 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
What College Presidents Think
Thursday, November 3, at 12 p.m., U.S. Eastern time
An extensive Chronicle survey of college presidents, the first of its kind, provides a rare glimpse at the leaders of the profession: how they spend their time both on the job and off; their politics; whether they think they were prepared for their jobs (a minority says yes); how future college leaders might be better prepared; and what they think about the myriad issues facing higher education today.
The office, increasingly similar to that of corporate chief executive, is still occupied largely by white men who rose through the administrative ranks. Yet an overwhelming majority agree on few key higher-education issues, including tenure, student drinking, college athletics, and rising tuition costs.
Are the survey results surprising? What do they say about the state of the college president today? Are presidents today weaker or stronger than in the past? Do they seem to spend their time wisely? Do the survey results suggest that American higher education is in good hands? Are the right kinds of people rising to leadership positions? What questions should we have asked?
» What College Presidents Think: Leaders' Views About Higher Education, Their Jobs, and Their Lives (11/4/2005)
John DiBiaggio was president of Tufts University from 1992 to 2001, and before that he led Michigan State University and the University of Connecticut. He is now a consultant with Academic Search Consultation Service, a higher-education executive-search firm.
John Maguire, former dean of admissions at Boston College, is chairman of Maguire Associates, an educational-consulting firm in Bedford, Mass., that conducted the survey and analyzed the results for The Chronicle.
Jeffrey Selingo (Moderator):
Hello everyone, I'm Jeffrey Selingo, business and politics editor at The Chronicle. This week The Chronicle published the results of an extensive survey of 4-year college presidents that was conducted over the summer. It showed, among other things, that a majority of college presidents are more worried about financial issues than educational ones, want to do away with faculty tenure, and voted for John Kerry in last year's presidential election.
With us today to discuss the results are John DiBiaggio, a former president at three institutions, including most recently at Tufts University, and now a presidential search consultant, and John Maguire, chairman of Maguire Associates, which analyzed the results for The Chronicle.
Let's get started and submit your questions at any point.
Jeffrey Selingo (Moderator):
Before we get to the questions, both guests have some opening comments to get us going.
John Maguire:
After serving as a faculty member and Dean at Boston College, I founded Maguire Associates in 1983 and now serve as its Chair. Over the last 22 years we have served hundreds of clients and have contributed to the evolution of market research and consulting in higher education. In the last 10 years I have worked with 200 or more college and university presidents and served on several Boards. The survey findings corroborate what we have been hearing “on the ground.” Clearly, as the survey documents, fundraising and budget issues are highly important to presidents – as they have to be in order for any institution to survive. What surprised us was the emphasis on money issues relative to some others. However, there’s a big difference between the type of institution that chooses to raise funds in order to initiate an exciting new program, and one that must raise money to avoid layoffs or curtailing programs.
The data in the survey are a treasure trove of information about the realities of the college presidency today, and as we mine the data further we expect to expand greatly on the understandings that have already been achieved.
John DiBiaggio:
The principal issues I found interesting in the survey were these:(1) finances, particularly rising health care costs and diminishing state support at public institutions; (2) increasing emphasis on private fund raising, at both the private and public colleges; (3) escalation in tuition and fees and concomitant public concerns in that regard(4) enrollment and retention issues(5) growing demands for accountability; (6) the all encompassing nature of the role, allowing little or no time for leisure or personal relationships outside of the institution; (7) reluctance to speak out on issues that may have any political implications, i.e., stem cell research, the death penalty, birth control; (8) faculty tenure( which I basically favor), particularly the virtual impossibility of firing a tenure faculty member, even when the violation(s) clearly merit doing so. I was a little surprised that deferred maintenance, decreased federal student aid and ever growing regulatory requirements were not cited as areas of major concern.
Question from Paula Rooney, Dean College:
Is there a difference in the perception of the Presidency and the time requirements between the genders and additionally those who have small children during their tenure?
John Maguire:
There definitely are significant differences between the genders in this study. Women presidents are more likely to understand the importance of campus morale and student outcomes than many of their male counterparts. As for the specific question about presidents with small children, this was not addressed directly in the survey -- nor do I recall any direct reference in the open-ended comments. Given the fact that only 6% of all respondents were under 50, it would have been difficult to get meaningful statistics even if we had asked about children at home.
