No Brainer University of Chicago

Not providing adequate lactation stations at University of Chicago is an odd problem to have and last time I checked the year was 2013. It seems to me, as an outsider to this world class and illustrious institution, this is an easy fix.

Note: for this article I will not comment on the drive to unionize graduate teaching assistants or to increase pay and benefits (not to mention adjuncts), but I will ask this simple question; what should University of Chicago do to do the right thing for its students?

As stated in the article, federal law requires, “a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public, which may be used by an employee to express breast milk.”

Having a one-year old, I know all too well what my wife has gone through when trying to breastfeed in public or pump at work. Luckily her work has been supportive in providing a place to breastfeed even though she is not a full-time employee, but when she has been out, stores and other locations have been far from supportive. First of all, a bathroom is not an adequate place to breastfeed or pump; feel free to read the spirited discussion of first hand accounts in the comments section of the Inside Higher Ed article. Next, pumping is very different than breastfeeding; you need a quiet, private place to pump with no interruptions or fear of being walked in on. Besides the modesty aspect of pumping, you need to focus on the task on hand and relax; something you cannot do if you are nervous about someone walk in on you or if the person next to you in the bathroom is doing their business.

A quick background on University of Chicago. University of Chicago is highly ranked by all the ranking organizations; Times Higher Education, QS World University Rankings, Academic Rankings of World Universities, Washington Monthly, Forbes, and US News & World Report (I am sure I forgot some). University of Chicago has an endowment of $6.5 billion with around 14,000 students; the majority being graduate or professional students.

Because of the rankings, endowment, and everything else, Univesity of Chicago attracts highly motivated and accomplished students, faculty, and staff. I assume University of Chicago wants to be known as an employer of choice and offer excellent support and benefits to all their faculty and staff; even institutions like University of Chicago, Ivy League institutions, Stanford, Berkeley, MIT, and the like around the world have to compete with each other for talent. I will state the obvious, University of Chicago is not Chicago State University, a public institution 5.5 miles south with a small endowment (not to pick on Chicago State University); they can afford to update or add a few lactation stations to meet the needs of their students, faculty, and staff.

It seems the crux of the article, from the author’s perspective, is for colleges and universities to recognize graduate teaching assistants as employees because they would then be eligible for benefits. I am not sure if graduate students are considered part-time employees not eligible for benefits or if they are contract employees (not eligible for benefits), but University of Chicago should do the right thing and provide private lactation stations not only to their employees but students.

If University of Chicago provides more private lactation stations they will create a truly family friendly campus and get a lot of marketing mileage out of this simple benefit. But if they don’t and if enough women and men are affected by this along and other non-family friendly issues, real or perceived, then highly motivated and qualified students, faculty, and staff will go somewhere else to study, teach, and work. And if this happens enough times, University of Chicago’s world academic standing will take a hit, and even a modest hit in the rankings will upset the board of directors and the alumni association forcing University of Chicago to do the right thing.

Mergers in Georgia

Public higher education in Georgia is a flurry of activity. North Georgia College and State University merged with Gainesville State College to form University of North Georgia. Georgia Health Sciences University and Augusta State University merged to form Georgia Regents University. Macon State College and Middle Georgia College merged to form Middle Georgia State College. South Georgia College and Waycross College merged to form South Georgia State College. And recently announced, Kennesaw State University will merge with Southern Polytechnic State University.

All this activity in Georgia is interesting from an outsider’s perspective; here is a state trying hard to deal with the new budget realities in higher education by merging institutions to create budget efficiencies to save money. The problem with these mergers is that, “‘the system expects the first round of mergers will save between $5 million and $7.5 million this year,’ Nickel said. That’s about 0.1 percent of the total $7.4 billion operating budget for the 31-college system.” Nickel is Shelly Nickel, the Associate Vice Chancellor, Planning & Implementation for the University System of Georgia.

Before I go on I must as a few questions about the University System of Georgia. Of the 31 campuses:
- Where can cuts be made to reduce redundancy?
- Can any one (or multiple) campus totally be shut down?
- Which programs can be cut because of low enrollments? How many faculty members would be let go if programs were cut; how many administrators and staff would be cut if programs were eliminated?
- Which programs can be cut to reduce geographic redundancy? How many faculty members would be let go if programs were cut; how many administrators and staff would be cut if programs were eliminated?
- How many student support/success initiatives can be cut? How many administrators and staff would be cut if these initiatives were eliminated?
- Which athletic programs can be cut due to the mergers? How many administrators and staff would be cut?
- Can statewide online courses help save money?
- Can statewide online courses help save money with general education courses?

