Since the COVID-19 pandemic, a nationwide conversation has focused on the need for higher education transformation.Both S&P Global Ratings and Moody’s Investor Services On the grounds that the public health crisis poses a threat to the main source of income, a negative outlook was issued for the U.S. higher education sector in 2022.Moody’s recently Adjust the outlook to stableThis is largely due to the increased income potential of the institution as students return to campus. But in general, the rating outlook shows that in addition to institutions with significant brand awareness, universities across the country are facing varying degrees of financial pressure, indicating that the time for transformation is ripe.
To be fair, as early as March 2020, higher education was under pressure. Polls A survey of college and university trustees conducted by the Association of College and University Management Committees in collaboration with Gallup found that 85% of respondents (73% in 2018) are concerned about the future of the industry in the next ten years—financial sustainability And the prices paid by students and their families are the main driving factors.Add to that the staggering student debt-more than US$1.7 trillion -The four-year graduation rate is only 45.3%, and the six-year graduation rate is 63.4% 2013 cohort In four-year universities, the transformation of higher education should actually take place long ago.
However, the focus of this transition is vague. Many organizations and individuals are focused on business models, trying to increase revenue by adopting new technologies; increase efficiency through cooperation or affiliation; reduce costs through outsourcing services, cancel courses or hire cheaper lecturers; or achieve synergies through mergers. Although it is undeniable that the business model has been broken, especially when it is based on the assumption that students will continue to pay higher tuition fees for the same education every year, the main concern is that the bottom line is short-sighted.
Whether it is public or private, rural or urban, residential or commuting, two-year or four-year, teaching or research, higher education institutions are—or should—generally devote themselves to serving students. This universality provides a ready focus for transformation. If colleges and universities focus their human and financial capital on a student-centered transformation, the results will be significant: improved results for all student groups, reduced student debt and default rates, higher perceived value, and greater participation by alumni Degree and a more stable institution.
What will a student-centered transformation look like? This means that at every stage of the student journey, from recruitment to graduation, the best interests of the student, not the institution or any of its other stakeholders, will be at the forefront. A student-centered mindset is critical to reshaping the current system in many areas of the institution—including admissions, admissions, and student experience, to name a few. Here are some ways in which a student-centered mindset will change these fields.
Recruitment. Institutions will no longer recruit students just to meet budget goals, but will use data and predictive analytics to strategically recruit students who are most likely to succeed in the environment they provide. The colleges and universities in the United States are very diverse. Although there is no institution suitable for all types of students, there are institutions suitable for every student. The decision to enroll students should not depend on their ability to generate net tuition income, but on the ability of the institution to support the student to complete the degree.
In the recruitment process, the institution has a large amount of qualitative and quantitative data about students. This data includes information collected from applications—test scores, high school GPAs and essays or personal statements—financial information from FAFSA, and in some cases even interviews. Universities often use this information to create student profiles to make admissions decisions. The student-centered approach means that the preparation and evaluation of student files will not be carried out in a vacuum, but a clear understanding of the institutional resources available to support students.
Therefore, if the institution does not provide these courses, the institution will no longer recruit a large number of students who need tutoring-if students need to pay for such tutoring courses, absolutely not. The institution will provide systems and structures that create flexibility for commuting students or adult students. In addition, the institution will continue to recruit historically underrepresented students-providing more opportunities for higher education-but will also invest in necessary support services to provide these students with a fair chance of success.
Admissions. With a student-centered mentality, the institution will provide students with greater transparency, including not only the net price of education required by federal law, but also the student’s academic preparation relative to their cohort. They will pay special attention when applying the cohort framework to explain different types of diversity-gender, race, Pell qualification, first generation, etc.-which will bring rich and valuable perspectives to the classroom.
It is best for prospective students to understand the relative advantages of their academic qualifications in the applicable population, indicating how much energy and effort they need, and the level of support provided by the institution for their persistence and success. The risk for this institution is that a large number of students may choose the path of least resistance and not enroll. But another view is that those students could have made the best decision for themselves by enrolling elsewhere. Price is of course an important factor that students consider when choosing a university, but it is not the only factor worth mentioning explicitly.
The student’s academic experience. The institution will enable students to design their academic experience in a way that challenges them to develop core competencies—analysis, critical thinking, communication skills, etc.—while pursuing their personal interests and enthusiasm. The prescribed nature of today’s curriculum is not driven by the needs or needs of students, but driven by institutional laws. It must give way to a more flexible model, allowing students to design their academic experience independently under reasonable guidance.
These guidelines are institutions that keep in mind the interests and enthusiasm of each student and provide a framework to ensure that they develop the necessary abilities to succeed in the endeavors of their choice. Students are required to take too many courses that are only related to their interests. This assumes that students cannot explore independently in the academic archives of the institution-this is an outdated concept.
Students’ extracurricular activities and extracurricular activities. The organization will provide resources for extracurricular activities to support the overall development of students, and first of all, we must understand the preferences of students. Soliciting regular feedback from students and using the resulting data to build the experience they want can at least make students more engaged. In contrast, it is inefficient and inefficient to devote a large amount of resources to programming that served students in the past without considering the technological and social progress in the process. Actively attracting people who are the intended beneficiaries of the experience—students—will enable institutions to invest their limited resources in a more effective manner.
These concepts are not utopian or surprising. Some institutions have already incorporated various elements. But they do need to refocus on the reasons for the existence of universities, which is to serve students-not faculty, administrative staff, potential employers or the government. A major challenge in the transformation of higher education is the deep roots of the existing system-this system has only changed in the marginal and glacier over the past two centuries, a system that effectively serves today’s few people.
Any group in academia needs great perseverance to challenge their institutions to carry out the kind of transformational changes I have described. Even so, without federal legislation requiring colleges and universities to make these types of changes, or without accreditation agencies willing to punish stubborn institutions, campus leaders are responsible for taking the risks needed to change the system in a way that truly benefits students . First.