| AUTHOR: | James Ottavio Castagnera |
| TITLE: | The Next Great Wave in American Higher Education |
| SOURCE: | Planning for Higher Education 31 no2 52-9 D 2002/F 2003 |
Four distinct
epochs or waves can be discerned in the history of higher education.
This article argues that a fifth wave, perhaps the most revolutionary of
all, has only just begun, posing a unique challenge to higher education
planners. The four previous waves can be summarized briefly as follows:
*
In the 85 years between the Declaration of Independence and the Civil
War, some 800 liberal arts colleges sprang up across the United States.
My own alma maters are typical. Franklin & Marshall College owes
half its name to a modest amount of seed money donated by the great
Benjamin Franklin in 1787. Case Western Reserve University first saw the
light of learning as Western Reserve Academy. "The undergraduate
college took ... the essential step necessary for a broad education for
general citizenship. ... These institutions were of a size and scale
that could be created by a group of private individuals--not requiring
great fortunes or state support" (Cox 2000, p. 14).
* The end of
the Civil War until the turn of the last century was the era of the
great land-grant institutions. This expansion of higher education led to
the first shakeout. "By 1900, only 180 of those first 800 small
colleges remained active; larger, subsidized state universities consumed
market share by offering more educational services, subsidized prices,
and often more pragmatic and career-oriented curricula" (Cox 2000, p.
14).
* Around the turn of the last century, the third great wave
broke upon the shores of higher learning. Wealthy industrialists, such
as John D. Rockefeller (The University of Chicago), Andrew Carnegie
(Carnegie Mellon University), Cornelius Vanderbilt (Vanderbilt
University), and Leland Stanford (Stanford University) founded
high-quality, private universities. The institutions were often
world-class in their curricula, faculty, and architecture, importing
many of these elements from their great European counterparts. Thus,
with Chicago, "Cambridge inspired the architecture, while Berlin
inspired the pedagogy and faculty structure" (Cox 2000, p. 14).
*
Fast forward yet another 50 years and we see the GI Bill and the
postwar technology boom, fueled in part by the Cold War, driving the
creation of the "megaversity." This term is commonly used to describe a
variety of large institutions, all of which share at least the following
characteristics: faculty numbering in the thousands and student bodies
numbering in the tens of thousands; sprawling and/or multiple campuses
containing a large number of undergraduate, graduate, and professional
schools and colleges; and a large and cumbersome administrative
bureaucracy overseeing these complex operations. (We have also seen the
proliferation and maturation of the community college. However, this
article will limit its focus principally to four-year institutions.)
In
all, then, we can identify four distinct waves of institutional
development in American higher education, each of which spanned about a
half century of American history.
The fifth wave is about to
break. "The age of the Internet and other new media forms is giving rise
to a new wave of institution building, right before our eyes .... Ours
is an extraordinary moment in history" (Cox 2000, p. 17). What is it we
may expect to observe and experience among the phenomena of this new
era? Among the main indicia of this new wave are the following:
* There will be a shakeout of weaker institutions as the current expansion leads inevitably to a concomitant contraction.
*
When the shakeout is complete, higher education will not be populated
exclusively by e-educators. Nor will the landscape of higher education
boast only the largest and wealthiest bricks-and-mortar institutions.
Rather, as in the past, we should anticipate a mix of liberal arts
colleges, land-grant universities, and wealthy private universities,
including megaversities, coexisting in rationalized competition with the
e-educators and other for-profit entrants of this 21st century wave of
institution building.
WHAT DO THESE PREDICTIONS SUGGEST?
*
The wealthiest among us need not worry about this latest wave of
change. For example, with $18-$19 billion in endowment moneys and a
reputation second to none, Harvard University has a secure position. An
apt analogy might be to the oil industry. At the turn of the last
century, Standard Oil was the most powerful corporation in the United
States and Rockefeller was its wealthiest citizen. Despite the
government's antitrust suit 100 years ago against Standard Oil, our love
affair with automobiles ensures a powerful position in corporate
America for the Seven Sisters, those seven corporations, inclucling
Mobil and Chevron, that succeeded Standard Oil in settlement of the
suit. Similarly, a market always will exist for quality classroom
teaching and the traditional residential campus experience, with modest
alterations in the new era.
* At the opposite extreme are
institutions that might be no more than one or two bad freshman
enrollments away from closing their doors. For these, daring solutions
make sense. With little to lose, risk taking is their best bet.
For
the rest of us--the overwhelming majority of traditional institutions
of higher learning, which are neither assured of success nor in imminent
canger of failing--the observations of Fernand Braudel may be worth
noting. One of the world's leading economic historians, he stated the
following concerning the waves of prosperity and poverty that have
buoyed up and sunk nations: "The moral of the story is that a loss is
never the result of a single throw--nor indeed is a triumph. Success
depends on seizing the opportunities of a given period, on doing so time
and time again, and piling advantage on advantage" (Braudel 1984, p.
