case. Although the school had a substantial endowment (unlike most schools), those funds were legally earmarked for specific things and could not be used for operating funds.  This is an interesting (and possibly unique) situation and will make a great case study for future grad students who want to study the process of bringing a school back from the dead. Department of Education and Washington The second theme for 2018 is all about Washington, D.C. Frankly, there are so many things, it’s hard to know where to start. ACICS. ACICS is (in)famous for its accreditation of Corinthian and ITT, both of which folded, leaving 100s of 1000s of students stranded. Not surprisingly, ACICS was decertified by the Obama administration in 2016. At its height, ACICS accredited 200+ universities, but in the time between 2016 (when ACICS lost its accreditation) and now, most of the institutions accredited by ACICS have moved to other accrediting bodies.    However, the Trump Administration has other ideas on accreditation. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos reinstated ACICS’ accreditation authority this year in a process that had many missteps. However, the most egregious was that the department’s senior official who made the case for ACICS’ reinstatement is a former lobbyist who worked with for-profit universities, a clear conflict of interest. In her justification for reinstatement, the former lobbyist, Diane Auer Jones, said the Department of Education determined that ACICS was in compliance on 19 of the 21 applicable criteria. Equally as important, she stated that ACICS was likely in compliance with these criteria when President Obama’s Education Secretary John King, Jr. removed ACICS’ accreditation certification. According to the Education Department, ACICS is still “out of compliance” with federal standards in the remaining two areas but has been given another 12 months to come back into compliance.  The carnage from ACICS’ original accreditation still continues. Just this month, the Education Corporation of America (ECA), which was once accredited by ACICS and oversaw Virginia College, shuttered its doors, leaving 20,000 students up a creek without a paddle. In fairness to ACICS, they removed Virginia College’s accreditation, but only after the college attempted to get accreditation from another accreditor and failed miserably. Gainful Employment and Borrower Defense. Changes in gainful employment and borrower defense also emerged in 2018. In relation to the former, the Education Department missed the filing deadline for the gainful employment rule so these changes cannot come into play until mid-2020. Furthermore, the Social Security Administration -- which provides the earnings data needed to calculate gainful employment -- decided not to renew the information-sharing agreement that expired in May. Because of this, the Education Department will not have the data they need to calculate earnings data. So, in essence, gainful employment is dead for now. Borrower defense is another area on which Washington gets raspberries. Regulations put in place by the Obama administration protected students whose colleges (e.g., Corinthian and ITT) closed, leaving them with degrees that were considered worthless. However, the Ed Department under Secretary DeVos rejected the vast majority of the claims. It took Congressional pressure to turn the process around, and although the process has gotten better, it still not where it needs to be. I think we can expect to see some new regulations coming out of Washington over the next year in this area. Title IX and Sexual Abuse. The Education Department put out their draft ruling on new Title IX guidance in November and, overall, colleges are not happy. The revisions make major changes to the standard that, in many cases, are as clear as mud and/or will discourage victims from coming forward. New Title IX Guidance. The first of the changes narrows the definition of sexual assault. The old standard was “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” and the new standard is “unwelcome sexual conduct; or unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the recipient’s education program or activity.” The Ed Department justified this by saying it is in line with the Supreme Court guidance, but survivors’ advocates have come out forcefully and said that this new definition will put survivors’ education at risk. The second major change is the standard by which sexual assault is adjudicated. Previously, the standard was that the assault was “likely to have happened.” However, the new guidance provides for a higher standard, i.e., “preponderance of evidence,” the same standard that is used in civil suits. This is lower than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the standard which is used in criminal trials, but it still creates a higher burden on the victim to prove that the incident happened. In its guidance, the Ed Dept stated that institutions can use either standard, but this potentially opens the institution up to lawsuits, e.g., institutions may face a lawsuit by the accused if they use the lower standard or the victim if the institution uses the higher standard. The third major change has to do with holding universities responsible. Under the previous guidance, universities and colleges could be held responsible if they “knew about or reasonably should have known” about an incident. However, under the new guidelines, the institution must have “actual knowledge” of the incident in order to be held responsible; this requires the victim to make a