next »

[jonesey]

There seems to be a blantant ignorance of a little something called 'the fact/value distinction' on this thread recently.  This issue is primarily ethical, not economic.

Right up until they closed the doors to the college...

It doesn't matter how ethical an institution is if it doesn't pay attention to the economical.  The two are not mutually exclusive, something many Progressives don't seem to understand.

[invinoveritas]

Of course a university will not endure if it ignores finances.  That's as obvious as 2+2=4. 

That wasn't my point.  Many posts on this thread criticized the ethics/ideology of Antioch rather than its accounting.  All of a sudden the discussion turned to how Antioch and everything about it 'deserved to die' because it was 'too idealistic' rather than practical.

My point was that the ideals of practicality and efficiency only go so far.  I disagree with your claim that 'it doesn't matter how ethical an institution is if it doesn't pay attention to the economical'.  Despite its failure to sustain itself, Antioch stands as an ideal (whether you agree with its ideals or not) and it does 'matter'.  I don't necessarily agree with everything Antioch stood for, but I find it encouraging that many people saw ethics and compassion as more important than finances...especially once you consider the current state of education in this country. 

We would be better off with more 'Antiochs' than less.  As Socrates once said: "We are discussing no small matter, but how we ought to live".  At least Antioch seemed to take this seriously.  Most American universities do not.  Education is more than just profit and efficiency.  There is an ethical component to it that your hasty criticism of my point seems to have overlooked.

[jonesey]

...the ideals of practicality and efficiency only go so far.  I disagree with your claim that 'it doesn't matter how ethical an institution is if it doesn't pay attention to the economical'.  Despite its failure to sustain itself, Antioch stands as an ideal (whether you agree with its ideals or not) and it does 'matter'.  Education is more than just profit and efficiency.

Again, the two are not mutually exclusive.  I agree that it would be nice to have more schools like Antioch (I know many people think that all schools are like Antioch,; I'm not one of those).  The issue is that now Antioch doesn't exist.  While it makes a nice martyr to, well, bad bookkeeping and poor financial managment, I suppose, the bottom line is that it would be better to have Antioch educating students than just some empty buildings that people point to and tell their kids "Once upon a time..."

UC Berekely seems to do a good job of being a bastion of left wing ideology, and it's still around.  Would you suggest that they have forgone their ethics in favor of ideology? 

It's the same thing that drives me crazy about the political Left in this country; all ideas, no action.  Getting a few people together to complain about George Bush at the local Food Co-Op isn't effecting change.  There's a reson the Green Party isn't ever going to go anywhere, and it's not about their ethics.

[theothershoe]

Of course a university will not endure if it ignores finances.  That's as obvious as 2+2=4. 

That wasn't my point.  Many posts on this thread criticized the ethics/ideology of Antioch rather than its accounting.  All of a sudden the discussion turned to how Antioch and everything about it 'deserved to die' because it was 'too idealistic' rather than practical.

The original post was in response to Ralph Keyes' assertion that Antioch had developed a "toxic culture."  It's not that Antioch was "too idealistic," lots of colleges (and other organizations) are idealistic.  The issue at hand is whether Antioch had become so narrow in its world view that opposing ideologies were simply shut out.  If this was the case, then Antioch was certainly no free marketplace of ideas, and had perhaps lost its right to exist as a contributer to the greater good. 

I have no first-hand knowledge of anything that has happened at Antioch, so I'm just speculating based on published reports.  But what I've read paints a negative picture.  The Mumia Abu Jamal incident, which several posts have mentioned, simply fits the pattern of narrow-minded group-think.  As do many of the examples given by Keyes.  As does the failure of the organization to seriously evaluate itself over the course of many years of declining enrollment. 

I don't think many people would say Antioch deserved to die simply for putting idealism over practicality.  What appears to have happened at Antioch is way beyond idealism.

[zharkov]

Of course a university will not endure if it ignores finances.  That's as obvious as 2+2=4. 

That wasn't my point.  Many posts on this thread criticized the ethics/ideology of Antioch rather than its accounting.  All of a sudden the discussion turned to how Antioch and everything about it 'deserved to die' because it was 'too idealistic' rather than practical.

My point was that the ideals of practicality and efficiency only go so far.  I disagree with your claim that 'it doesn't matter how ethical an institution is if it doesn't pay attention to the economical'.  Despite its failure to sustain itself, Antioch stands as an ideal (whether you agree with its ideals or not) and it does 'matter'.  I don't necessarily agree with everything Antioch stood for, but I find it encouraging that many people saw ethics and compassion as more important than finances...especially once you consider the current state of education in this country. 

