Capital Central to Graduate Success for Small InstitutionsEvan Duff | Interim Provost and Senior Vice President of Academic Affairs and Adult Studies, North Carolina Wesleyan College
The following email Q&A is with Evan Duff, vice president of adult and professional studies at North Carolina Wesleyan College. Duff writes frequently on the work done, and roadblocks faced, by small colleges in today’s highly-competitive higher education marketplace. In this Q&A, Duff explores the question of whether smaller colleges are helped or hindered by their size when it comes to competing in the graduate education space. He sheds light on the agility of smaller institutions, but outlines the most significant challenges they face and discusses how institutions can work to improve their standing in the graduate marketplace.
1. What competitive advantages do small institutions have when it comes to developing and delivering innovative approaches to programming?
I think small institutions have many competitive advantages in developing and delivering innovative approaches to graduate programming. Smaller institutions tend to have a more nimble administration, faculty and staff that can develop and implement new programming more effectively than larger state institutions. Smaller institutions — especially private, non-profit — also don’t have the red tape and politics involved in implementing new programs like their larger state and research-oriented companions. Smaller institutions can build a quicker consensus and typically have more intimate and personal relationships among administration, faculty and staff because of their size.
2. In what ways can size be a hindrance when it comes to innovative program design?
On the opposite side of the spectrum, smaller colleges and universities typically don’t have the capital and infrastructure larger institutions have. Because of this, they’re limited in scope and breadth with new programs. They typically have to limit new programming to the faculty they already have in place and that don’t require major infrastructure and capital. This may prevent them from implementing the best and most innovative programs, especially in areas of high demand that are constantly evolving, such as nursing and computer technology.
3. What really differentiates smaller schools from their larger competitors in the graduate education space?
I think the biggest difference is developing niche programs that are innovative in delivery and structure. An example of this is smaller private schools developing cohort and accelerated graduate programs that may be offered in a hospital (BSN to MSN) or in an organization (MBA). Smaller institutions have the ability to be creative and quick when it comes to offering a more tailored approach to graduate education to working adults and employers. This is something community colleges have been doing for decades with industry training for major and minor organizations in their service areas. Larger, more research-oriented colleges and schools typically don’t invest in these types of partnerships because they don’t have the accelerated structure in place or it’s not part of their mission and vision.
4. Ultimately, are smaller institutions in a better or a worse position than bigger schools when it comes to developing innovative graduate programs?
I certainly think smaller institutions could be in a much better position than larger schools. It all comes down to capital and investment planning with graduate programs. They are nimble and can be innovative without the bureaucracy of larger institutions, but they need to plan the funding for these innovations. The one exception is your large for-profit institutions. They typically have the capital and flexibility with faculty and staff to be innovative and, ultimately, the biggest competition for small or large non-profit or state institutions.
Author Perspective: Administrator