Update on the College Finances
Middlebury is a small college in the middle of nowhere Vermont with big dreams. In the last 10-15 years, the college has taken significant (financial) risks to help achieve those dreams (McCardell Bicentennial Hall, the New Library), knowing full well that at times it would reap the rewards and that at other times it would pay. Right now, it’s paying, and changes have to be made.
In December 2009, the Administration sent out surveys to faculty, staff and students asking direct questions about which (drastic yet necessary) changes to the college’s major cost drivers (salary, benefits, financial aid, infrastructure and student life) were most palatable and which were unthinkable. In two open meetings to the community today, President Liebowitz presented the findings.
With an overall response rate of 49% (that’s 1,924 surveys, 1,068 of which were from students), the survey results painted an interesting picture of agreement at the expense of ingenuity.
All groups were posed with six potential ways to cut costs: reduction of financial aid, salary reduction, reduction of building and landscape maintenance, reduction of faculty size, increase in the size of the student body, and a reduction in staff and faculty benefits. All groups found any sort of reduction in financial aid to be unacceptable, and all groups agreed that maintenance of buildings and grounds was the most acceptable change.
Each group was also presented with important budget items relevant to their position on campus. In general, faculty were against reductions in salaries and benefits but in favor of streamlining curriculum and eliminating discounts to college events. Staff were also in favor of cutting access to places like the Juice Bar and the Snow Bowl but, again, opposed to reductions and salary and vacation benefits. Students were most against reducing dining hall options and the possibility of double majoring but were, almost overwhelmingly, in favor of reducing funding for sports.
What the survey revealed overall was that all three groups–students, faculty and staff–are in agreement about the changes that need to be made. It’s time to streamline and reduce excess luxury without sacrificing the diversity and academic rigor of the institution. In other words, people are in agreement with the changes that have been recommended since the college’s budget began suffering. Liebowitz’s presentation also revealed that all things related to 51 Main and Monterey are here to stay.
What was missing in this presentation and these results was something radical, some ingenious idea that will not only save money but change the way the college operates in an innovative way. (Though reducing athletics would definitely change the definition of the college, I don’t view it as a radical solution.)
At the meetings, Liebowitz talked a lot about Middlebury needing to compete with its peers, Amherst, Williams, Bates, etc. But what if Middlebury lead them? By making the obvious cuts, the college is adapting to the environment more than forging ahead. Now is the time to set the tone of liberal arts colleges for the next decade, and why not put that responsibility on Middlebury’s shoulders? Why stop dreaming big now? Unfortunately, I have no super idea of my own to throw into the rink first, but I want to put the challenge out there.
So MiddBlog wants to know: what radical ideas, practical or crazy, do you have? In what other ways can the college take risks, forge ahead and cut costs at the same time?
(Note: Once the results of a survey of alumni have been received, a full report will be published by the college.)
Comments are closed.
I may have been at a different open meetin (there were two yesterday) — I was at the 4:15 session at Dana — but I got the OPPOSITE message from President Liebowitz.
When asked about past competition with peers, the question was how that would play into our approach to finances going forward.
Liebowitz was clear that it was precisely the competition — trying to be the best in every single thing (salaries, facilities, student-faculty ratios, amenities, etc) — since the mid-1990s when borrowing money for non-profits became so easy that got us into this cycle of spending and failing to prioritize what was most important to do.
He noted we have been competing with schools twice as wealthy and it is no longer possible to do this. We have no financial flexibility any more, as we don’t want to overspend the endowment as the College had been doing since the late 1990s when it introduced the commons (with all the building and staffing it required) plus planned the new library, plus added new faculty positions (which is why I am here), plus increased salaries for staff and faculty, etc.
He suggested that the time has come to pick and choose among all the things we do and agree that we can’t do it all.
He mentioned that he will give a campus address before the trustee meeting where he will explain any changes in policies he will discuss with the trustees at the February trustee meeting. We can see then whether it will be the same old, same old, or something new.
Thank you for this post, Emily.
Amherst is the last “peer” Middlebury should follow. Despite recent huge gifts to the Institution, its endowment sits on a precipice of overwhelming debt. Their plans for a science bldg renovation/needed improvement is but a distant memory for the foreseeable future, their liquidity problems are massive, their asset allocation is in trouble, they have huge cash calls over the next four years AND they are currently borrowing in order to pay their light bill. Hardly the beacon of leadership.
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/743711-harvard-had-no-idea-things-were-bad-34.html
Much like Dartmouth, I have a feeling Amherst’s no-loan policy in financial aid is probably going to have to, at the very least, raise its qualifying family income minimum, IF they keep it at all.