50).
Colleges and universities are often the targets of
criticism, particularly from would-be or actual corporate partners, for
the slowness of decision processes. But corporate America has come in
for criticism from its counterparts in Japan and Germany for just the
opposite trait--too much attention to a single quarter's profits as
against long-range planning and performance. In the midst of the current
mad dash to capture shares of the e-education and corporate-partnership
markets, the hundreds of colleges and universities in the middle of the
pack may be well advised to take a time-out.
We might very well
reflect upon the possibility--dare I say, the probability--that we are
only at the very start of the next wave of change, a wave that will wash
over higher education and ebb around the middle of the new century. We
also might consider that, while the weakest members of the herd will
fall and perish, representatives of every species--liberal arts college,
land-grant institution, private university, megaversity--will survive
as part of the new higher education landscape. And survival may depend
upon adopting medium- to long-range strategies, rather than racing after
quick fixes.
My belief is that the majority will survive. What
leads me to this conclusion, rather than the conclusion that the decline
of small liberal arts institutions in the second wave will be
proportionately repeated? At present, only 1 percent of the world's
population holds college degrees. In this Information Age, the world's
uneducated masses will look to the United States to meet an enormous,
pent-up demand. There will be plenty of "customers" for everyone. And
while many millions will want the convenience of learning at a distance,
millions more will continue to buy a traditional product or some
combination of the two. Therefore, there is ample room for all of us to
ride the new wave of change. With good medium- to long-range strategies,
which match historical mission, current strengths, and particularized
opportunities, we all have a chance to land safely on the beach by
mid-century.
THE SECOND WAVE: 1865-1900
The period 1820-1896 has been termed "The Victorian Equilibrium":
The new change-regime might be called the price equilibrium of the
Victorian era. It coincided almost exactly with the life of Queen
Victoria herself (1819-1901), and was closely linked to the cultural
values that she represented. Its character was most clearly evident in
Great Britain. Prices in that nation fell sharply from 1813 to the early
1820s, then fluctuated within a fixed range for more than fifty years.
They fell again during the depression of 1873, and stabilized once more
until nearly the end of the nineteenth century. There was no sustained
inflation in Britain from 1820 to 1896. (Fischer 1996, p. 156)
In the United States, the Civil War stimulated an inflationary spike
that disrupted this equilibrium. For the failed Confederacy, the spike
was one of hyperinflation. But the war's aftermath was characterized by
deflation; by 1880, the 1861-65 inflation had been wrung right out of
the U.S. economy (Fischer 1996, p. 157). During the latter half of the
19th century, "[l]ong-term improvement was the rule for both highly
skilled artisans and farm laborers" (Fischer 1996, p. 160).
Although
depression engulfed the Western world in 1873, from about 1876 onward, a
"public health revolution" caused death rates to decline dramatically
(Fischer 1996, p. 186). The effect was a general rise in world
populations, with the United State getting much more than its share due
to immigration. While Rockefeller was building Standard Oil and
revolutionizing the way American business operated in the eastern part
of the country (see Yergin 1992, chapter 2), East Coast cities, notably
New York, were bulging and bustling (Kazin 1985, p. 257).
Among
the notable developments of this era were the great land-grant
institutions, the genesis of which may be seen from an examination of
the career of John Wesley Powell, best remembered as the explorer of the
Colorado River (see Worster 2001). Powell's achievements were supported
mostly by government largess, as were the land grant institutions,
including the future University of Illinois, with which he enjoyed an
early affiliation. Powell was the son of immigrants whose story typifies
that of millions who came to America during the 19th century. Combining
an old-world trade (tailoring) with attempts at farming, the family
moved from upstate New York to the Midwest. There they bought,
developed, and sold a succession of ever-larger tracts of rural land,
building their nest egg, until they finally retired in modest affluence
to Wheaton, Illinois, by about the time of the Civil War.
The
founding of the town, a bit northwest of Chicago, is a typical tale not
only of American frontier society but of American higher education in
that early era.
A conference of Wesleyan Methodists meeting in Batavia, Illinois, in
1851 ... resolved to create a new comprehensive school and college under
church auspices--an Oberlin for the prairie. Two brothers named Wheaton
stepped forth to offer forty acres of land for a campus in the new town
they were platting, a town bearing their name. They conceived of a
Christian community free of alcohol, with a Christian school at its
core. The conferees readily accepted their offer, for the location was
ideal. The new town of Wheaton lay on the outskirts of Chicago in DuPage
County, twenty-five miles west of the city's Michigan Avenue, and the
Galena and Chicago Union Railroad came directly through it. Within a
couple of years five hundred inhabitants were living here, some of them
commuting to work in the city, and they were a sober, diligent bunch.