formal complaint through official channels. Telling a professor or resident adviser isn’t sufficient – it must be reported to someone who can do something about it, such as a school official who is involved in enforcement. Additionally, schools can only be held responsible for incidents that happen on school property or at school-sponsored events, not at private, off-campus residences. Thus, if a fraternity house is located off-campus and an assault takes place there (as was the allegation in the Judge Kavanaugh – Christine Blasey Ford incident), the institution cannot be held liable, even if they have knowledge that these events have taken place in the past. Lastly, the accused will have the chance to cross-examine the victim under the new guidance, and many feel this will discourage victims from coming forward and reporting incidents. Whenever you get into sexual assault or similar types of accusations, the resolution process must be more than he said/she said. However, that is what it could come down to because of the cross-examination requirement. Many victims’ advocates and lawyers are concerned that we will revert to a previous time when a woman who accused a man of sexual assault would ultimately be the one on trial because of her dress or behaviors or whatever. MSU and Sexual Assault / Harassment in Education. A subset of this area brings to light the #MeToo movement in higher ed, especially in the aftermath of the Supreme Court hearings with Justice Kavanaugh.  It took a tremendous amount of courage for Christine Blasey Ford to bring up what happened to her after so many years and in such a public venue. Sadly, look at what ultimately happened – the good ol’ boys network derailed the investigation before it was able to go through to a conclusion. We also are seeing the fallout from the Michigan State sexual assault case. MSU’s former president has been brought up on felony charges for lying to the police, and the institution’s undergraduate applications have fallen by almost 8.5 percent in the wake of the scandal. Not only is this situation tarnishing MSU’s reputation, it is hitting them in the pocketbook. And maybe that's what has to happen for people to change. Higher Ed Governance Failures and the Role of the Board We are seeing a failure in the governance process in many higher ed schools. Three cases fall into this area at the following institutions: Penn State, Michigan State, and the University of Maryland. We must ask ourselves in all these situations, “Where were the Board of Directors/Regents/Trustees?” In the Penn State scandal, some Regents were brought up on criminal charges. We haven't seen that yet in the Michigan State scandal, but I believe we will.  MSU’s interim president has not done a great job in reaching out to the victims – it has been pretty nasty in many respects, but one must ask where are their Board of Regents? Same with the University of Maryland football coach after the player died – the board directed the university president to retain the football coach, but the president refused (rightly so). From all appearances, the majority of boards and Regents do not understand what their role is. Regents at state schools generally are political appointees, and it is considered to be a feather in one’s cap to be appointed to a Board of Regents/Trustees for a state university.  However, just because one is a political appointee to a board doesn’t remove their fiduciary duties as a board member.  More training needs to be done to ensure Regents understand their duties as well as how governance has changed over the years. This also goes for boards of private universities. The vast majority of these types of higher ed boards are made up of “friends of the president” or other large donors. This is especially egregious with many Christian colleges, whose boards are made up of religious affiliates or ecumenical personnel who have no experience sitting on the board of a multimillion-dollar organization and/or an understanding of higher ed. Fallout from the Harvard Admissions Lawsuit The Harvard lawsuit, in which a group of Asian Americans sued the university over its admissions policies, ultimately will impact a majority of higher ed institutions. Even though Harvard says that they are following the guidance from the Supreme Court, they get sued. Same with UCLA – they have been sued as well. Although a ruling is still forthcoming on the Harvard case, I think there will be ripple effects and we haven’t seen the end of this. Predictions for 2019 While much of the crystal ball’s foretelling for 2019 is cloudy, there are some clear indications of what lies in the future. An Acceleration of Consolidation and Closures First, we will see an acceleration of consolidations and closures in higher ed. For example, just in the last couple weeks, Moody's Investors Service and Fitch ratings both have declared a negative outlook for the higher ed sector for 2019. This is huge. We have a marketplace that is saturated. In these types of markets, smarter institutions focus on economies of scale (mergers), as well as positioning and differentiation (why is my university and/or degree different)? Carnegie Mellon and MIT have done this very well. This is one way to combat saturation, but not a lot of schools understand marketing positioning and differentiation. Consolidation (mergers) occurs for one of three reasons. Acquisition of a new technology; Market expansion and/or growth; or Eliminate competition and/or create market efficiencies. Consolidation will continue to accelerate. One need not look any