Continuing need-blind admissions is a lofty and admirable goal, but a lot of peer schools are going to have to reconsider how this is done as we come into the next few years. Need-blind with one eye open? If you don’t want to cut course offerings or professor salaries and benefits, which would clearly water down the student experience, the call to think outside the box has never been louder.
When it comes to revenue streams, whatever happened to the idea that Middlebury get in on the Rosetta Stone market?
Get rid of the Commons system, create a position to keep track of maintenance/repairs (contractors are overcharging us intentionally for their work because there is no oversight of what materials they use/how long they work), and eliminate redundancy within the College bureaucracy.
One of the big take-aways I got from the meeting was that most faculty, staff, and students were generally okay with increasing the size of the student body to increase tuition revenue. That is no small change, though. Thoughts?
Dean Spears proposed some radical solutions: http://midd-blog.com/2009/10/22/thinking-big-getting-to-global-midd/
And you only need to read a few comments from his post to see how that fared in public opinion: http://blogs.middlebury.edu/onedeansview/2009/10/21/going-global/#comments
Robert: and how would you propose we offer deaning to students? Eliminating the commons might be a good idea, esecially to those who have little idea about what that might entail, but if you advocate that, what replaces it? It’s like saying get rid of the financial offices. Are you aware of what the commons is and what it does?
Better put: what aspects of the commons do you suggest we “get rid of,” and what do you think the $$$ savings would be??
Elizabeth, ’12
Elizabeth: Deans are important, and apparently the College thinks so too, since we have one for every 480 students.
The Commons system was an idea introduced by John McCardell during his presidency, and unfortunately, it was probably his worst idea. Middlebury has existed and could exist without the Commons system.
Perhaps you are worried that I’m in favor of firing a bunch of administrators. No, but I think their services (whatever those happen to be) could be employed more efficiently in other capacities (see point three.) I’m skeptical that we need five groups of staff members to provide the exact same services to five sections of the student body.
As for what would replace it, I would advise a residential support system that is tailored to the needs of freshmen. The support apparatus that the Commons system touts is of little use after a student’s first year at Middlebury. We would still have reslife staff like every other college and university for sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Only now there would be more flexibility in where one could choose to live. I hardly see this as a bad thing.
Of course, there are other reasons to do away with the Commons system that don’t involve bureaucratic redundancy/money. Socially, the Commons system can fragment the student body just as much as it unites it. I’m fully aware that different students have different experiences with the Commons system. If it wasn’t such a good gimmick to get people to apply here (lump it in with McCardell Bicentennial Hall, the biomass plant, and Middlebury’s picturesque setting), Old Chapel would have already looked into its efficacy. McCardell had good intentions, but I don’t think his plan has worked in practice. It’s also seems really wasteful.
So yes, I am fully aware of what the Commons system is (and isn’t) and what it does (and doesn’t do). It is for these reasons that I’m opposed to it.
Robert: the Commons system has been dismantled from its originall McCardellian intentions, and from what I have learned, thank goodness. Waste? We were supposed to have had FIVE sepearate dining halls, and only 2 of the Commons has its residential infrastructure as planned. We could have been spent $100 million dollars more on campus buildings and had 75 more dining staff had that “vision” been followed.
More to today’s system: the Commons has moved away from a four year system and now serves the first two years, first-years and sophomores — which coincides when students choose their majors and presumably receive mentoring and advice in their academic depts.
Before Commons, the college had four deans to take care of the campus; now it has five. The issue or focus should NOT be the commons, but the other student affairs offices that existed before commons and seem to have stuck around and seem to do things that are either unnecessary or could be done in the smaller commons units. That is where the bloat is, if anywhere.
Students now can live wherever they want after their second year. Not quite what you recommend, but it has moved from a 4-year system to a two year system.
Also: McCardell proposed this recognizing the school had grown from 1800 in the early-1980s to 2350 by the late 1990s when the Commons sytem was proposed. Some thought we were too big. Many current students don’t agree, but we like having our own dean, at least, as you say, in our first year.
I don’t really care about administrators, as you suggest. The Commons are really about the faculty heads who give of their time to students like no other faculty, and the deans, who get to know us and help us during our first year especially in ways I understand was quite impossible with a centralized office, yet which still had 4 deans.
Were you aware the system has been cut way back? Were you aware 3 dining halls were canceled, plus 5 additional residence halls were canceled, too?
