The Future of International Higher Education

Dear Team (Because we are in this together),

I want to share some thoughts with you because, given recent events, it is becoming obvious that my personal timeline I had is shortening. For that last 10 years I have seen the demise of international higher education as I knew it. Others have identified increased global competition, tightening regulations, and changes in how we provide and consume knowledge — these have all had a profound effect on the world where we have worked and lived for a significant part of our careers. My hope had been to survive, hoping that others with clearer minds, greater energies, and more powerful spirits would find a path forward. I had been content with passing along whatever lessons I had learned to my colleagues so that they could find success and continue the mission of “saving the world — one student at a time”.

Unfortunately, each day we see the world changing more rapidly; the acceleration and convergence of the challenges listed above make me doubt my ability to play out my personal 10 year plan. As a result, I have decided to present these ideas for proceeding forward to other leaders in the field for their consideration. Perhaps even to spur myself to greater action?

Given the current rapidly changing economic and political climate I believe there must be 5 Basic Pillars to the building of a successful education-focused enterprise. While I do not believe any single idea is new or innovative, I believe I may be one of the few willing to lay aside notions of operating in a single set of national boundaries and I have attempted to release myself of any bias or loyalty to any specific sector. The ideas put forth below are organized in an order from more to specific to International Higher Education to more general to any enterprise operating in today’s global marketplace. Though the last two sections may be applicable in many fields, I do believe Higher Education can benefit from these ideas in some very specific ways.

To really create a global higher education enterprise, it must be:

· Non-US, Non-Western Focused

· Service Centered

· Committed to Mobility of Content

· Embracing Technology as a Support

· Innovative

1. Non-US, Non-Western Focused

Perhaps the most obvious and clear of these Pillars, this first principle is a basic foundation of the other four. The age of the pre-eminence of US Higher Education is over. Anyone who maintains this is not the case is doomed to fade and wilt along as so much ivy covering the towers they are clinging to. While many of the top higher education institutions still thrive in the US, they do so with a very international outlook and presence. Also, to point to a few gleaming castles on the hill (and ignore the majority of institution struggling to remain relevant) is burying one’s head in the sand out of desperation. The closing of campuses (around the world) will accelerate as competition of equally capable and better equipped, lower cost and generally more accessible educational models grow and thrive in other countries.

This is not to say the US will not continue to be prominent in higher education but, unless this sector receives the same level of government and private support as in other countries, we will have to face the demise of our once sole status as the premier example of what higher education could be. Even if the most liberal progressive ideas were to be enacted today (e.g., free college) this would still result in extreme shrinkage of the number of institutions as there will never be enough resources to support all the small private colleges and universities that sprouted like weeds during the boom years. In fact, much of the issues we are experiencing today are the result of this expansion in size and range of institution and most importantly in the cost.

In short, we have lost our way and, as a result, permanently lost our standing as “The Leader” in higher education and so we must learn to share in order to move forward.

So any model for an institution or higher education sector oriented enterprise must also move away from the perception that simply because it is associated with US higher education it will succeed. New models must be global at their foundation and at their core. The discussion can no longer be how does a US college or university survive in a global marketplace, but what is the model for a global higher education enterprise or sector and what are the requisite pieces we need in order to thrive.

2. Service centered

While my career has been focused within higher education institutions, I speak here about higher education as a sector of the global economy with many different core and supporting industries. Successful future models for building lucrative self-sustaining pieces of this industrial complex must have some focus on the production of services. There are already very successful models embedded in higher education which we can point to as examples. Food services is a prime example. I challenge you to think of more than 2–3 top providers that offer food service to over 90% of the campuses in the US. In fact, these companies incorporate many of the ideals I present here, as does the financial sector.

With a global perspective and a service orientation, these once US-focused industries have grown and moved into renewed states of success. While traditional higher education models are difficult to transform there are numerous functions and sectors, like food services, which could provide the leverage to institutions to make changes needed to transition. As shrinkage in the traditional model accelerates there will be both structural and human resources that could be leveraged for the benefit of supporting a global higher education industry.

Human Resource management is one sector that could see more integration across institutions and benefit from the use of technology. More specific to education is the creation of content across technical platforms which could provide smaller institutions opportunities to leverage their uniqueness globally.

Identifying other areas around which institutions could build complex global education networks and then create new industries around these is the challenge.

3. Committed to Mobility of Content

The traditional model of higher education, that is, students in a classroom with an instructor has already proven to be in demise. In the global marketplace of today, this will become an even less significant part of the way students gain knowledge and institutions thrive. While “place” will continue to be part of an institutions identity, “places” where that institution’s knowledge or services are consumed or provided will be more important. In this respect the range and types of partnerships will become primary.