further than what is happening with Pennsylvania’s 21 state universities. These institutions are vying for a smaller number of students graduating from high school, so are closing multiple campuses and realigning programs to eliminate duplication. This impacts the towns in which they are located since they are the major employers, and any change they make in consolidating degrees and/or reorganizing the system affects jobs, creating a ripple effect. Closures will also increase, but we think there will be far more consolidation rather than outright closings. The trend will continue toward the mega universities -- the merger of Strayer and Capella or Purdue and Kaplan -- or more shared services between universities. We will start to see far more of this with the privates as they struggle to survive. The biggest challenge is going to be for the smaller universities that don’t have strong endowments. What are they going to do? Most of these universities rely solely on tuition and/or state and federal funding to keep their doors open. They have limited research dollars coming in as compared to the Tier 1/R1 institutions. Right now, the closure rate is below 1%, but it will accelerate. The one wildcard in this is a potential recession, which could result in people going back to school to gain new skills and earn a different degree. Maybe that will help universities. The other trend that we have not talked about is how many people are disparaging higher ed, saying a college degree is not worth the money that you pay for it. This is going to hurt higher ed and its ability to bring in more students. This too may lead to more mergers and closures. Changing the Higher Ed Business Model The business model for higher ed must change. We don’t see rapid transformational change in the next year. However, there will be many changes in the next five years that people will realize was part of a changing higher ed landscape as they look in the rearview mirror. Neg Reg 2019 and its Implications.  The upcoming negotiated rulemaking process by the Ed Department focusing on accreditation and innovation could be very impactful, especially with its focus on credit hours and online education. Credit Hours. Moving away from credit hours as a measure of learning could be one of those breakthrough transformations that could spur the changing of higher ed’s business model. Once the Ed Department makes these changes, we will begin to see more institutions using CBE and giving credit for previous learning and life experiences. If you take a look at the three colleges that have done very well using these models (Western Governors who is the poster child for CBE, Capella, and Southern New Hampshire), they have seen tremendous growth while reducing the cost to students. This is a win-win and I think we’ll see more of this.  Online Education.  Although online education is an area that is beginning to get saturated because of for-profits, we will see far more privates and state schools moving into this area, as well as continued consolidations with online providers (OPMs), such as Learning House. Because so many OPMs exist, some of the smaller colleges will be able to expand into this area at a reasonably low-cost investment, and more for-profits will be acquisition targets. We will start seeing institutions embrace the opportunity to share online courses. This too will require changes from the Neg Reg process with respect to accreditation, but once these types of changes come out, we will start seeing sharing of courses and services as we have not seen in the education industry. Negotiations with Faculty. We will begin to see higher ed leaders toughen their stance with faculty. Market saturation with institutions and programs has resulted in price discounting, sometimes at a rate of more than 60%. This is not sustainable. According to Inside Higher Ed’s 2018 Annual Survey of Chief Business Officers (CFOs), 48% of respondents strongly agree or agree that their college tuition discount rate is unsustainable. This is up from 34% in 2017. Furthermore, two-thirds of CFOs at the privates say the same thing. This is huge. Institutions must start cutting programs that are not “profitable,” but in doing this, they must deal with faculty. Unfortunately, faculty look at programmatic cuts through the lens of job security instead of what graduates need to be attractive in the job market.  When faculty start to do this, there will be security and jobs for nearly all.  Faculty Promotion and Tenure. We will start seeing changes in how faculty are promoted and assessed.  Currently, faculty are promoted and assessed by their publication records. Going forward, we’ll see less reliance on citations and publications and more on teaching. Additionally, faculty hiring and tenure will change. We will start seeing a review of tenured faculty every 5 to 10 years, instead of having a job for life. I don’t see tenure going away anytime soon – it is too institutionalized – but employment for life will become a thing of the past in five years. Knowing Who Your Customers Are and What They Need. Many higher ed leaders have locked themselves in the ivory tower for too long, and it's time they understood what students need to be taught and what industry needs to be successful. Texas A&M is another really good example of this. They talk with stakeholder groups on a regular basis, including just completing a values survey. The institutional leaders currently are engaging in what they call Aggie 2030 to understand the future of higher education as a whole and where Texas A&M is