In one of the open meetings on finances in the spring (for students) in McCullough, Dean Spears said each commons had a budget of around $11,000 for all of its programming. $55,000 doesn’t seem all that much when you consider what the deans and heads are able to do for students following lectures, hosting dinners, and so on.
It would very helpful if the administration showed the full cost of the commons. Then we might better debate its value given the cost.
As to the question I asked about what would replace the commons: we would lose a lot of what does make Middlebury special, and it is in no way PR. Perhaps only 20-30%% of the student take considerable advantage of it, but having small gatherings with speakers, over dinner or just tea, or being part of discussion groups with faculty organized by the commons, has been an incredible part of my experience in my short time here. There may be waste in the system, or too many administrators, but don’t blame the commons. It does some things better than any alternative residential life system, and please don’t tell me faculty on their own would organize these meaningful get-togethers. Many are grateful there are 5 among them who this sort of thing as it relieves them of it.
Maybe other students on MiddBlog can speak to their feelings about their 1st and 2nd years in the commons. It seems to provide a lot for far less than what was intended and what many people think (in terms of cost).
I think the commons is an important part of Middlebury. As a first year student, I really enjoyed having an automatic social network and having friends to go to meals with and choose classes with.
Elizabeth, you make some good points (and I see that we agree that there is waste on other bureaucratic fronts), but I never said I was against the $55,000 appropriated for Commons events. I’d love to see us double that amount if it would positively influence the social atmosphere of this institution. My original point, that there is no reason why we have to divide the social/residential life of the College into fifths, remains. Would the consolidation of the residential support system into one entity entail massive savings? Who knows. As you point out, there is little transparency on this matter. But it’d be bound to cut out some waste, however minor, and get rid of a system that serves no practical purpose to boot.
Yes, the decentralized nature of the Commons makes deans more accessible and allows for a greater number of social events. To address the first point: As far as I know, the majority of people who talk to their dean do so because they have an alcohol citation! Second: the Commons system is exactly why a huge percentage of the people who went to the Cook prom last week were members of (wait for it….) Cook Commons. Even though most Commons events are open to all, putting “Cook” or “Brainerd” or “Atwater” (etc.) before an event tends to discourage students from other Commons from attending (and that’s if they happen to hear about it in the first place.)
Perhaps $55,000 split into five parts and $55,000 as a whole are two completely different things when it comes to engaging the student body. Perhaps more events doesn’t mean more social engagement. Maybe some students don’t like their dean, and would rather talk to another one!
I think that holding on to the Commons for sentimental reasons without evaluating its efficacy, both from a financial and social standpoint, is dangerous. Even if it is financially viable, it might be doing more harm than good.
I’m not disputing that it’s nice to have a friend network your freshman year- I’m just pointing out that this network would exist with or without the Commons system, based on the physical arrangement of the dormitories. (Social groups in Battell, for instance, tend to fragment by floor/section. Last year when I lived there, the first floor had little interaction with the second floor, even though we were all “Cook” by name.) It’s depressing to see that some sophomores still define themselves socially according to where they lived a year ago. This, more than anything else, is the legacy of the Commons system: fragmentation and polarization. And, if my instincts are right about the redundancy of the entire operation, we might add waste to this list as well.
I share Max’ support of the Commons, especially for first years (and even sophomore year). My mother is an alumna from the early 1980s and she still identifies with her first-year hall (and she has close friends to boot 25+ years later), so such sentiments that Robert laments is hardly the work of the commons system.
What redundancies are we talking about? If we had 4 deans before the commons, and now have 5, let’s just say the added dean covers the growth of the student body from 2000 to 2400 today.
But Robert: the value of the commons is the community it provides those who come in without a varsity sports connection, a Posse group, or any other tie to the College. And the faculty, in particular (at least in my commons), have been instrumental in connecting me with and making me aware of resources here that I never would have known about. Some things in the commons do not interest me; and perhaps those events are something of a waste (per Robert’s view), but the overall impact has been very positive, and I just wonder what in particular is wasteful, Robert? What exactly is redundant? Describe the post-commons res life system and we can then compare what is gained and what is lost (and I, too, call on the administrative offices responsible to make public the “full cost” of commons). And are you a student? Staffperson? Faculty member? Just wondering.
I find this thread helpful in forcing me think of things I have taken for granted.
One option I do think might be beneficial would be housing all freshman in the same quad- around battel beach for instance. this way commons affilitation (dining halls, residencies) would not be polarization but just a way to keep students organized. we could still have housing, but housing might not be commons based, more like a school spirit thing that would bond students in other ways, through IM sports, events, deans, FYS, etc./
Cut budget for athletics. We are a small school, we shouldnt have a football team. Stop recruiting- there are enough good, smart, athletes to fill the teams. If every nescac school did this they would remain competitive within eachother and also raise the caliber of middlebury students.