I can only assume this first round of mergers with the 0.1% savings is only the beginning because for all the heartache caused by these mergers, 0.1% is not good enough. If University System of Georgia is going reduce costs and save money then they need to actually do it. Colleges and universities for the last few decades have been adding and adding to their offerings, their size, and their budgets. Even Harvard, with its huge endowment, stated it needs to watch its budget and not simply be additive.

As stated in my previous articles about music in Arizona and Physics in Maine, Georgia can find many places to cut amongst its 31 campuses and $7.4 billion operating budget. Maybe this is why Nickel said during the first round of mergers, Kennesaw State University and Southern Polytechnic State University being the second round, only $5 to $7.5 million was saved.

We will see if the University System Georgia starts making real, substantial, and painful cuts during the next round. These cuts will cause a lot of heartache but if done thoughtfully, strategically, and without bias or political wrangling (I know...naive), higher education in Georgia will be transformed into a stronger and highly competitive system of colleges and universities.   

Big Time College Football: Numbers

Before I started looking at college football I had no idea how much money teams pulled in; I assumed some made a bunch of money but most just got by. But because of the high profile nature of college football over the last 20-years and the numerous deals with ESPN, the main networks, and the roll-out of conference specific networks, college football is truly big time.

For my series on Big Time College Football, I am using the Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool provided by the Department of Education to analyze how much money each program brings in (the 2012-2013 numbers are not out yet). This is self-reported data by all institutions that receive Title IV funds (how it is self-reported is up to the discretion of each institution).

The first set of numbers are the revenue numbers for the six BCS conferences and Notre Dame for 2011-2012 academic school year with the multipliers between the highs and lows (SEC has revenue 3.92 times the Big East). On a side note, this is before the Big East became the ACC for football and before the Big-10 and Big-12 realignment.

The next table contains the revenue of the largest (high) and smallest (low) programs per conference:

The median and mean per conference:.

This table contains the revenue, median, and mean for all I-A and I-AA programs combined, I-A by itself, the BCS, non-BCS I-A, and I-AA by itself:

The final table shows individual programs starting with the top revenue producing program in I-A, followed by Notre Dame, the program closest to the mean for the BCS, the median for BCS, the program closest to the mean for all I-A, the median for I-A, the lowest revenue producing program in the BCS and the lowest revenue producing program for all I-A with the multipliers between the highs and lows (Texas has 28.93 times the revenue of Louisiana-Monroe). 

Each team in I-A; from Alabama to Arizona, to Texas to Tennessee, and USC to the University of Central Florida have to deal with individual market issues that only pertain to their programs, their localities, and their market reach. Some programs have a true national following such as Texas, Notre Dame Michigan, and Alabama allowing them to generate tens of millions in revenue each year. But most programs like Clemson, University of Miami, Indiana University, Baylor, and the University of Connecticut are regional players that desperately try to compete in I-A football but are still able to make a good chunk of change. 

Big Time College Football: Why?

Why? Why are certain schools part of big time college football?

Why is Berkeley part of the BCS? Berkeley’s six-year graduation rate is crazy high because of the exclusivity of the school, its endowment is in the billions, and like Stanford and the University of Washington, it is a true international university. In the last 20 years, half of Berkeley’s seasons have been been above .500 with the other half being extremely disappointing. What does the Berkeley’s football program add to the academic outcomes of the school and graduate research that drives all of Berkeley’s international acclaim?

Why is Arizona State University part of the BCS? ASU’s six-year graduation rate is disappointingly low and it is the largest school by campus enrollment in the US. In the last 20 years half of ASU’s season were above .500 and ASU has been a little more competitive than Berkeley. With such a low graduation rate and an on campus enrollment that is the largest in the country, why does ASU need big time college football? Do they need football to help drive their research dollars or to entertain a large undergraduate population? Do they need the program to keep alumni engaged so they buy season tickets and donate to the university? Even if this is the case, ASU’s endowment is not nearly as large as other institutions and their endowment per student is the lowest in the PAC-12. They also have a lot more work to do because of the realities at ASU; total enrollment of around 73k, Tempe Main Campus enrollment is at 60k, and a goal to get online enrollments at 100k means that ASU has a lot of non-football work to do.

Moving away from my beloved PAC-12; why is Vanderbilt part of the SEC? I understand that Vanderbilt was a founding member in 1932 but they have been hardly been competitive in the last 20-years. Does Vanderbilt need to play I-A football; they don’t need any help with their endowment or academic outcomes? Vanderbilt is ranked 88 in Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings, the highest in the SEC and it has a quarter of the student population and 2.8x the endowment than the University of Florida, the next highest THE ranked team from the SEC (ranked 128; Texas A&M is 158).