going. This is the type of strategic planning that universities need to be doing with their alumni, stakeholders and the people who hire their graduates. Student Enrollment and Impact on Marketing Research and Spending. Another trend involves students making enrollment decisions based on their own proximity to a college. This is important for universities to realize and understand. Unless you are a R1 or major university, your students are more than likely going to come from a limited geographical pool. This has implications as to how and where you spend marketing dollars, but unfortunately, many institutions are wasting marketing dollars. As much as institutions would like to draw from a larger geographical area, institutions must put a greater emphasis on doing market research to understand where their students live and then spend the marketing dollars to get more students from that area. As the saying goes, fish where the fish are, because it's a waste of money otherwise. Harvard Lawsuit and Admissions. The Harvard lawsuit has the potential going all the way to the Supreme Court, and who knows how that will be decided with the current makeup of the Court. Cost Containment. We also will start to see far more cost containment as institutions no longer have the same level of disposable income. I think we will also start seeing the salaries of chief executives start to come down, especially as transparency hits the budgeting process. Higher Ed Funding. Cities and states will begin to fund college for students. The City of Chicago recently announced a new program where students will receive scholarships to cover costs of associate degrees that will be set up through DePaul University. And in another example, Starbucks is funding college for their people. We will start to see more of this as an employee benefit, but also as a way for businesses to invest in and retain quality employees. International Students. International students attending U.S. universities will continue to be an issue so long as the Trump administration continues to mess with immigration. This will continue to impact U.S. institutions as international students pay full tuition and universities use those funds to keep their bottom lines in the green. This is especially true with Chinese students.  Because of trade wars and increased emphasis on background checks, we will see fewer Chinese students enrolling in the nation’s higher education institutions. HBCUs.  I think the other one to look at HBCUs. I think there could be some really good things to come out of the HBCUs over the next few years. I've no idea what it is, but the crystal ball says to keep an eye on them.    Wrapping Up So long as the Trump administration is in office, we will continue to see turbulence coming out of the Department of Education and the rest of the government.  One thing is for sure: it will not be boring! Merry Christmas / happy Hanukkah, and wishing all the very best for 2019. Bullet Points Looking Back – The Highlights from 2018 Higher ed finds itself in the maturity to declining stages as characterized by declining enrollments, lack of differentiation in the higher ed marketplace, and an increase in market consolidation (M&A activity) and/or college closings. Over the last few years, 2016-2018, more than 100 colleges haves closed. Many can be directly attributed to ACICS being decertified by the Obama administration, but more relevant is where education is in the lifecycle and current operating environment.  State (and other) colleges are beginning to put more of an emphasis on attracting transfer students.  Privates are also getting into this space due to costs to both them and their students.  Some privates are co-locating at community colleges, renting space from them, and this gives their students a direct track to a four-year degree.    ACICS was decertified by the Obama administration in 2016, but Secretary DeVos reinstated its accreditation authority this year. There were many missteps with this whole process, but the most egregious of these was because of a conflict of interest (or appearance thereof) of the department senior official who made the case for ACICS’ reinstatement. Gainful employment is essentially dead for two reasons: The Education Department missed the filing deadline for the gainful employment rule so the changes that they want to make to gainful employment cannot come into play until mid-2020. Because of an inter-agency dispute over data sharing, the Ed Dept cannot get the data it needs to calculate gainful employment, thus essentially killing gainful employment. The Ed Department in November put out their draft ruling on new Title IX guidance. Overall, colleges and victims’ advocates are not happy with the changes. There are four major changes: The narrowing of the definition of sexual assault. Suggesting a higher standard for adjudication be used, i.e., “preponderance of evidence,” the same standard that is used in civil suits. Lessening the culpability of institutions and narrowing the reporting requirements. Giving the accused the right to cross-examine the victim. There is a failure in the governance process in many higher ed schools as exemplified by the Michigan State University sexual abuse scandal, and the death of a University of Maryland football player and the retaining of the football coach. More training needs to be done to ensure Regents understand their duties, and how governance has changed over the years. Looking Forward – Predictions for 2019 We will see an acceleration of mergers, consolidations and closures in