Governing bodies need to understand universities better

Worldwide, the public values higher education for its contributions to social and economic advancement, scientific discoveries and cultural enrichment. While many believe that college is worth the cost in terms of individual and public benefit, increasing numbers question college costs, leadership and value.

In the United States, Moody’s, the credit rating agency, has downgraded the stability of higher education institutions to ‘negative’ from ‘stable’ due to factors including vulnerabilities in enrolment and tuition revenues; gift support from individuals; foundations and corporations; tax policy; and the cost of debt for facilities.

What can be done? Who is responsible for the governance of colleges and universities?

The challenges of demographic change, economic stresses, politics and technological advances are universal and while, titles may vary, it is college and university presidents and boards of trustees, or their equivalent, who ultimately are responsible.

Understanding higher education

Who governs universities? How are they selected? How are they prepared for their duties? To whom are they accountable?

I believe there should be greater alignment between the mission, goals and strategies of a university; the criteria for selection to a governing position; the criteria for selecting faculty; and the mission for academic study, among other elements.

Just as corporate boards require members who know the industry, science and markets at the core of the company’s strategy, so too universities benefit from trustees who can contribute substantively to planning and decision-making, and not just to annual or capital gifts.

University trustees are most effective when they know the history, the mission and purpose of an institution, the students to be served and the competitive landscape, as well as its comparative advantages. As a consequence, governing bodies are enhanced when they include members who have experience in and knowledge of higher education.

Board members need to be knowledgeable about the complexities of higher education financing, quality controls, government regulations and legal requirements, financial aid policies and other issues if they are to be effective in their roles. For these reasons, they should be chosen thoughtfully and provided with an ongoing orientation to their responsibilities.

In the US, trustees often wish to serve because they believe it is time to give back to an institution that was important to them at a critical time in their lives. While this motive is honourable, it does not reflect the true nature of what is needed for the position.

Board service, if done well, is work. It takes energy, imagination and commitment – not old sentiments revisited.

Asking questions

In my experience, boards are most effective when members know the difference between governance and management and have the gumption to ask questions about things they do not understand or with which they disagree.

Members should not seek a board position for prestige any more than a corporate director should take a board position because of the stipend. They should collectively have the expertise necessary to guide a complex organisation with multiple functions and sources of revenue. Effective trusteeship requires time and talent as well as treasure.

One reason for the more frequent reports of turmoil in college and university governance and leadership is the perceived lack of respect for the tradition of ‘shared governance’. This is the system whereby powers are delegated by the governing board to the president as chief executive officer and to the faculty as guardians of academic programmes and standards.

Shared governance is not without its challenges. One argument against it is that it slows down the process of making decisions. Another is that those sharing in governance do not share equally.

Yes, there are patterns of institutional behaviour, such as the academic calendar, that temper the possibility of sharing more fully. Nevertheless, clear and open communications and trust are essential, with ‘no surprises’ as a fundamental value.

The prevalence of cases in which presidents are removed precipitously or appointed without an adequate search or the involvement of faculty, or where there are conflicts due to lack of faculty consultation over staffing or budgets serve to undermine the ideal of shared governance on all campuses, not just those immediately affected.

The corporate university

Another concern is that higher education governance is becoming too corporate, too top-down, too focused on money over mission, on marketing and status over student and faculty success. It sometimes seems as if institutional leaders have forgotten the purposes and values that have distinguished higher learning and continue to do so.

A frequently cited sign of corporatisation is the increasing number of part-time and contingent faculty. These faculty are not as available for monitoring quality, advising students, sponsoring student clubs, developing curriculum, managing internships, nurturing younger faculty and serving on faculty and university-wide committees.

Unlike the goals of a corporation or private business, with profit, market share and, for some, share price, being of primary importance, the goals for an institution of higher education cannot be measured so precisely. When the goals are prestige or moving up in national or regional rankings, the strategies are not always clear.

Even for more fundamental goals such as increasing the graduation rate, the means for achieving them are complex and multifaceted. They require astute governance, dedicated leadership and a deep understanding of the institution’s cost structure and value system.

The importance of faculty

The role of faculty is often misunderstood. Just as one cannot imagine a hospital without medical doctors, we should not contemplate universities without faculty. They are the heart of the institution, giving life to the programmes that fulfil the campus purpose and nurturing in students a love of learning.

Students add to the spirit of an institution, help give it personality, or soul, and become its legacy. The administration and staff are the essential organs giving nourishment to its parts. It is the collective goal of educators to prepare students to learn on their own and in groups. We cannot promise to teach them everything, but we can promise to help advance their abilities to learn anything.

The benefits of higher education are as needed now as ever before: faculty as teachers and students as learners engaged in transformational experiences by discussing and debating historic and new ideas. It is the faculty’s role to inspire and critique student writing and to involve students in research projects.

Higher education can certainly do more to manage costs and control tuition increases and to be more transparent, but reducing full-time tenure-track faculty and hiring more part-time or contingent faculty is not the route to take for student success.

The purpose of higher education is to liberate students from their provincial origins and help them chart a life of meaning as well as one in which they can earn a living. The value of such an education is both timeless and limitless. To fulfil this purpose, we need a better alignment of institutional mission and strategies, societal needs and campus resource allocation priorities and rewards.

It is the responsibility of university leadership and governance, wherever it is located, to be mission-based and market sensitive.

Robert A Scott is president emeritus of Adelphi University, United States. This essay is drawn from his book, How University Boards Work, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018.