Why is the Mississippi State in the SEC? Like Vanderbilt they were a founding member but have been not been competitive over the last 20-years. Mississippi State occupies the bottom of the SEC when it comes to graduation rate and has the smallest endowment of the bunch. Why is Mississippi State trying to compete with the likes of Florida and Alabama when its core mission is to “provide access and opportunity to students from all sectors of the state's diverse population, as well as from other states and countries, and to offer excellent programs of teaching, research, and service.” Without being cute, there is nothing in the mission about providing quality entertainment to students and alumni by fielding a competitive football program that was last SEC Champion in 1941.

In my opinion this article is not particularly brilliant but like my previous article about the Time Higher Education’s world rankings we need to ask the question: why? Why do  schools feel the need to have big time college football (and basketball) programs? At this point I could go through all the BCS conferences and other I-A conferences and pick and choose high performing schools and low performing schools and ask the questions; why?

*For this article, I used facts and figures from the current academic year rather than 2011-2012 like my previous articles about big time college football.

Big Time College Football: THE World Rankings

As I work on my Fall/Winter research project I remembered an article about the academic performance of the BCS. This article stated that BCS schools and their conferences are wonderful academic institutions and some of them are the best in the world. The final paragraph states the following:

“As these data show, high powered academics and high powered athletics coexist in many first rank institutions. However, we also conclude that having a first rate athletic program is no guarantee of high-powered academics but that many first-rate research universities have no difficulty sustaining outstanding athletic programs.”

I am going to move on from this odd and confusing conclusion and look at Times Higher Education (THE) world rankings of from 2011-2012 and see if any of these truly world class institutions have big time college football programs. I am using the 2011-2012 list because for my research project I am using the Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool from 2011-2012.

Below is a rundown of the to 25:

- 7 are outside the US;

- 6 are in the Ivy League;

- 4 are in the PAC-12;

- 4 are in Division III;

- 2 are in the ACC;

- 1 is in the the Big-10;

- and 1 does not have a football program.

Of the top 25; 40% are in I-AA or DIII, 28% are part of the BCS, and 4% do not have a football program. Instead of commenting on these stats and guessing at what they might mean, I will ask a series of questions to hopefully spark further inquiry:

- Does a big time college football program help an institution be world class when most of the THE methodology focuses on graduate education?

- Besides the Ivy League, why does the PAC-12 have the most institutions in the top 25?

- Would jumping up to I-A hurt Ivy League or the DIII schools and their world rankings?

- How is the California Institute of Technology the top institution in the world without a football program?

- Does having a football program help with alumni relations?

- Does having a football program help with fundraising and increasing endowments?

- Does having a football program help with undergraduate engagement?

- How much time and resources are taken away from the core mission of an institution by football?

- Is it better to have a I-AA or DIII football program if an institution wants to be world class?

Big Time College Football: Valid Comparisons

As I work on my fall/winter research project I am struck by a sentence on the Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool, published by the US Department of Education.

“Please note that valid comparisons of athletics data are possible only with study and analysis of the conditions affecting each institution.”

To me, this is a cop-out. Colleges and universities often say things like this referring to their unique place within the social fabric and that comparisons, unless to very similar institutions, are impossible. This uniqueness is often applied to athletics, departments within the institution, programs of study, enrollment numbers, the size of endowments, et cetera.

First of all I love higher education and I love college football. Ever since I can remember I watched college football (go UTEP Miners!) with my father and as an adult, I have worked exclusively in higher education (minus a parallel stint in retail). Because of shrinking budgets and the numerous cuts that have occurred and will occur at most institutions around the country, skyrocketing football (and basketball) revenues will be under intense scrutiny for the foreseeable future.

There needs to be an honest and frank discussion about big time football in this country because if the NCAA and the schools that populate this organization, especially the BCS do not start talking, others will and if it goes on long enough with no results, the government will get involved.

Leadership at Ivies, Part II

Becoming a leader at an Ivy takes a special career. An individual who attains one of these positions has had a professional journey that has been spectacular along with outstanding networking and business skills. In my previous article about Leadership at Ivies, I questioned why the Chronicle even looked, and I mean looked at who the leaders are at the eight Ivy League schools and asked some questions concerning demographics and what the Chronicle was trying to accomplish with the pictorial article.

Moving forward, I would like to delve into other aspects of diversity at the Ivies; diversity of thought, diversity of credentials, and diversity of age.