higher ed. The 2019 Neg Reg process will begin a transformation of higher ed and its business model. Online education will continue its growth over the next 2-3 years. Much of this will be spurred by consolidation and strategic alliances with online providers. We will begin to see faculty promotion and tenure processes changing as a result of the need for universities to cull programs that are not financially viable. Market research will increasingly take root in higher ed, as institutions need to make smarter use of their marketing dollars by determining where their true prospective students are. Cost containment will continue to accelerate in higher ed, especially in privates where discounting has been the norm. This will find its way to the C suite and we will start to see a reduction of presidential salaries, especially at privates. We will start seeing more “interesting” ways for education to be funded. Part of this will come out of the Neg Reg process, but more city, state, and private entities will invest in their residents’ and employees’ futures. Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Product Lifecycle: http://www.quickmba.com/marketing/product/lifecycle/ National University System: https://nu.edu Department of Education: https://www.ed.gov/ Neg Reg 2019 Process: www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2018/index.html Your Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com

The higher ed sector has been relatively immune (or perhaps resistant?) to change since its inception, but in the past 10-15 years, and especially since the Great Recession, multiple things have changed, forcing changes on it. We now are seeing market forces unleashed, including consolidation, mergers/acquisitions, and closures as we’ve rarely seen before (and not in my lifetime). Understanding Higher Ed’s Situation To put what is happening in higher ed in perspective, we examine the higher ed marketplace through the lens of the product lifecycle (PLC). This is a tool marketing applies to products, but it also is relevant when examining market segments or industries. The PLC is made up of four stages: introduction, growth, maturity, and decline. The introduction stage is characterized by the organization building brand awareness; The growth stage is characterized by strong growth, and the organization building brand preference and increasing market share; The maturity stage is characterized by strong growth diminishing as “competition” rise and competitors offer similar “products.” This results in multiple possible marketing strategies including cutting prices, rethinking positioning and branding, and market consolidation; and The decline stage is characterized by sales significantly declining or having declined. In many cases, the product (or business) goes out of business or, as a last result, finds an acquirer (merger or acquisition). Higher ed finds itself in the maturity to declining stages as characterized by declining enrollments, lack of differentiation in the higher ed marketplace, and an increase in market consolidation (M&A activity) and/or college closings. There are many reasons why higher ed finds itself in this situation.    First, higher ed enrollment has decreased for a myriad of factors, not the least of which is changing demographics, i.e., the numbers of the “traditional” college age student has decreased.  Compounding this decrease, higher ed is becoming perceived as elitist, and many cannot afford its cost and/or the resultant student debt.  In other words, institutions are competing for a shrinking pool of students, and it costs more for an education that some feel isn’t worth the money spent or debt incurred. Second, there is an overabundance of education institutions – too many colleges and universities, and, with rare exceptions, they are offering the same types of programs, e.g., how many MBA programs do we need???  This has resulted in significant economic pressure on those small- to medium-sized colleges and universities who have a relatively small (or no) endowment. This pressure is compounded by cost curves that have been carved into stone over the last several decades. This is played out by larger institutions undercutting smaller institutions on price.  For example, the president of the University of Virginia recently announced that tuition will be free for families earning less than $80,000 a year, and if they earn less than $30,000 a year, they will get room and board. In another example, New York University is not charging their medical school students any tuition. Both of these institutions have large endowments to be able to do this, but how can the small- to mid-sized institutions compete? Lastly, there is pressure for the nonprofit higher ed sector to figure out what to do about the out-of-favor for-profit institutions. These three reasons, aside from the fact that there are market dynamics at play – there is more supply than demand – are driving many of the changes we’re seeing right now in higher ed. Mature and Declining Markets Give Rise to M&A Activity Some smaller colleges and universities under financial stress are looking for ways to solve their problems, and one way is merging with or being merged into another institution. The for-profit sector is a great example of where there has been significant M&A activity, e.g., Purdue and Kaplan forming Purdue Global, Strayer acquiring Capella, etc., as for-profits figure out their future when nonprofits are clearly in favor (and for-profits are clearly out-of-favor). This not completely changed, even with the change in administration. Mergers aren’t the only solution for this problem. Many for-profits are attempting the transition to nonprofit status, e.g., Grand Canyon University and University of Phoenix. However, this isn't always the easiest thing to do because of the regulatory permissions required from the Dept of Education and the institution’s accreditation body. Additionally, it doesn't solve their perception problems, at least immediately. Multiple Reasons for M&A Activity There are multiple reasons for increased M&A activity in the higher ed sector besides market forces at work, and we need to look at the reasons why M&A activity occurs.  