Question from D. Gail, research university:
Two questions:
l. Why do women continue to make up only 18-20% of college presidencies?
2. I thought, per the literature, that the traditional path to the presidency was through the academic ranks? Are there often used administrative paths or is selection more random?
John Maguire:
The numbers of women at the top in academe are growing at a faster rate than in business—now at 26% in the Northeast. This still reflects proportions on faculties and in higher level administration. Boards who select presidents are still male dominated, but that too is changing.
As for the second question: Chair to Dean to Provost is the traditional route. Marketing, enrollment, and financial VPs now move up more often.
Question from Ed Merwin, Jr., Univ. of South Carolina Salkehatchie:
Were you surprised by the number of presidents who wanted to do away with tenure? Average salaries for College/University presidents easily run around $500,000 per anum. When a president leaves, he/she is usually "well compensated; to help with retirement. Teaching faculty, even department heads, can only dream of such rewards. Tenure MUST be retained, if we are to encourage research, scholarship, and effective teaching.
John DiBiaggio:
No I was not surprised. Not because most presidents feel that tenure is not important in terms of protecting academic freedom, but rather because they perceive it to have become more of an issue of job security. Many feel that it is almost impossible to dismiss a tenured faculty member, even when their behavior may have been very aggregious. However I personally feel that academic freedom is still very important. You suggest that average presidential salaries run around $500,000 per annum. I don't believe that to be the case except in a few exceptional circumstances. I certainly didn't receive that type of compensation during my presidencies.
Question from Vanasa McCallister, Michigan State University:
It was stated that student retention rates are one of the key goals/concerns of today's college president. With the stated need for constant fiduciary communication regarding funding and a balanced budget, what recommendations would you have to increase student retention rates, especially those from ethnic minority backgrounds and returning adult students when these populations are more likely to need funding and new programs, not generate revenue?
John Maguire:
Good retention will almost always help with the revenue side of the budget. There are many approaches to improving retention—related to orientation, connecting students, especially those at risk, to faculty advisors and mentors, and to improving programs and documenting value.
Question from Andrew Hacker, Queens College (NYC):
I note that "quality of faculty" ranks third among presidential "worries". What does this mean? Are they dissatisfied with, say, the intellectual capacities of their professors? Do they worry that they can't attract good people? Or keep them? Or are too many of their professors slacking off? Can you give me a few presidents' quotes, as they expanded on this worry? Many thanks.
John Maguire:
All of the above. Research we've done over the years connects "quality of faculty" with everything from academic achievement, scholarship, and teaching capability to civility and ability to mentor students.
Question from Administrator, U. of Texas:
I was discouraged to see that only 19% of presidents come from within their own institutions. What's your advice to someone who wants to become a president, but is place-bound?
John DiBiaggio:
That is a dissappointing statistic, but I'm afraid one that is far to accurate. Unfortunatley universities feel they need to bring in a president from outside their own campus. I believe that to be a short-sighted view because there may be well qualified people within their own instyitutions and those people will have the advantage of knowing the institution well, eliminating the need for a significant learning curve. In the searches I conduct, I urge the committees responsible to not overlook internal candidated who merit consideration. I guess it is always dificult to be ahero in your own backyard.
Question from C. Dreifus, Columbia Univeristy:
I was surprised to read on the study how many college Presidents thought that quality of the faculty was an issue of concern. Could you say more? Is this a concern about full time tenured faculty and what they are producing, the quality of adjuncts that are being attracted at adjunct pay, what? The response intriqued, but cried for amplification.
John Maguire:
This was partially addressed in response to a previous question. Over the years we've done factor analysis to identify variables that "quality of faculty" associates with. Needless to say, this is a very multi-layered variable, and the issues you raise are often a part of the concern. Based on the survey, we can't say much more - very few of the open-ended responses addressed the issue of faculty quality. Certainly this is a question that would benefit from further research.
Question from Mathew Kanjirathinkal:
What do college presidents gain by viewing themsleves as CEO's of a corporation, and what do they lose? How do they reconcile the differences between corporate culture and academic culture in dealing with their stakeholders?
