Is Meaningful Change in Governing Boards Really Possible?

Commentaries on books (our own in this case!) have multiple purposes, the most obvious of which is to convince readers to purchase the book and persuade others to do the same. But such reflections also provide an opportunity to address questions and concerns raised by those already wise enough to have purchased the book.

COVID-19 affected many lives, some fatally, and consequently we had to cancel a half-dozen lectures and book presentations in sites ranging from Miami, FL to El Paso, TX. This may seem like small potatoes when weighed against the pandemic’s terrible impact. COVID-19 also dictated that virtually all interactions concerning our book would come via the Internet — e-mails, blogs, scholarly review, etc. We continue the spirit of those interchanges here by addressing the primary topics that we find have interested, intrigued, or discombobulated readers.

Let’s begin with a fundamental concern that has arisen among readers. Given the picture of higher education we paint in “Runaway College Costs,” is meaningful change in governing boards and how they approach their duties really possible? In truth, the outlook is cloudy because improvement in results (defined here primarily as making college more accessible and affordable to Americans) will require agreement and action in many quarters. The parties of interest include the governors who appoint a substantial majority of the members of public governing boards. Their appointees vote unanimously in favor of cost increases proposed to them by administrators almost every time. Governors need to appoint superior individuals willing to undergo rather continuous training to understand what has become a very complex higher education environment, filled with many different revenue sources, public/private partnerships, foundations, research grants, intercollegiate athletics, changing student tastes, and numerous cross-subsidies. Alas, governors often have strong political reasons for doing otherwise and it will take statutory action in most states to force gubernatorial hands.

Which brings us to legislators, who affect both public and private institutions. In most states, the statutory guidance provided public governing board members by legislators is surprisingly vapid and, for example, usually says nothing about student access and affordability. We must redo the statutory basis for higher education — public and private — to enable board members to do the right thing. Yet, legislators are unlikely to do this in the absence of strong public sentiment from them to do so, and the absence of a major student/parent national consumer organization for higher education along the lines of the Consumer’s Union tells us that prospects are not bright for such political pressure to develop.

However, headcount enrollments in American higher education have fallen nine years in a row and this has made a variety of parties more receptive to new ideas and change than they might be otherwise. Even so, we share the fear of some readers that special interests (universities being one) will subtly torpedo reforms. They are accomplished experts at this.

Some readers have noted that we rely extensively on Opportunity Insights family income data to make the case that American higher education has become a primary mechanism by which income inequality and social class are transmitted from one generation to the next, almost as if inherited. They note that these data did not become available until 2017 and therefore one could not expect members of governing boards to know and understand these data immediately. This is a legitimate observation, but it now is four years later and members of governing boards should be aware both of the household incomes of the students who come to them and the incomes those students earn after they leave.

Nikki Sixx, who plays a very loud bass for the heavy metal band Mötley Crüe, once observed that “People say I have a distorted lens. I think I see things as they really are.” We share Nikki’s feeling. Many in the higher education establishment have not been receptive to our data and messages, but we believe we are telling things the way they really are.