Basically, there are three main reasons: New markets / customers New technologies Gain efficiencies in operations National University System is a good example of this – they’re on a buying spree and for all the right reasons. The National University System, a not-for-profit, currently has three nonprofit institutions under its umbrella: National University, the original mothership; JFK University in northern California, and the City University of Seattle, but over the past year, it has acquired Patten University for its technology and Northcentral University for its students and programs. M&A for New Technologies. In its acquisition of Patten University, NU acquired one of the best LMS systems in the marketplace. The system, which was called University Now, has been renamed Flex Course, and NU has adapted it for their own use. As part of the acquisition, National also acquired Patten’s courses which were heavily competency-based. This is also a good advantage in that they have been able to teach out the Patten programs and integrate the learnings into their current undergraduate programs. One thing that was critical in the acquisition was the ability to modify the LMS to ensure NU was able to continue to satisfy Title IV funding requirements which are driven by Carnegie units. Again, due diligence was critical in this respect. The technology was relatively new, and therefore it was easier to adapt it to satisfy Title IV funding requirements when doing CBE. Ultimately, NU has great hopes that this acquisition will help them to transform the online learning experience at all its universities. In other words, National did a great job in completing its due diligence. M&A as a Growth Strategy. There are two ways that institution grow. One is through organic growth, i.e., you decide you will move into the online sector and you build your program from scratch. Many institutions have done this, and the most recent (and possibly the most famous) of these is the announced online undergraduate program at the University of Pennsylvania, the first of the Ivy League institutions to go online with a program. The second strategy is acquisition, which is how the National University System is expanding their doctoral offerings. NU acquired Northcentral University (pending appropriate WSCUC and DOE approvals), an online for-profit university that offers mostly graduate education programs at the master and doctoral levels. This fills a gap that NU had at the doctoral level and adds to its ability to offer online and blended courses. National is already predominantly online – 51 percent of its students are in synchronous or asynchronous online programs – but its acquisition of Northcentral was critical in three ways. First, Northcentral is completely online and has 24 programs, the majority of which are doctoral, an area NU wanted to expand its offerings. Second, the Northcentral faculty are high quality and located in nearly all of the 50 states. The model that they use is one-on-one similar to the Oxford Tutorial Model, which having your faculty are distributed across the country is an advantage when using this pedagogy. Lastly, National acquires a pretty efficient OPM support back-office. As far as the culture goes, NU expects they will get some real experience bringing the for-profit Northcentral University into the NU System and converting it to a not-for-profit. National’s acquisitions have been very strategic in nature – they have looked at multiple opportunities and walked away from many. With these two, they’ve made good choices in line with their overall strategic plan and done the due diligence to ensure they are picking the right horse. Remember that Culture Issue We Had… Culture is critical when considering a merger. Years ago, when HP acquired Compaq, it was the culture differences that most impacted the success (or lack thereof) of the merger. The Purdue Global situation is a good example of the challenges merger entities can face. Purdue “bought” Kaplan, i.e., Purdue got the franchise of the online courseware from the Kaplan organization, while Kaplan retained the back-office processing and support, and the OPM.  Kaplan’s portion of the entity, still for-profit, is being paid for by the profits they're going to make, while the courses are offered through the not-for-profit Purdue Global. Many consider the merger between Purdue, a Tier 1 research university with a very high reputation and traditional faculty, and Kaplan, a good institution in its own right but a for-profit online, a very gutsy move – especially when one considers the faculty culture aspects. Why is there resistance to this change is relatively simple to understand. Culture. The integration of cultures is never easy.  