John DiBiaggio:
I don't really believe that college and university presidents perceive themselves as the presidents of a corporation. Neither do they believe or see their colleges or universities as businese. On the other hand they recognize that in these difficult financial times they have to behave in a more business like manner, while appreciating that there is a distinct difference in the cultures of an academic environment and a corporation or business. I trust that they will behave accordingly.
Question from Raymond Linville, Radford University:
What recommendations would you make to college presidents about being skilled in dealings with the media, especially in regard to potentially controversial topics?
John DiBiaggio:
Well this is a dificult question because of the increasing political inclinations of many who serve as trustees or regants. However, in my view, university and college presidents are still highly respected in our society and their views are given serious consideration. I believe, therefore, that they have a responsibility to speak out on important social issues, especially in areas in which they have expertise. I also recognize that in can be dificult to do so, especially in these very emotionally-charges times.
Question from Jeffrey Selingo:
Were you surprised that so many presidents were open out their opinions on hot-button issues in the survey?
John DiBiaggio:
I did not perceive that there was an openess to discuss hot-buttom issues except in a confidential format. I have been dissapointed by the lack of outspokeness by presidents in the past. While it can be dificult to do so I still think it is important that the pulpit provided to a president be used in a manner that is helpful in resolving critical issues.
Question from Andrew Mytelka, Chronicle of Higher Ed:
Two questions. Based on the survey results, what should presidential-search committees be doing that they are not typically doing now? And should presidential-search committees be set up differently than they typically are (e.g., different membership, different size, etc.)?
John DiBiaggio:
I think search committees need to be truly representative of the community and of a size that is manageable. I think they should also be open to candidates from a diversity of backgrounds and not preclude consideratiuon of internal candidates. Clearly the demands of the positions have grown over the years and candidates should have the ability to deal with the multiplicity of issues that the contemporary president encounters.
Jeffrey Selingo (Moderator):
We're about half way through today's discussion. Please keep your questions coming.
Question from Jeffrey Selingo:
What are we to make of the number of presidents who never attend religious services given that the U.S. is a fairly religious country?
John Maguire:
11% is not a particularly surprising number. Recent CIRP (UCLA/Astin) studies show that an increasing number of entering freshmen nationally (and their parents) are not specifying any religious preference. The data on presidents are quite consistent with national trends.
Question from Jeffrey Selingo:
Presidents said in the survey they don't socialize with friends very often probably because they don't have time. Is it damaging to a presidency if the person in the position becomes too lonely and disconnected from reality?
John DiBiaggio:
I think it is very dificult for anyone in a position of leadership to have close relationships with anyone at work. I encourage presidents to maintain friendships outside of work if possible. The hesitancy that some have to develop too close a relationship with others on campus is the fear that they will be based on some sort of personal gain. I think it is critical to have a life beyond the campus and many achieve that by having homes in other areas to which they can occasionally escape.
Question from Ben Davis:
It appears from the articles that many - if not most - presidents were surprised by the fiduciary responsibilities they assumed with the position. Is that the case or were they merely reflecting the increasing emphasis on that aspect of their duties?
John DiBiaggio:
Well I think its both. The responsiblilites have grown because of financial management in part because of reductions of state support at public institutions and the ever increasing need to raise money in the privates. Additionally universities provide more services than in the pst which are not only costly but also require increased oversight. Todays universities are huge complexes often including residence halls, food services, security, as well as a number amenities that students expect.
Jeffrey Selingo (Moderator):
We got a few questions from community colleges about why they were not included. The issues that presidents of two-year institutions face are different in some ways than those of four-year colleges. As a result, it was difficult to design a survey to include both. We hope to do a similar survey of two-year college presidents at some point in the future.
Question from Jeffrey Selingo:
John Maguire has something to add on that point as well, John?
John Maguire:
While I won't presume to speak for The Chronicle on this question, we did discuss the option of surveying all 3,000+ American institutions of higher education at one time and agreed that the differences across institution types were significant enough to warrant separate studies. As you may have noted, the present survey was already quite lengthy, and adding further complexity would likely have reduced the response rate considerably.
Question from Jeffrey Selingo:
This is a question to both guests: We see this emphasis on finances and fundraising in the survey, yet boards typically hire academics. Will we ever, and when, see more CFO's and development officers move into the ranks of presidents?
