|
|
 |
|
DUKE’S SIGNATURE IN AMERICAN
HIGHER EDUCATION
• Section One
-- Private Research Universities in American Higher Education
• Section Two -- Duke's Mission, Ambition,
and Responsibility
• Section Three -- Competition and Differentiation:Duke's
Distinctive Signature
• Section Four -- Fundamental Threats to the Pre-eminence of
Private Research Universities
Fundamental Threats to the Pre-eminence
of Private Research Universities
This mission-driven, values-driven view of our
defining characteristics comes under periodic pressure, and the pressure
is intense today. Over decades and centuries, however, universities
have shown a remarkable capacity to adapt and change; they may change
slowly, after many committee meetings, but they do change. “New
inventions, fresh discoveries, alterations in the markets of the world
throw accustomed methods and the men who are accustomed to them out
of date and use without pause or pity,” wrote Woodrow Wilson,
then Princeton’s president, in 1909.2 But the institutions about
which he worried are still with us, recognizable though also clearly
different. Indeed this combination of change and constancy, innovation
and consolidation, is what makes it possible to think of universities
as institutions and not just organizations or enterprises. Private
universities like Duke are here for the long run and must chart their
courses accordingly.
Yet this is a moment of paradox. On the one hand, the demand for high-quality
higher education is at an all time high and support for our research
mission is equally robust. Despite the substantial costs, would-be
students are lined up by the thousands to attend the leading institutions,
and most are turned away. The returns to a college degree are also
at an all time high; the knowledge economy is for real, and solid
college preparation and advanced degrees are rightly seen as essential
to success. Moreover, it is widely recognized that the breadth of
education acquired through a liberal arts education, with its emphasis
on lifetime learning and life skills, is the best preparation for
a complex, rapidly changing, interdependent world. Yet this is also
a moment of great anxiety for higher education. We have weathered
a decade of criticism about rising costs and “political correctness”
that has not wholly subsided, and there are now new threats on the
horizon.
The threat most often cited today is digital technology and, more
particularly, the emergence of vigorous, entrepreneurial for-profit
education providers. A 1999 study by Merrill Lynch & Co. outlined
the opportunities for private investment in for-profit higher education,3
and the sums invested are rapidly increasing. The question is not
whether for-profit distance education will become a factor but at
what rate and with what implications for the leading private research
universities. The issue for Duke and similar institutions is whether
for-profit on-line education will unleash new forms
of competition that will erode our core markets and thus force a fundamental
restructuring of the kind
of education that has been the hallmark of private research universities.
On-line education by for-profit providers could fundamentally change
the dynamics of competition and educational delivery. In the “old
economy,” the leading institutions competed for the best students
and the best faculty, but they did not compete for market share. (No
one wanted substantially more students, who would overwhelm finite
campus resources and dilute student quality.) But in the model of
the “new economy,” education is infinitely scalable, and
the new for-profits will want market share above all. This makes all
the difference. Standardized curricula consisting of “plug and
play” modules prepared by the leading content authorities and
supported by wizards of the new on-line, multi-media technologies
and cognitive learning specialists will obviate the need to prepare
local lectures on American politics or English literature or organic
chemistry. At the same time, the cost per unit of instruction delivered
can be driven dramatically downward as economies of scale are realized,
potentially extending the reach of high-quality education but threatening
the purchase of old-fashioned, labor intensive, high-cost providers.
Students will not only benefit from lower costs and the wider availability
of “name brand” education, they will be free to choose the
time and place of study to suit their own convenience. Students will
have “live” interactions with their professors or instructional
guides through two-way video or at their convenience through electronic
mail and course web postings. On-line libraries from around the world
will be at their fingertips. Students will meet and greet each other
digitally, discussing course content, collaborating on projects, sharing
cultural and political interests, developing friendships and romances,
and perhaps even competing in their favorite “dream team”
on-line sports. The beautiful grounds and expensive bricks and mortar
foundations of today’s leading institutions may become a liability
rather than an asset.
This stylized vision of market forces and new technology is powerfully
exhilarating to some, deeply troubling to others. What does it mean
for Duke and other distinguished private research universities? We
are, after all, the “old-fashioned, labor-intensive, high-cost
providers” in the paragraph above. In one very important sense,
the scenario outlined above is not really new. Private research universities
have always faced competition from lower cost institutions. We have
deliberately chosen a small market niche, providing high cost/high
value education to a small number of the best-qualified students,
all of whom would have had a wide array of less costly alternatives
open to them. So competition itself is not new. Demand for selective
private higher education under these circumstances has always exceeded
supply, despite significant cost differences. Our market power can
only be explained on the assumption that students and parents are
finding an experience of great value in the education we offer.
Notwithstanding bursts of public concern and criticism about the quality
of the education Duke and similar institutions offer, we have stood
up to this fundamental market test very well.
The real question for the future is whether the structure of demand
is likely to change. Will the students and parents who currently choose
institutions like Duke prefer a digital university without walls in
the future? This alternative will be cheaper (as are other current
alternatives), but will it also be more appealing, or at least sufficiently
appealing to change current preferences? These are not questions that
we can answer with certainty. But to face them squarely, we need a
clear-eyed understanding of our “customers’” needs
and expectations and a commitment to meeting them through the “value
proposition” we offer them.
Survey research suggests two things: Students are seeking academic
quality and a sense of community that will reach beyond the years
of study on campus. Clearly, there is a mix of practical and idealistic
motives in seeking these characteristics, but many students are finding
them in private research universities. We have been meeting their
needs—never perfectly, but in many substantial ways. The “value
proposition” of the private research university has rested on
three fundamental principles: the complementary relationship of teaching
and research scholarship in producing a distinctive form of education
that at its best involves students directly in the creation of new
knowledge; the value of personalized education that is as much about
leadership and character formation as it is about skills and knowledge
transfer; and the overarching importance of participating in a learning
community, with a wide range of intergenerational interactions and
opportunities for leadership and participation in athletics, cultural
events, and social service.
Our conviction is that the best way to succeed under changing market
conditions will be to intensify these distinctive characteristics
of private research universities, and Duke’s signature among
them. At the same time, we must be fully accountable to our many constituencies
in demonstrating as effectively as possible that the education and
community we sustain creates superior value, widely accessible, for
the students who experience it directly and for the larger society.
This vision of conserving a legacy rooted in deeply held values and
intensifying our signature is fully compatible with, but must constantly
shape, our commitment to innovative leadership through bold initiatives
in teaching and research. These initiatives will not only deepen our
commitment to traditional modes of inquiry and discussion, they will
also harness new technologies to our carefully defined purposes and
allow us to reach new markets of students, particularly in our professional
school programs, beyond our traditional reach.
The academic plan gives bold expression to our
commitment to stewardship, leadership, excellence, community, and
values-to our distinctive entelechy. Duke University, like the other
great private research universities, was created and has been sustained
by men and women for whom these simple virtues have real meaning.
If we cannot sustain these virtues, we are unworthy of our legacy
and deserve to be judged by ordinary, commercial, and utilitarian
logic. Cyber-U will not be far behind.
1. James, Engell, “The Idea of
Organic Growth in Higher Education,” paper presented to the Forum
on the Future of Higher Education, The Aspen Institute, 1999, p. 1.
2. Quoted in Engell, p. 1.
3. M. Moe, K. Bailey and R. Lau, “The Book of Knowledge,”
Merrill Lynch & Co., 1999.
|
|