We would be better off with more 'Antiochs' than less.  As Socrates once said: "We are discussing no small matter, but how we ought to live".  At least Antioch seemed to take this seriously.  Most American universities do not.  Education is more than just profit and efficiency.  There is an ethical component to it that your hasty criticism of my point seems to have overlooked.

Years ago, in grad school (not Antioch), I mentioned to my adviser that a lot of the faculty seem to criticize the school's president.  My adviser replied that the president had done the unheralded job of making the school "a going concern."  And only by being "a going concern" could it begin to accomplish the more idealistic things it stood for.

Becoming and maintaining "going concern" status is thus a necessary, but by no mean sufficient, requirement for a healthy school.   It is certainly not the purpose of a school, but failure to watch the economics can only lead to disaster.

FWIW, I wish there were more Antiochs, too.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

I am curious as to what the level of the endowment was before the expansion beyond the original college, as to how much of the endowment was used to subsidize creation of the greater institution, and as to what fraction of the endowment comes from college alumni versus alumni of the greater institution.  I think this would tell us a lot about how to distribute the fault.   - DvF

[dogvomit]

Here is one. 
Who cares.
There were several colleges that were closed this year, why is Antioch the only one be glorified. 
Yes it had some graduates who made something of themselves.  What school has not?

Is it just that they developed such and odd campus philosophy?

If your school has fewer than 2,000 students and has a declining or barely stable enrollment, expect it to be on its way out.

[aandsdean]

Here is one. 
Who cares.
There were several colleges that were closed this year, why is Antioch the only one be glorified. 
Yes it had some graduates who made something of themselves.  What school has not?

Is it just that they developed such and odd campus philosophy?

If your school has fewer than 2,000 students and has a declining or barely stable enrollment, expect it to be on its way out.

That's a radical overgeneralization, frog.  There are plenty of 1,000-2,000 student colleges that are doing just fine with stable (even if barely stable, which I suppose is something like "pretty unique") enrollments.  Declines, however, are always a problem unless they're planned.

But again, there are at least 300 colleges in this size range in the country (probably quite a lot more than that) that are, if not always comfortable, at least solid.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

Here is one. 
Who cares.
There were several colleges that were closed this year, why is Antioch the only one be glorified. 

Some years back, Burton Clark wrote a book (a bestseller!) in which Antioch was singled out as an archetype for a certain type of SLAC: The Distinctive College : Antioch, Reed and Swarthmore.  At the time, no other small college in the US (possibly excepting Deep Springs) had Antioch's vision of study/work/service.

Clark Kerr taught there briefly, and claimed to have been influenced by some of their principles in his administration when he was president of UC-berkeley.  I think that both historically and for reasons of intellectual influence elsewhere in US higher education, the closing of Antioch is far more noteworthy than closing of the other schools you mention. - DvF

[dogvomit]

Here is one. 
Who cares.
There were several colleges that were closed this year, why is Antioch the only one be glorified. 
Yes it had some graduates who made something of themselves.  What school has not?

Is it just that they developed such and odd campus philosophy?

If your school has fewer than 2,000 students and has a declining or barely stable enrollment, expect it to be on its way out.

That's a radical overgeneralization, frog.  There are plenty of 1,000-2,000 student colleges that are doing just fine with stable (even if barely stable, which I suppose is something like "pretty unique") enrollments.  Declines, however, are always a problem unless they're planned.

But again, there are at least 300 colleges in this size range in the country (probably quite a lot more than that) that are, if not always comfortable, at least solid.

And excluding those that have large endowments they are all having significant financial problems and much financial difficulty. 

[csguy]

And excluding those that have large endowments they are all having significant financial problems and much financial difficulty. 

Not all by any means. The one I know best is currently financially stable, running in the black. Budget is fairly tight but it's not about to go bust. They've caught up on most deferred maintenance and managed some new buildings.

[aandsdean]

Here is one. 
Who cares.
There were several colleges that were closed this year, why is Antioch the only one be glorified. 
Yes it had some graduates who made something of themselves.  What school has not?

Is it just that they developed such and odd campus philosophy?

If your school has fewer than 2,000 students and has a declining or barely stable enrollment, expect it to be on its way out.

That's a radical overgeneralization, frog.  There are plenty of 1,000-2,000 student colleges that are doing just fine with stable (even if barely stable, which I suppose is something like "pretty unique") enrollments.  Declines, however, are always a problem unless they're planned.