John Maguire:
We are already seeing CFOs, marketing and development officers moving into the presidency. In my travels I have seen changes just within the past few years in the makeups of client presidencies. And more often today, CFOs have broader perspectives on academic programming, student life, and marketing, which will make them better candidates for future presidencies. We are also seeing provosts whose perspectives are broadening in the other direction. Given that over 50% of the presidents are over 60, there will be a major turnover in college presidencies in the next decade. This broadened perspective and active mentoring will be essential to ensure that qualified candidates emerge--both internally and externally.
Question from Raymond Linville, Radford University:
More experience with fund raising was reported as a need for college presidents. What can they do to better acquire these skills?
John DiBiaggio:
That is indeed the case at both public and private institutions. In the public sector as reductions have occured in state support the need for fundraising to maintain the integrity of programs has become more common. In the private sector there has always been a need for private support, but this has even become more intensive in recent years. The increased burden on students and their families due to rising tuition and fees has made the need for fundraising even more critical in order to provide student aid. Very few presidents have had preparation to engage in extensive fundraising and have to learn it through trial and error, however, they seem to manage to do so with the help of their development officers, especially if one measures their success by the reports of capital campaigns seeming to achieve their goals.
Question from Diane; small community college:
What results did you find most surprising when comparing the survey results between presidents of private and public institutions?
John Maguire:
I was surprised that the public presidents were so much less likely than private presidents to be "highly satisfied" with their compensation package (13% versus 35%). Also, I would not necessarily have predicted that public presidents were substantially more likely to have been provosts or chief academic officers than private presidents (42% versus 26%). Finally, public presidents were almost twice as likely to view retention as a "very great concern" as private presidents (50% versus 29%).
Question from Jeffrey Selingo:
John, could the findings of this survey be useful to search committees in looking for a president or boards as they evaluate presidents?
John DiBiaggio:
I believe so because it does seem to spell out the responsibilities that a president must now assume. Search committees should look for candidates who have the requisite skills to carry out those responsibilities. It is obvious that a president must spend a considerable amount of time on external affairs, including fundraising. This suggests that other may be responsible for day to day operational matters, and the current president must be able to delegate and oversee those activities.
Jeffrey Selingo (Moderator):
We have a few more minutes, so if you have a question to ask, please do it now. We have a few more to get to yet.
Question from Lisa Atkins, Univ. of Central Florida:
Given the current situation at American University, what is your stance on Presidents as role models? As a future student affairs administrators, it disappoints me to see the growing number of senior administrators that are being exposed for wrongful spending. I wonder, how do these particular individuals think that what they've done is justified?
John DiBiaggio:
I do believe that presidents are role models not only for the students at their institutions, but their communities at large. I believe their behavior should reflect that important responsibility, and I have been cognisant of that. I have been embarrassed as have others, by the personal conduct of a few of our colleagues but I am pleased that that is indeed a limited minority. The vast majority of college and university presidents have exemplory behavior, and I believe are superb role models for others to emulate.
Question from Andrew Mytelka, Chronicle of Higher Ed:
The survey found that 60% of presidents think big-time college sports are more of a liability than an asset. The presidents also said athletic ability should be accorded the lowest weight in admissions decisions in comparison to such other factors as socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, artistic ability, ability to pay full tuition, and gender. How come we rarely hear college presidents speaking out about their true views of the role of college sports?
John DiBiaggio:
I among others believe college sports have an important role on our campuses for those who have the skill to participate, for those who enjoy watching sports, and for school spirit and moral. The over-commercialization of sports have led to behaviors that all universities should find unacceptable - lowering academic standards for the admission of skilled athletes, obscene salaries being paid to coaches in major sports, construction of expensive athletic abilities when other critical needs are left unmet, and scheduling of sports events during times when students should be attending classes, are some examples of behaviors that should not be permitted. In my view, these issues can only be addressed at the campus level by institutional leadership, rather than through a vehicle such as the NCAA.
Jeffrey Selingo (Moderator):
That's all we have time for today. Sorry we couldn't get to all the questions. Thanks to both guests today for making time in their schedule for this chat.