I just finished reading two articles on higher education, one by Walter Russell Mead in The American Interest and other in National Review Online, the latter which goes nicely with a third article entitled “New Analysis Shows Problematic Boom in Higher Ed Administrators” in the Huffington Post.  Together these articles paint a discouraging picture, especially for private colleges that are “non-elite.”  But if the leaders of those colleges, particularly Christian colleges that actually take the “Christian” name seriously,  exercise foresight and if they are prepared to put forth a unified and clear vision, there is hope.  But first, let’s look at the articles.

Walter Mead’s piece addresses the data that show the seeming unsustainability of non-elite private colleges.  Why?  Because the statistics show that in the last few years, discount rates (tuition reductions through grants, scholarships, etc.) have been rising (more students are getting more money) while enrollments are barely increasing.  That spells crisis, as revenue decreases even as more money is spent to entice more students.  Now some at least of the rising cost of college (as the article points out) is due to Federal and accreditation mandates of various kinds.  No doubt these usually don’t contribute much to actual educational mission but cost money.  When total cost is greater than total revenue over time, some schools will be forced out of business, or at least into a severe austerity mode.  So how can we, especially “real” Christian colleges, overcome that problem.  First we have to understand why it is happening.  In general, students and parents are less willing to pay high costs to attend college, even when discounted, when they cannot be reasonably certain of a return on the investment.  Here is where a truly Christian college can buck the trend—if it is willing to be aggressive.  It must take several actions.  It must boldly proclaim its vision in unambiguous terms everywhere it can get a hearing, using every new medium possible, and particularly the new lower-cost media out there.  This vision can be succinct, but it cannot be vague, and it cannot mince words.  Words like “a Christian learning community” are too vague to be of help to parents and students who are searching for the right one of the few conservative Christian colleges.  If such wording is used, it ought to be supported by elaborations that are easily accessible and clear.  But in addition, the commitment must be made to back the words up with tangible evidence.  For example, a Christian college cannot claim to be academically world class unless it invests in that notion.  Weak academic programs (I am not talking about small numbers here) will inevitably be exposed.  And they taint the stronger ones on campus.  Part of the solution (if one looks at the best Christian colleges) is to have a well-defined and narrowly focused core curriculum that is both rigorous and comprehensive with regard to exposure of students to all facets of genuine knowledge, while focusing on the essentials (not superfluous courses that are there for historical reasons but not a coherent part of a core).  Courses that result in the following are suitable candidates: (1) lead to quality writing skills; (2) lead to quality (logical) thinking; (3) lead to the ability to respond quickly, creatively and rationally as well as wisely to changing situations; (4) lead to a broad understanding of right and wrong, the good, the beautiful, the true in a distinctively Christian way.  These are but a few of the criteria for a core curriculum.  Obviously it is a liberal arts based core, and even if professional programs are a major part of the college, which is fine, all students must without exception, be exposed to that core—for their own good.  The cafeteria mentality cannot prevail.  The core must be streamlined and focused, but have intellectual gravitas that is also unified—we are talking about UNIversities, not multi-versities after all.

The same goes for worldview integration.  If a college says it does integration, it had better do it very, very well.  And it has to be done across the board, no matter what the potential complaints are (such as, “our discipline doesn’t lend itself very well to integration”).  “The proof is in the pudding” and the pudding will be tested for its quality.  It is beyond doubt that if a Christian college does integration only half-heartedly, it will be “found out” by the very families who want a college that does intensive and extensive integration.  They know.  They have networks of friends, pastors, former students, etc.  Here is the problem:  If a Christian college wants conservative students, it has to show it has what they want, in every aspect of the educational experience.  It has to be “deep” in that respect because that is why they want a Christian (Biblical) worldview in the first place instead of a Sunday school class.  It’s just the way many consciously conservative and worldview-savvy parents and prospective students are.  You can’t fool them.  If a Christian college approaches integration with absolute determination it can win those students.  If it just puts a band aid on the problem or ignores it, they will trickle away.

Now the second article was in the August 27 Wall Street Journal, and was written by Bruce Benson, President of the University of Colorado.  Benson tells what he did to reduce costs, and, as George Leef, the NRO analyst says in reporting on the article, Benson did not do something like cutting the Biology Department and then complain about what he had been forced to do.  He cut in the right places—148 administrators to be precise (that is roughly $12-15 million, not chump change).  The university continues to function by the way.  In fact, another article by John Marcus in the Huffington Post of all places (January, 2014—I missed this one) has shown that between 1987 and 2012 the number of administrators at colleges and universities increased by 517, 636.  That number is new administrators, not just gross—it accounts for those who retired or resigned.  In the meantime, faculty hiring was just about flat in net terms.  What does that say about priorities?  To be sure, some of those were necessary hires.  But one doesn’t have to go far to find many head-scratchers—the proverbial “assistant to the assistant to the vice-president for the up-keep of the president’s home.”  Yes, priorities would dictate that universities ought to focus on faculty hiring first and then faculty development in a broad sense.  And it is not just administrators that pose a problem.  Many other luxuries that colleges are offering, some at pretty high costs, are diluting the mission of higher education.  I am no opponent of fun, nor of a modicum of comfort, but when I was a college student we found our own fun, and we didn’t need a mall in the student center or virtual luxury suites in the dorms to succeed (yes, I know that makes me sound old).  Fiscal responsibility is not just about net efficiency.  It is about that and the actual substance of the subject of that efficiency—what are you trying to steward, and what should it look like?

I have now rambled enough, though I could certainly continue (some wish I had stopped much earlier I am sure).  But these matters are significant for two reasons: (1) the very survival of Christian colleges and (2) the glory of God.  If Christians fail at higher education, who will pick up the mantle?