<p>Thought some of you might be interested in an outline of this article from the Chronicle of Higher Education entitled "Can small colleges survive?", part of a larger piece "Higher Education 2015". </p>
<p>Best Case scenario:
rennaissance in 2015
national applicant pool grows more diverse
first-generation and nonnative speakers seek comfort of small, tight-knit community at LACs
seek one-on-one relationships with profs
public relations efforts succeed
measures of student outcomes favor LACs
research shows [hopefully] long-term benefits of LAC education
improving economy shows that LAC graduates are employable with philosophy, literature, etc. degrees
demand in labor market for well-rounded applicants
increases in federal aid offsets rising costs
generous giving to capital campaigns allows more need-based aid
new "delivery-systems" such as certificate programs and adult-learning improves revenues
liberal arts become indispensable and unavoidable</p>
<p>Worst case scenario:
small residential colleges closing down
student careerism rampant
LACs can't keep up with increasing costs
20 LACs like Amherst and Williams prosper due to reputations and endowments
24 LACs have closed their doors
drop-off in number of high school grads in New England goes uncompensated
fewer applicants are white and wealthy
LACs lose students to cheaper state unis
LACs struggle to balance traditional missions with pre-professional programs
honors-college programs at large state unis compete by mimicing the learning experience at a smaller campus
parents become convinced they can but a tradional LAC experience at a research U
value of liberal arts educ is lost on generation Xers
LACs perceived as "bastions of irrelevance"
(fact:80% of freshman want to get a high-paying job after college)
applicants not interested in comprehensive education
tuitions are discounted to unsustainable levels by merit-aid competition</p>
<p>[latter is a pretty scary scenario...food for thought]</p>
<p>If the value of small-scale teaching weren't so widely recognized, universities would not be falling all over themselves to institute "honors colleges" and freshman seminars.</p>
<p>There is an increasingly vocal thought in higher education circles that the increased research specialization that drives academia these days is counterproductive to undergrad education. A part of this thinking is that undergrads are better served by faculty that can draw cross-discipline connections.</p>
<p>If anything, the colleges an universities that teach a liberal arts curriculum will probably be more relevant in a global economy characterized by rapid change and technology. A "business major" without the kind of solid grounding in science that comes with a liberal arts education will not be as valuable. Conversely, a science major who cannot communicate will be at a disadvantage in leadership positions.</p>
<p>We really have two different paths that we call college. One is vocationally-oriented -- teaching a specific skill or trade or profession -- that serves the majority of the college population. A second path is the tradtional liberal arts curriculum as taught by most of the top universities and undergrad colleges. The demand for these skill sets is not likely to diminish. Example? Look at the number of Wall Street firms hiring from the math and science departments. How in the heck are you going to manage your company's IT division in India without a solid basis for understanding cultures? Just knowing how to write software code is not going to be enough.</p>
<p>Are some private LACs going to go out of business? Yes. Quite a few private universities probably will to. There is a massive over-supply of higher education product in the market right now, concealed by a short-term demographic blip with the echo-boom. I'm not sure the financial obstacles for these schools are necessarily tied to size. The threat is probably more that the vast majority of community colleges have been upgraded to four-year colleges and are absorbing the lower end of the consumer base.</p>