When I think of diversity of thought I think of business talk and the desire to fend off groupthink. In large institutions, grougpthink can be a huge problem because individuals often go along with consensus and organizations that are struggling continue to do just that, struggle because the group does not have the courage to implement change. Some say this occurs because there is not enough diversity of thought to effectively bring together the multitude of different workers, personalities, and points-of-view to get the job done.

Moving from business to higher education, most would assume that colleges and universities have an abundance of diversity of thought, but is there? The University of Colorado was searching for a Visiting Scholar in Conservative Thought and Policy in 2013; why would a major university need to find a scholar in conservative thought if higher education has an abundance of diversity of thought? I know this is political diversity but this type of lack of diversity creeps into the many different working aspects of an organization. Can a conservative sit down with a liberal and get the job done without having problems? Can an administrator sit down with a group of people who think differently and work for the common good of the organization? Circling back to the Ivy League; does the Ivy League have enough diversity of thought to be immune from this type of press that occurred at the University of Colorado or enough diversity of thought that allows all workgroups to get the job done (whatever job that might be)?

All institutions of higher education strive for diversity of credentials; bringing together a variety of people that have been trained around the country and world. This is important for all the reasons associated with diversity but when it comes of Ivy leadership is there diversity of credentials? Below are the presidents of the Ivy League schools with their degrees:

Christina Paxson, President of Brown

B.A., Swarthmore College; M.A. and Ph.D. from Columbia University

Lee Bollinger, President of Columbia University

B.S., University of Oregon; J.D. from Columbia University

David Skorton, President of Cornell University

B.A. and M.D. from Northwestern University

Philip Hanlon, President of Dartmouth College

B.A., Dartmouth College; Ph.D., California Institute of Technology

Drew Gilpin Faust, President of Harvard University

B.A., Bryn Mawr College; M.A. and Ph.D. from University of Pennsylvania

Christopher Eisgruber, President of Princeton University

A.B., Princeton University; MLitt., Oxford University; J.D., University of Chicago

Amy Gutmann, President of University of Pennsylvania

A.B., Radcliffe College; M.Sci., London School of Economics; Ph.D., Harvard University

Peter Salovey, President of Yale College

A.B., A.M., Stanford; M.S., M.Phil., and Ph.D., Yale  College

Before I continue, in no way am I questioning the qualifications or long, successful careers of these presidents, I am just looking at where they attained their degrees. I also understand the needs of these institutions are unique amongst colleges and universities; huge endowments, mega fundraising, and students whose parents are world leaders and titans of industry.

But when it comes to diversity of credentials, it seems the Ivy League is a closed loop. As a student, if you did not attend one of these institutions (or equivalent) by age 18, then becoming an Ivy League president is already out of the picture (except Lee Bollinger and his bachelors from Oregon...go Ducks!). I know I am pointing out the obvious that the president of Penn got her Ph.D. from Harvard, or the president of Harvard got her Ph.D. from Penn; or the president of Yale got his Ph.D. from Yale; or the president of Columbia got his J.D. from Columbia; and the non-Ivy League doctorates are from University of Chicago, Northwestern, and California Institute of Technology (non-Ivy, Ivies).

This closed loop at the top tier of higher education does not bother me, the Ivy League must maintain exclusivity, but this precedence radiates to other institutions. Again, I am not questioning the careers or the work ethic of leaders who went to the Ivy League, I am questioning the need for other schools to prefer people who attained their degrees at these eight, or if you expand to Ivy equivalents, twenty schools. Being led by people who only attained their degrees from these institutions limits diversity of credentials, but with that said, when a university or college announces its new president, dean, or provost, it looks really good when they got their Ph.D. from an Ivy.

Finally, diversity of age. Are all the leaders at the Ivy League 55 and above? Are the top leaders 65 and above? Is there a mixture of mid-level leaders who are in their 40s and 50s with a few wunderkinder in their 30s?

Age diversity is important because each generation is shaped by their parents, by events that occurred before they became adults, and by their experiences as young adults. Should an institution only be led by people who  turned 18 in the late 60s and early 70s?

When institutions are open to age diversity they listen to the needs of their students more effectively. Undergraduate and graduate enrollment at the Ivy League is 50/50, but that means that half of the students are under 24 and the other half is around 33.

Can a president who is 65 listen to the needs of students who are 30 to 40 years younger? Can other leaders such as vice presidents, provosts, deans, and directors, who help advise the president and lead their own parts of the institution, listen to the needs of student if there is no age diversity?