Another highly successful and publicized program is The Boston Consortium for Higher Education (TBC) founded in 1995 by the Chief Financial Officers of 11 Boston-area institutions. Its mission is “to act as an external resource in creating a collaborative environment among member institutions for the development and practical implementation of cost saving and quality improvement ideas” (see website: mission statement). TBC’s emphasis is on non-academic discipline and learning tools, in particular learning a new way of collaborating where collaboration is defined by enlightened self-interest in contrast to defining collaboration in altruistic terms as is common with many consortia. The focus is thus on each school’s particular need and interest acknowledging that not all projects benefit each institution. As the only CFO-governed organization, TBC claims to practice cutting edge management science employing action-learning techniques, emphasizing management skills and seeing itself as an agent for change, a resource for managers and a community of learning.
The expansion of consortia in the US over the years and their success stories speak for their value in finding alternate ways to stream revenues. There are many different types of consortia with agreements varying from sharing libraries only to sharing all facilities and making different institutions available for students. CUNY alone has several consortia between its campuses but not necessarily encompassing all campuses. Examples are “Prelude to Success,” a collaboration between Hunter College and BMCC; the Consortium for International Studies (CCIS) used by Queens College and the College of Staten Island; the Council of Foreign Languages (CFL); and the Lower Manhattan-Downtown Brooklyn Consortium of Foreign Languages encompassing five campuses and seeking to achieve the goals and objectives of the university’s LOTE initiative (Languages Other Than English).
A newer project with some consortia has been sharing faculty, in particular creating shared tenure-track positions. The question that has been debated is whether or not shared professors are cost effective and beneficial to students as well as institutions within the concept of a consortium. The financial and structural implications that underlie the decision to join or form a consortium are as complex as the decision to share a professorial line with another institution.
For students, a consortium agreement is generally a positive development since it enables them to share facilities with nearby institutions and take courses in their studies without complicated and uncertain transfer credit procedures. Financially, students pay their home institution and thus do not encounter beaurocratic complications. However, if students decide to major or minor in a joint program, they could encounter problems with scheduling or advising.
Joint-appointments, especially tenure-track lines have been implemented by a few institutions only. With universities being forced to look for ways to cut costs and balance their budgets and with salaries taking up the major part of it, sharing professors might become a viable option for saving small but essential programs. An example are language programs, in particular Russian, Japanese and German, were low enrollment coupled with a recent wave of retirements has threatened the viability of the programs since the administration has often decided to freeze or even cut lines bringing in adjuncts and allocating the resources gained by the difference in pay (full-time professor vs. part-time adjunct) to other areas. An example for successfully shared professorial lines is the Five College Incorporate consortium who with the help of a grant by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation have recently made new joint hires and even created shared tenure-track appointments. It has enabled the campuses to offer Asian-Pacific American studies and neither campus had to hire a full-time professor. The divisions of the Arts and Sciences, however, can continue to offer the section and thus show their diversity in intellectual thought and academic programs.
For the individual professor the advantage is simply put – a job. In a highly competitive market, finding a tenure-track position has been difficult. Another advantage is the experience one gains by being involved in two or three departments and having a larger group for faculty support. However, it can also create isolation from much needed support by colleagues especially if the appointment is a tenure-track line. Professors have to make sure they are in sync with their home department where the contract will be drawn and tenure will be evaluated.
In order to offset problems brought on by every college looking out for itself, a consortium has to have clear goals and structures and help make marginal yet important decisions. That entails appointing a chairman who oversees the decision process, the budget, and the hiring process, represents the consortium’s interests as well as its professors to the universities involved and looks for outside funding together with a strong board of directors. As is the case with TBC and the Five Colleges Inc., they have gained financial means of their own and function like an independent company negotiating with each of its member financial contracts and joint agreements where the college puts up half the money for a project and the Consortium brings in the other half through funds from a donor.
It is difficult to say if a joint professorial line works for students and faculty. Probably it is not for everyone and as a professor puts it bluntly saying “Even though this might on paper look fabulous for institutions to share, the cost is largely to these faculty and subtly to the students because the professors aren’t around as much” (Chronicle of Higher Education. 10/22 2004. A22). Certainly, for the institutions it is profitable and indirectly often for the professor who has work and the students who can study in a program that otherwise might not exist.