Sometimes, when two cultures come together as Purdue and Kaplan are attempting to do, they merge like oil and water. And that's one of the most important things that folks doing mergers and acquisitions must think about – how the cultures align – because more than anything else, it is culture that can destroy a merger and eliminate the efficiencies that the merger is designed to take advantage of. Take for instance the merger of Kaplan and Purdue. Kaplan, a for-profit, and Purdue, a R1 university, are very different cultures, especially when it comes to faculty.  Regardless of the high quality of Kaplan, an institution which has stayed pretty much out of trouble in terms of the scrutiny of the for-profit community, Kaplan’s online degree programs themselves are a challenge to Purdue’s “in classroom” campus programs that a R1 institutions are experienced in providing. Faculty, and especially traditional, research faculty, generally tend not to like a lot of change, nor are they wild about online education. And we can just imagine what a traditional, research faculty such as Purdue’s felt about merging with a for-profit online institution. From all reports, the faculty was furious when the merger was first announced – their “brand” was being diluted by this incorporated new global entity called Purdue Global that included a for-profit institution. The merger has progressed, and faculty and administration appear to have come to a truce, at least for now. That said, Purdue is spending significantly to market Purdue Global – it is in almost every market with TV and radio ads – while trying to keep marketing positioning separate between Purdue and Purdue Global.  It has yet to be seen as to whether they are able to keep their faculty happy about it or the branding separate, but that’s a whole different kettle of fish. The Future of the For-Profit Sector The for-profit sector is not going to disappear, as much as much of higher ed would like it to. However, there are market forces at play here too, and the for-profit sector may morph its way towards a higher concentration of those who survived to be distributors of OPM or programs.  An example of this is MOOCs.  When you look at several of the MOOC organizations, e.g., Udacity, EDX, etc., these organizations are not just providing learning experiences, they are turning into distributors of traditional degree programs, including even graduate programs for R1 universities. This, plus being obvious merger targets, will continue the upheaval in this sector. We believe that we will see more mergers and less of the organic growth from for-profits, including for-profits becoming part of nonprofits similar to what is happened with Purdue Global, as well as mergers to share back office services. One example of this is TCS Education System, who provides back-office services for a number of institutions. These types of mergers could have a major impact in the online space, especially for small to medium-sized institutions, as it is almost impossible for them to establish the infrastructure to do an effective job in online education – the only way for them to get and/or stay competitive in the online space is to “outsource” back-office functionality. Federal Funding and Accreditation There are also a number of changes in regulatory and accreditation factors between Obama and the Trump administrations that are impacting higher ed. Federal Funding. In a recent talk given by Secretary DeVos, her current position is focused not on the change in the standards but rather more on making Title IV funds available for a broader variety of learning experiences. She conveyed a pretty strong feeling that we should not be committing all postsecondary education funding to what we now call hire traditional higher ed, but to improve the flow of federal funds to retraining programs. Accreditation. There are not a lot of people who believe that we will move dramatically away from the kind of accreditation process we currently have for a myriad of reasons, despite the upcoming Neg Reg process which begins in early 2019 focusing on accreditation and innovation. Big changes from in accreditation will need to include a willingness to think in competency-based terms. This will require a major shift away from the strict Carnegie method of determining learning, to more of a competency-based approach to assessing learning outcomes.  Simply put, it is much more important to know that people are learning and being able to demonstrate learning outcomes than it is to demonstrate how long they sat in a seat. However, changing this mindset will be very challenging as it has been this way for well over 100 years. Additionally, those with marketing backgrounds know that accreditation is the university system's greatest barrier to entry. It is important that universities meet a quality level, but the current system requires institutions develop prima facie evidence of quality, and many potential competitors get frustrated before they get accredited. This could be one reason why the accreditation system as we currently know it does not (and will not) change. Three Things University Presidents Should Consider Before Merger If you are considering merging with another institution, there are three things you should consider. First, culture. You must examine the cultures of the two organizations to ensure that they are mergeable, i.e., that the two cultures are not contrary to one another. There are clear differences between for-profit and not-for-profit cultures, and you must “test the water” and see just how much of a business the for-profit institution sees themselves as vs. it being a learning institution. Second, regardless as to whether it is a for-profit or not-for-profit entity, does the