One sector within all US institutions that could be leveraged to assist in this process is Study Abroad. Along with the well-worn Faculty Led Program model, institutions have numerous partnerships with schools for exchanges at the faculty and student level. Expanding these to share courses, programs, degrees, and even departments or merging across national boundaries is the future. Re-imagining what the educational goals should be, including who the student could be, will identify markets and opportunities both for those generating knowledge and content and for those creating platforms for its dissemination.

4. Embracing Technology as a Support

The main point of this Pillar is not to state the obvious, that technology should be used for both the creation of new forms of education and its dissemination. Instead, I want to emphasis that we must adhere strictly to the ideal that technology is only a tool, not the end result. Classrooms have existed in many forms, from the earliest story-tellers under a tree or by a fireside, to the so-call Smart Boards and Smart Classrooms of today, but the experience of educating and learning is what determines success, tech should not become the driver of the outcomes or this experience.

Today there are too many technologies being offered that make claims in regard to how they will ease or solve the problems of the day. To be more direct there are too many talented salespeople and marketers who know how to feed off the fear so prevalent in the education sector that they can sell their products as tools for the support of education, when in fact these technologies main purpose has become to expand their presence in the marketplace.

Whether an institution is seeking new ways to support their efforts or a creator of technology is seeking to develop innovative tools, certain guidelines should be kept in mind. The technology should address a specific task or problem. Attempting to be THE SOLUTION and expand to cover all areas of perceived or created needs and thus create the perception that it is indispensable will eventually lead to these tools collapsing under their own weight. As with traditional tools, tech must know when to innovate, what to keep the same, and when it has outlived its usefulness.

A trip to the hardware store offers a few lessons to those seeking to support higher education today. The basic design of a hammer has remained the same since the first person tied a stone to a piece of wood. However, because there are many potential uses for a hammer there are hundreds of styles, sizes, weights, and designs. There is one general function but because of a range of specific uses and personal preference each design which exists has found a large enough sector of the marketplace to thrive. When it comes to technology, providers focus too much on creating tools that claim to be flexible and adaptable, when in fact they often force institutions to conform to “industry standards” they have created. Innovative technology providers should focus more on being like the hardware store offering what consumers really need and want, rather than forcing them to accept what they have. New tech has promised many things but the one area where it has sorely failed is in the degree of flexibility and adaptability available. Successful technology should be like the hammer, the nail, the level, the screwdriver and the drill, all coming together to build and maintain the house that is education. Technological innovators should also think about the very real problems technology itself has created for learning, thought, and thus higher education and work to solve these.

One area that is yet sorely under-addressed is the verification of knowledge and content. While digital content is convenient and quickly disseminated it is also easily corrupted. Text, photos, and video can all be edited to change or provide “alternate facts” and today one can too easily imagine an Orwellian time and place where history never happened. Simply flooding ourselves with information requires us only to live in the “now”. How could the tools of critical thinking and the ethics of learning guide innovations in technology to protect our future? Traditional higher education or what it is at its core need not pass away but it must evolve.

At the same time, institutions must take back their ability/power to drive the creation of technological tools. Another area where the creation of strategic partnerships could prove helpful is through the creation of purchasing sectors, which could be leveraged for the better pricing or terms. As institutions share content and academic programs, they can share strategies or work together to develop the technology to deliver these.

In addition and to follow on the tool analogy, institutions must recognize there are times to buy a hammer and there will be times to hire a contractor to come in and build an addition or remodel a kitchen. However, as with a home contractor, consultants should be short-term experts who make assessments, provide recommendations and where appropriate assist in the implementation. Consultants should not be so vital that they remain or become as if they are a member of the institution. Senior administrators should exercise care in the depth of their relationship with such consultants. These relationships should not take precedent over their internal relationships. If the needs or depth of relationship exceeds these standards, then this should raise questions regarding the structure or personnel in place as the institution may require more permanent change than a consultant could provide.

Finally, as institutions seek new technologies to support their systems they should understand that these investments entail their risk. Well informed, intelligent people will make poor decisions. Bad players will seek to guide some of these decisions for their own benefit. But this should not force institutions to jail themselves to a single path out of fear of reprisals. Staying the path, should not apply to the tools one uses as much as buying the wrong type of hammer should not prevent one from going back and getting the correct tool. Of course this entails changes in the tech marketplace, which would permit the purchase of more task specific tools, at a lower cost of entry, and thus reduce the risk associated with technologies claiming to solve a range of issues.

5. Maintaining Innovative Approaches

Innovation is often discussed when institutions are embarking on a new project, as a means of generating interest, excitement, or justifying the new initiative. However, the ideal of true innovation is often quickly set aside once that new project or initiative becomes ingrained in the structure of the institution. To understand how to remain relevant and innovative we must understand certain key elements of this term.

