Jan-Feb 2012, Featured Articles, Ed News, Higher Ed

Higher Education in 2020

By Artom George Katkoff   Thu, Jan 05, 2012

In an unpredictable, highly competitive global economy, higher education institutions in our country have been slow to adapt to the technology-driven shifts in demand for training accessibility, relevant programming and instruction, distance education and the value younger generations and learning adults are seeking from higher education and continued career training. In the 21^st century, knowledge is accessible to everyone - so we must rethink what value “higher education” will provide younger generations and what synergies can be made from sharing knowledge through different modalities. In the end it will be our ability to quickly access, retain and collaborate from our learning experiences that will lead to positive change in the United States.

On a large scale, our nation demands change from higher education – colleges and universities are being asked to improve retention, increase the value of matriculated programming, cut costs and compete with for-profit, distance education, vocational and trade schools. Given the time and transportation constraints that arise out of a bad economy, for many Americans it is difficult to justify the investment in the time and energy required to enroll in and complete lengthy academic programs through traditional campus advising, enrollment and pedagogical processes. In a labor market that values experience over ascription the opportunity costs are just too high.

Higher education must ask itself how it is approaching its service to society from the perspective of the student, who demands a simplified enrollment, payment and registration process and, like anyone evaluating a long term investment in time, money and energy, what value they will be receiving through the learning process. Change has been slow and failure to provide 21^st century services, and relevant programming that will put and motivate America to work, is disenchanting younger generations from pursuing tertiary and continued education, leaving our labor resources at a long-term disadvantage to countries like China, India, Russia, Indonesia and Brazil. 

There is no quick fix to the education crisis our nation faces and there are difficult decisions that will need to be made in the time ahead. Institutions without sound strategic direction for how to shift their offerings and streamline their internal processes in the coming years will risk losing relevance or risk going out of business entirely. So what will higher education in America look like ten years from now? What fundamental changes can we expect to occur in our industry beginning in 2012? 

Firstly, we can’t expect the fiscal environment to change in the short to medium term. Campus administrators will be faced with a prolonged period of budgetary contraction or stagnation, meaning that to be able to provide the same level of service to constituents, institutions will need to evaluate and come up with new ways of managing internal workflow and prioritizing research and academic activities to align themselves to what will serve the greatest value to society. This will happen both outwardly in the types of programming that will remain available based on demand, and inwardly through the technology resources institutions utilize to manage the student life cycle, administration and curriculum delivery. 

Not all institutions will be able to anticipate, accept and manage the institutional change that will be necessary to provide the same level of service in the coming years. In these cases services will decrease; staff will be let go and departments will be cut under budgetary pressure. In extreme cases institutions will have to fight for their survival as students choose to pursue their investment in education elsewhere, where the services they have grown to expect are being offered, either online or in person. 

Administrators will need to be prepared for an atmosphere of “healthy competition” in the coming years – an idea that was fledged out at this year’s CAEL International Conference by a panel of senior administrators from the Chicago area. While they all agreed that brand promotion and marketing strategies will be important points of differentiation in the years to come, they also noted that differences in “institutional infrastructure” as it relates to processes and services associated with adult learners will be equally important. Ultimately – “without student centric processes and support, a university can’t compete effectively for the adult learner and won’t be able to attract or retain them.. [and the] competitive landscape [will] drive change to produce better, more accessible adult-focused programs [and be] both good for the student and good for the university”.  You can find out more about the CAEL forum here: http://www.insidetrack.com/blog/?p=771 

Success for administrators will also depend on their ability to collaborate with their personnel and operate under data sharing models that promote cooperation and decentralization of decision making. Especially it is important for these models to openly communicate with 3^rd party solutions that are often more nimble to provide specialized web 2.0 applications that are essential to meeting marketplace expectations for online services. As in order to be successful with the implementation of a student-centric support process, administrators will need an integrated suite of web 2.0, business information and e-learning tools to facilitate this process in a way legacy ERP’s are incapable. 

The development of Synchronous and a-Synchronous online learning and collaboration tools like the ones being dreamed up at CampusCE are quickly transforming the traditional “brick-and-mortar” college experience into a dynamic, digital, instructor-student collaboration that several years ago we would never have thought possible. In order to be able to avoid the grim circumstances outlined in the previous paragraphs, institutions will have to address the dogmas surrounding centralized IT infrastructures that limit departmental flexibility to meet market demands for streamlined, student focused, student life- cycle management processes and the fears associated with student information management models that include multiple hubs. Ultimately, the onus will fall on campus IT leadership and senior administration to partner with 3^rd party providers, champion change in the student life cycle management process, lead integration discussions and implement multi-hub data management models to ensure the long-term success of their institutions.

By Artom George Katkoff

Artom George Katkoff is a higher education technology marketing professional whose background is in providing web-based applications for higher education administration, distance learning and e-commerce. Artom "Tom" holds a bachelor's degree in business administration from the University of Washington with a focus on technology and innovation management, e-marketing and entrepreneurship.

More Featured Articles