The New University: Physical Plant

A second basic element to be considered in the future model of higher education is physical plant, i.e., facilities.  The traditional model is grounded in brick and mortar.  It assumes that education is separate from mainstream society, removed from “the real world.”  It further assumes that professors and physical libraries are the repository of knowledge.  Knowledge is transferred from professors into the empty vessels known as students in a classroom environment.  It does not include a technological base like that which characterizes the rest of society.

To elucidate, let’s consider facilities in the context of broader society.  We assume—no demand—that services be available both physically and virtually, 24 hours a day.  Take, for example, banking.  I haven’t visited my local bank in months.  I know where it is and what it looks like.  It is populated with pleasant, well-groomed young people who are generally very helpful.  But for the most part I do not need to interact with them.  I can complete most of my banking transactions on line.  However, on the occasions that I do wish to speak with a real person, I expect that the pleasant, well-groomed folks will be available.  To provide adequate service, the organizational banking systems must be accessible, user-friendly, and results oriented.

The same must become true for higher education.  The new model must be a single system incorporating high touch and high tech.  It must not be organized around physical plant, or around a purely technological infrastructure   it must be a system of people when we want them, and technology when we don’t—and vice versa.

Thus, in a new model investments in facilities must be tempered to make the larger system is cost effective.  A study conducted at an American public institution sheds some light here. Several years ago this institution implemented a new online unit in order to increase student capacity, and thus enhance revenue. When revenue projections were not being met, the new online system was quickly analyzed. It was discovered that more than 50 per cent of students enrolled in the online classes were taking those classes from their dorm rooms on campus.

This was distressing for two reasons.  First, the online program was not generating the intended increased revenue, since the same number of students was taking the same number of courses, just in a different format. Second, with on-campus students taking virtual classes from their dorm rooms, classroom facilities usage was going down, while maintenance costs for those facilities remained constant.  This resulted in additional cost inefficiencies.  The lesson here is that in the future model there is much opportunity to redirect funds and to build or refit current facilities into technologically flexible assets

A corollary here is that Higher education must prepare itself for a “big box business model.”  Small, boutique institutions will not by and large survive.  Already they are looking to mergers or simply closing their doors.  University of Phoenix was successful in part because it was a blended, big-box model.  As for facilities, it built, then sold and rented back facilities, which kept it flexible.  The business model of the future must plan for a one stop shopping experience both physically and virtually for higher education.