But again, there are at least 300 colleges in this size range in the country (probably quite a lot more than that) that are, if not always comfortable, at least solid.

And excluding those that have large endowments they are all having significant financial problems and much financial difficulty. 

Again, depends on how you define large, significant and much.  I'll venture my perspective on this matter:  I currently work at a 3,500 FTE private university with an $80 million or so endowment, and manage about 10% of the university's operating budget in arts and sciences.  I worked for some years at an 1,100-student SLAC with an endowment that is now in the mid-$50 million range and I keep close track of it as I still have many friends there.  Moreover, I've interviewed for jobs (Dean of the College/VPAA/Provost) at about five such schools over the past several years and not one of these colleges has been among the "well endowed."

When you interview for this kind of job, at least at the campus-visit level, you start seeing open books.  None of the schools in question have had "significant" financial problems, if by these you mean seriously decaying buildings, inability to meet payrolls, dismissing people because of financial exigency, cashing out the endowment, etc.  Neither do any of them pay faculty and staff what they really should, nor are they exactly gold-plating the faucets in the restrooms, but if you have a 1,200 student college, a $60,000,000 endowment, reasonable discount rate among your students, and rational staffing levels, you can do quite nicely on a $ 35 million annual budget, and the math to get there isn't all that difficult.

If you want more information, look at the form 990s (tax returns) for some selected schools on guidestar.org.  You can get a pretty good perspective on how the financing of such a school works.

Antioch, on the other hand, was in big trouble and had been for years.  Different deal entirely.

[dogvomit]

I guess I am jumping the gun, but I really do not see how these institutions can compete over the long haul. 

ONly so many graduates become millionaires.
Only so many of those donate to schools.
ONly so many of those that donate donate milions.

Therefore, as we move through the next 50-100 yrs the large universities (private or public) will continue to graduate more students, of which a larger absolute number are millionaires, and actually give large sums back.

Additionally, with only 2000 students, the alumni base does not grow much relative to the larger schools.  If 1/2 of alumni give $100 (and this may be an exaggeration) then your 2000 students produce much less than the big schools. 

Its a spiral to extinction because the costs of running universities continue to escalate, especially in the sciences.  The large TCUs and Notre Dames are unlikely to suffer, the schools between 3500 and 5000 can probably get by and will likely grow.  But the tiny schools are already at a distinct disadvantage and attracting students surely will continue to be a singificant problem.

I recall a small SLAC of 800 or so students I worked at.  It was in desperation to increase enrollment.  There is a minimum critical mass of students that is needed for long term health of the program.  If your SLAC is not growing, or increasing the proportion of top students in its student body, it is pretty much already in a downward trend. 

The time was when the BEST students went to a SLAC, today, the very best end up at the state land grant or a large private school. 

That doesn't mean the SLACs aren't getting very good students, but the small ones do not have the facilities of the large schools and cannot teach the kinds of things required for technological fields. 

I know one SLAC that is 3500 students, but also has a med school, pharmacy, and several other professional schools.  These institutions aren't even comparable to a small private traditionally black baptist school in Texas, for example.  There are literally tons of these tiny schools around, all of which are probably not going to survive the 21st century. 

[csguy]

The HBCU's are in trouble anyway. Since higher ed. has integrated one of their main attractions has greatly diminished. To a lesser extent the same is true of women's colleges.

It's hard to say what the minimum viable size of a school is or will be. There are students who will pay a premium for the small campus experience. Overall I'd guess the SLAC is not a growth market but I don't think it's dead yet. There is a tendency for schools to grow a bit (from 1500 to 2000 say) but beyond a certain point I doubt you get that much economy of scale (assuming that you keep the student faculty ratio low).

Schools are having to pony up for some rather pricey items to remain competitive. New science buildings (in the 10's of millions), recreation and fitness centers, better housing.

[dogvomit]

The HBCU's are in trouble anyway. Since higher ed. has integrated one of their main attractions has greatly diminished. To a lesser extent the same is true of women's colleges.

It's hard to say what the minimum viable size of a school is or will be. There are students who will pay a premium for the small campus experience. Overall I'd guess the SLAC is not a growth market but I don't think it's dead yet. There is a tendency for schools to grow a bit (from 1500 to 2000 say) but beyond a certain point I doubt you get that much economy of scale (assuming that you keep the student faculty ratio low).

Schools are having to pony up for some rather pricey items to remain competitive. New science buildings (in the 10's of millions), recreation and fitness centers, better housing.

This was said much more eloquently than my comment and less abrasively.  Its the basic gist of what I am perceiving.  Thanks