Over the past decade, foundations and other entities awarding higher education grants have shifted their focus toward programs that encourage student retention and graduation, particularly for low-income and first-generation college students.
Today’s student body represents a vast spectrum of backgrounds, values and beliefs—which presents a unique set of challenges for leaders striving to meet changing student needs.
Can a university’s characteristics be a better indicator of an endowment’s effectiveness than endowment size?
Performance funding applies financial incentives to higher education, tying a portion of public institutions’ state appropriations to retention rate, degree completion and other student outcomes.
Higher education’s dual mission of research and teaching position the sector to rapidly discover and deploy new processes for teaching and learning. However, resource constraints and traditional structures in higher education can pose major barriers.
While reliance on part-time contingent faculty has helped constrain faculty compensation costs, it hasn’t produced the same level of savings in total compensation costs for all employees.
The shift toward contingent faculty in the academic workforce is well documented; what’s less clear is the concentration of contingent faculty at different types of institutions, the nature of contingent faculty contracts, and the effect on student outcomes.
Since the financial crisis of 2008, board agendas have been dominated by financial and enrollment concerns. Yet boards can also play a key role in addressing issues of diversity, equity and inclusion on campus.
Nearly all college and university leaders want to foster more creativity and innovation in their organizations. Yet the concept of innovation remains nebulous and the conditions that enable it are not well understood.