Looking at Bruce Johnstone’s concept of “cost”, the cost to a college is not only the salary and benefits but also in a joint appointment the negative time of the professor away from campus. It is an indirect and hard to measure cost that the students and departments pay by dealing with a professor/colleague who is only partially available. The benefit, however, is a larger more attractive curriculum and new ideas and input for the department and the students. Measuring the benefit might be within the Productivity Immune Sector when costs are rising with productivity staying the same (output of teaching). Yet a shared position cuts the cost and raises productivity. Thus shared positions managed by a consortium make new resources available to institutions and could even reduce the operating budget.
However, one also has to consider the costs involved in reviewing the authenticity and viability of outside consortia as is the case with the College Consortium for International Studies (CCIS) which some campuses of CUNY have joined. CUNY has implemented a periodic review by the Program Review Subcommittee (PRS) of the Academic Programs Committee (APC) which is a process that works on reviewing the programs and structures and works on resolving arising issues. In the case of sharing faculty, the review is done by the departments involved with one institution serving as the ‘home’ department for the professor where the tenure review will take place. Salary and teaching load will have to be comparable to other equal ranking positions with commuting time having to be accounted for. As stated above, consortia create endowments by looking for funding with alumni, foundations and other sources. To keep a financial equilibrium, a shared professorial line has to compliment a balanced budget and protect the endowment by being seen as an asset to foundations or private donors in an annual fund drive. Another asset of keeping a program alive with an alternative academic line is keeping the intergenerational fact in mind. Closing a program can be a step backwards and reduces the pool of new ideas and intellectual wealth. Sharing lines also improves proficiency since students are drawn from a larger pool and class size can rise.
Nevertheless, the issue with shared professorial lines is a question of revenue resources and it seems a good alternative to balance the eternal pull between spending and saving. To a potential donor it shows the interest of the institution in its intellectual assets (an academic program) and its sense of responsibility towards students and higher education. Joining a consortium which plays the role of mediator between the institution’s interest and financial needs and the donor’s interest also shows the institutions willingness to collaborate and endowments which have proven to enlarge through a consortium add to the institution’s financial health and flexibility which is becoming more and more important for public institutions. As Donald Frey argues, returns should be spent on a higher rate since in the future endowments will be richer. A consortium can be of help for institutions to figure out their spending policy rate depending on the size of their endowment and future projection.
In conclusion, sharing professorial lines within a consortium agreement can definitely be seen as a positive revenue stream and is in line with Ehrenberg’s argument that institutions have to diversify their revenue streams. Yet his question whether revenues generated by sharing professorial lines are self-supporting or fund other core missions has to be negated. The measured benefit of sharing professorial lines is keeping vital academic programs alive and diversifying the academic community of an institution.
Bibliography
Association for Consortium Leadership. Best Practices in Higher Education Consortia: _ How Institutions Can Work Together. Jossey-Bass, 1999. http://www.acl.org
Ehrenberg, Ronald G. Tuition Rising. UP Harvard, Cambridge, MA. 2000.
---. “The Supply of American Higher Education Institutions.” Ford Policy Forum, 2001. Eds. Michael McPherson and Morton Schapiro. Retrieved from
Frey, Donald. “University Endowment Returns are Underspent.” Challenge, vol. 45, no. 4, July/August 2002, pp. 109-121.
Hignite, Karla and Christine Larger. “Putting College Costs in Context.” January 2004. Retrieved from
Johnstone, Bruce. D. “The Economics and Finance of Higher Education: Introductory Concepts.” http://, Buffalo, NY.
Paulsen, Michael B. and John C. Smart. The Finance of Higher Education: Theory, _ Research, Policy & Practice. Eds. Agathon Press, NY. 2001.
Wilson, Robert. “Whose Professor Is It, Anyway?” Chronicle of Higher Education. October 22, 2004. A12.
http://
http://www.revolutionaryeurope.org