acquired institution have the programs, faculty and administrative support that is consistent and that will integrate effectively with your own. This is critical but especially critical with respect to faculty. Faculty generates and own the content, and it is essential you have a group who can drive the learning experience for students. That's not something that you can import easily – you must make sure that it fits your own model about how it's going to work. Thirdly, you have to look at the institution as a business. You (obviously) don’t want to take on something that is so broken that it cannot be fixed no matter how hard you try. For example, you have to ask yourself, are they hopelessly lost as a business model? Are their programs of interest to the marketplace? One of the biggest challenges institutions are having today is pruning and culling their programs, and leaders must have the courage to look faculty in the eye and say, “by the way, that course is costing us lots of money, and you only have five people in it. We know you may like it, but we can't continue to teach a course that students don't want.” That can be a really tough academic decision, but one that must be made. Wrapping Up We believe that the disruption going on in higher ed has just started and that surviving and thriving in the higher ed space will take intense focus to fine tune the systems, processes, and cost structure if institutions are going to compete and survive. Competition for the adult student has heated up dramatically. Whether we like it or not, this is not only because more traditional institutions have decided to get into the market, but also because multiple institutions are now competing on price, including those that have state subsidies federal subsidies, and/or have large endowments. This can make it very difficult for smaller institutions to compete against as it allows larger institutions to “give away” of their offerings. Bullet Points: The higher ed sector has been relatively immune (or perhaps resistant?) to change since its inception, but in the past 10-15 years, and especially since the Great Recession, multiple things have changed, forcing changes on it. We now are seeing market forces unleashed, including consolidation, mergers/acquisitions, and closures as we’ve rarely seen before (and not in my lifetime). Higher ed finds itself in the maturity to declining stages of the product lifecycle as characterized by declining enrollments, lack of differentiation in the higher ed marketplace, and an increase in market consolidation (M&A activity) and/or college closings. Some smaller colleges and universities under financial stress are looking for ways to solve their problems, and one way is merging with or being merged into another institution. There are multiple reasons for increased M&A activity in the higher ed sector besides market forces at work, and we need to look at the reasons why M&A activity occurs.  Basically, there are three main reasons: New markets/customers, new technologies, or gains in efficiencies in operations. Culture is critical when considering a merger, but the integration of cultures is never easy.  We believe that we will see more mergers and less of the organic growth from for-profits, including for-profits becoming part of nonprofits. The Ed Department under Secretary DeVos believes it should not be committing all postsecondary education funding to what we now call hire traditional higher ed, but to improve the flow of federal funds to retraining programs. Big changes from in accreditation will need to include a willingness to think in competency-based terms. This will require a major shift away from the strict Carnegie method of determining learning, to more of a competency-based approach to assessing learning outcomes.  One reason why the accreditation system as we currently know it does not (and will not) change is that accreditation is the university system's greatest barrier to entry. If you are considering merging with another institution, there are three things you should consider: Are the cultures mergeable? Does the acquired institution see themselves as a business vs. being a learning institution (or vice versa)? Does the acquired institution have the programs, faculty and administrative support that is consistent and that will integrate effectively with your own? Is the acquired institution in good financial situation, or is it so broken that it cannot be fixed no matter how hard you try?  Are they hopelessly lost as a business model? Are their programs of interest to the marketplace? The disruption going on in higher ed has just started, and that surviving and thriving in the higher ed space will take intense focus to fine tune the systems, processes, and cost structure if institutions are going to compete and survive. Competition for the adult student has heated up dramatically.   Links to Articles, Apps, or websites mentioned during the interview: Product Lifecycle: http://www.quickmba.com/marketing/product/lifecycle/ National University System: https://nu.edu Department of Education: https://www.ed.gov/ WASC Senior College and University Commission: https://www.wscuc.org/ Guests Social Media Links: Gerry Czarnecki Twitter: https://twitter.com/gerryczarnecki?lang=en Gerry Czarnecki Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/theczar/ Gerry Czarnecki website: http://gerryczarnecki.com/  Your Social Media Links: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/drdrumm/ Twitter: @thechangeldr Email: podcast@changinghighered.com and drumm@thechangeleader.com