Not have football? At Middlebury? Considering how many students involve themselves in athletics at Middlebury (I think it’s something greater than 30%), cutting athletics would clearly change the tone and tenor of the school. There are no athletic scholarships, so I am uncertain how the conclusion can be that not recruiting athletes helps the budget. Would you feel the same about the school cutting dance or art or theater? Just because it is not YOUR interest does not mean it does not contribute positively to student life. I am hoping you don’t think Athletes as a class of people aren’t as smart as other students as that is a pretty broad (and completely false) statement. In fact, it’s pretty insulting and prejudicial.
But do not think Middlebury stands alone in this crunch of economics. And in fact, that it seeks community involvement in finding creative solutions speaks positively about how proactive Midd has been the past 15 or so months in managing and balancing their budgets.
http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/jan2010/bs20100127_360651.htm
Here’s the PDF breakdown of endowments. But it doesn’t reflect debt or the management of that debt as I pointed out above about Amherst.
http://www.businessweek.com/pdfs/012…wment_list.pdf
Last thing.. promise
You might want to check with Midd’s Advancement Office and see which group of Midd Alums give the most money consistently. But I will offer a compromise. How about the idea of setting up a separate endowment that strictly benefits the Athletic department and take that out of the general endowment to the degree it’s supported there?
On MiddParent’s question about the Rosetta Stone market: I was in the new faculty seminar that met this Winter Term (led brilliantly by Professor Steve Abbott), and President Liebowitz was a guest this past week. He spoke about this initiative and it might very well become what the OP refers to as a “radical, some ingenious idea that will not only save money but change the way the college operates in an innovative way.”
Well, it might not save money, but, if successful, will generate significant income for the College, which is probably better than saving $$. Some of my colleagues (outside our seminar) are dubious and even uncomfortable about such a venture (which is why it is radical), but the president did stress the need to take advantage of our extreme comparative advantage in language pedagogy, largely as a result of our intensive Language Schools’ extensive network of faculty and degree recipients, recognizing there are risks. For the college to offer online language courseware (initially to grades 7-12) is somewhat radical, but Ron also mentioned that expanding what we do so well now to other cohorts of learners is a way to help us retain our leadership position in this area and provide greater access to students who otherwise have no way to study foreign languages. The state of highschool language teaching in the country is apparently very poor.
Don’t know of another liberal arts college contemplating this, and I don’t know why he didn’t mention it at the open meeting — perhaps because it was a meeting on cuts and not initiatives or new revenue generators. Still, if the college does this, the OP’s request will seem to have been met (something new; something radical, etc.).
To New Fac…
This program most likely generate $$$ but do not be so sure that it will not also lead to cuts/savings. For years, langauges at other institutions have gone “on-line” with the resulting decrease in faculty and class time. See
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/01/22/languages
The argument could be made that Midd can still offer the languages that enroll the least but not need a whole department of faculty & staff to do so. This too would be “radical!”
It was my understanding that any kind of Midd Stone language program would be made available to outside sources with intended growth in the general market, not to replace or interfere with language learning in the classroom on campus. It was my assumption this would be a completely new venture very much separate from the curriculum of the school itself meant primarily for those unable to attend language schools in the summer and or a more adult audience (parents, etc).
The above article references a strict change in the curriculum and I highly doubt Midd is looking to take one its strongest hooks and dismantle it.
Midd Parent: yes, that is what President Liebowitz said just this past week. This would be an independent venture, set up outside the College, but with Lang School curricular expertise guiding the content and quality control over the courses developed for the venture. And the College would be one of two partners in the venture.
The initial thrust is NOT for the college classroom, but rather to supplement and strengthen the new program for 7-12 grade students (known as the Middlebury-Monterey Language Academy). This is evidently only a summer intensive academy for pre-college kids, and the apparent market for 7-12 students is very large, and so that group will be targets in addition to the students who attend the 4-week summer academy.
But the president also said that community colleges are very interested in quality on-line courses, as many CCs do not have any language courses and need it drastically. But the president was also clear that these courses are NOT to replace our undergraduate courses though depending on the level developed, they could supplement classroom teaching so that students might be able to use the content to retain their competency, say, in the summer.
But Midd Parent’s point that this is not aimed at saving $$ from the undergraduate program is an important one.