Innovation requires work, hard work, on a constant basis. The development of a new idea into a process or tool involves experimentation, investments, and failures. Edison’s most famous remarks about his success revolved around the sweat he experienced to get the one success and then the subsequent need for constant improvements.

Innovation requires change, the constant ability and willingness to change. Thinking outside the box doesn’t end with one box. There is always the next box to think out of, the process never ends or stops with solving one problem or solving one problem at a time.

Innovation requires flexibility. The recognition that, “we do not do it that way” is a good sign an institution will eventually fail, is so ubiquitous it is almost ignored in practice. Care must be taken that process or practice are not mistaken for or treated as policy.

Innovation requires a high tolerance for risk. Again Edison among other great innovators, will often comment on their failures as the most important catalyst for their eventual success. It also requires one to recognize failure and then change course. Without a tolerance for failure built into the calculations success will not be possible.

So with these characteristics in mind how do seasoned leaders play to our strengths? Recognizing our personal limitations, energy, and the prejudices we have developed, how do we remain innovative? First we must look to what senior administrators and thought leaders bring to the table. The primary of these is experience and seasoned judgement. Both of these should not be directed at the innovative ideas themselves but more at the people who are building and implementing them. By far the best a seasoned leader can do is build a good team and manage them effectively. Provide the support needed for the hard work, and offer the room to fail. Let go of everything else, including your own fear.

Seasoned leaders also have networks of individuals they can call on for expertise, feedback, consultation when needed, and support in challenging times. A successful leader should also have enough experience to let go of the need for personal fulfillment or kudos. At this stage, success should no longer be about personal ego, but about the recognition that as a leader you are preparing the next generation to lead. This means you are preparing to step aside and the success of your team and individuals on that team is only in part yours. This should be enough.

If you still have something to prove, you will be unwilling to trust in those you manage. If success has to be about you, then you will be unable to listen to those who may be able to bring the next great idea to the table. If what you have is not enough, then you will be unable to take the risks necessary to do much more than maintain the status quo.

In conclusion…

First of all, I realize some of the ideas I have offered are self-evident and may come across as tired maxims. Second I have not offered nearly enough in the form of specific solutions or examples of ways these ideas could be implemented in international higher education today. For me this is a beginning, taking some of my own advice, I am taking the risk to be a leader and put forth my experience and observations in the hopes of eliciting feedback and more importantly stirring up my own thoughts about what could be next. By putting out these ideas I am in a sense making them real and owning my connection to them, and I am now forced to continue building on them or abandon them.

But to provide some preview of what might come I offer some general conclusions.

1) We must not permit our fears to drive our actions or decisions, in the near future some institutions will fail, many will no longer exist in a form we will recognize now. We must embrace this, not run from it. If the ideals at the heart of what we believe are to continue, if the traditions we have built are to have any continued meaning, then we must move forward. Fear of failure, embarrassment or shame, an unwillingness to except responsibility for good but unpopular decisions and actions will not permit what is necessary. So private/public partnerships, foreign managed institutions, non-traditional learning or teaching, smaller more focused institutions that provide that one unique experience or set of knowledge, greater integration of learning so the liberal arts is not about the need for specific departments or courses but better trained faculty to bring this to every classroom and learning space, and transnational, multi-institutional student mobility over the course of one’s education, all must be on the table for consideration. These are only the more conservative of some ideas. Equally important, fear will prevent the walking back from decisions that did not live up to the promise.

2) There is no magic bullet. The structural changes briefly outlined here will take grinding hard work and the commitment to see them through. Again if fear drives our decisions we will make ourselves inclined to believe those willing to offer “the solution”. Whether one decides to stay on a more traditional course or leap into some very creative enterprise it should be based on careful consideration, not the idea that it will “save” the institution. If an institution is in need of real saving, then the next decisions should be more focused on how do we equitably and justly wind things down? This will take much more courage and work. Thriving in a world that is as demanding as we live in today requires deep structural change that no one ideal or solution can offer.

Finally, but most importantly, we must lay aside any notion of the preeminent nature of US Higher Education and commit to being truly global in our thoughts, focus, and actions. This will entail new types of partnerships, recognition that knowledge generation and sharing knowledge involves risk, as it could be used in negative ways, but we must retain hope in the ideal that through collaboration and shared experience the reasons many of us became involved in this field will ring true. Perhaps we can still save the world one student at a time?

Alfredo Varela is Vice President at Academic Assembly, a strategic advisory firm specializing in global higher education and reinvention.For more information you may contact him at alfredo.varela@academicassembly.com