Soon a school, the Illinois Institute, was under construction in their
midst. (Worster 2001, p. 54)
In 1859, President Jonathan Blanchard of Knox College in Galesburg,
Illinois, left there to become the institute's first leader. Early in
his tenure, he proposed that the college be called Wheaton College,
probably to encourage further generosity from the brothers who were its
first benefactors. The school's vision was "a combination of
intellectual growth and Christian faith" (Wheaton College). Because
Blanchard was an avid abolitionist, it's no surprise that the student
body contributed some 67 soldiers to the Union cause during the Civil
War.
Blanchard served Wheaton until 1882. Then, as was not
unusual in those times, he was succeeded in the presidency by his son,
Charles Albert, whose run was equally impressive--all the way to 1925.
An 1870 alumnus of the college, he built both the curriculum and the
campus. Science and the industrial arts became important parts of the
college (Wheaton College).
One of that fortunate group of
antebellum liberal arts institutions to survive and prosper during the
successive waves of competition, Wheaton today is a member of the
Consortium of Liberal Arts Colleges. The consortium is an organization
"comprising many of the top liberal arts colleges in the United States,
chartered to explore and promote the use of information technology in
the service of [their] liberal arts educational missions" (Consortium of
Liberal Arts Colleges 2002). Dating to 1984 and naming as its founding
catalyst President S. Frederick Starr of Oberlin College, the consortium
is a fetal form of the consortia that must be fostered for higher
education to fulfill its promise and its potential in the 21st century
(see Worster 2001, chapter two).
In the mid-1850s, the young
Powell was drawn neither to Wheaton nor to the mother of all great
Midwestern liberal arts colleges, Oberlin, though he briefly sampled
both. Seeking science, he was drawn to Illinois College in Jacksonville.
Founded in 1829 by the self-styled "Yale Band" of that university's
alumni, Illinois College followed Yale University's example and opened a
scientific department in 1852 (Worster 2001, pp. 70-71).
Like
Wheaton, Illinois College is among those early liberal institutions of
the first wave that have survived into the 21st century. Today, one of
nine Phi Beta Kappa members in the Land of Lincoln, Illinois College
enrolls about 900 undergraduates. Among its 19th century alumni was
William Jennings Bryan, class of 1881. By its own account, "A basic
strength of Illinois College is its large productive endowment"
(Illinois College). Along with membership in a consortium, a large and
productive endowment is a key to the survival of these precious morsels
in the roiling stew of 21st century American higher education.
When
Powell, after the Civil War, commenced his career as a western explorer
and scientist, among his first patrons he counted the new Illinois
Industrial University, now the University of Illinois. Here, at last,
having had three years of college education by moving among Wheaton,
Oberlin, and Illinois College, Powell encountered an early arrival on
the second great wave of American higher education.
Ever since the first student walked through its doors in 1867, the
University of Illinois has been a tremendous resource for the State of
Illinois. Founded in response to the federal Land Grant Act of 1862, the
University immediately met an important need to provide higher
education opportunities for working class people. (University of
Illinois)
Today, the University of Illinois employs more than 5,400 faculty,
6,500 administrators and other professionals, and 8,700 graduate
assistants. It awards almost 16,000 degrees per year and counts more
than half a million living alumni. Its annual operating budget is about
$2.6 billion, while it enrolls some 65,000 students in 800 buildings
scattered across three campuses (University of Illinois).
THE THIRD WAVE: 1900-1945
While
one might choose any of the great private universities to illustrate
the third great wave in American higher education, I have selected Case
Western Reserve University for two reasons. The first reason is
personal: Case Western Reserve is my alma mater; I care about it very
much and come to this place in my narrative knowing something about it.
The second is that Case Western Reserve--today one of the 30 or so
American universities in the so-called "Billion Dollar Club," comprised
of institutions boasting $1 billion or more of endowment--is a splendid
example of a resilient institution, whose long history spans all four
great waves identified above and which seems well-positioned to survive
and prosper in this fifth one.
Western Reserve Academy, founded
in Hudson, Ohio, in 1826, can be counted among the proliferation of
liberal arts colleges established during the first wave. Of the 800 such
colleges founded during that 85-year cycle, only about 180 survived the
second great wave of land-grant institutions during the second half of
the 19th century. In 1880, the college moved to Cleveland. Amasa Stone,
an ally of Vanderbilt and an adversary of Rockefeller, financed the
move. Said to be the "richest man in Cleveland," he gave the college
$600,000 over a three-year period (Cramer 1976, pp. 77-78).
In
1881, the Case School of Applied Science opened in downtown Cleveland.
Through the sustained generosity and vision of Stone and other moneyed
Clevelanders, 43 acres were acquired on Cleveland's east side and Case's
first permanent building was built beside the new facilities of Western
Reserve. Thus, Western Reserve University and Case Institute of
Technology, as the institutions came to be name, grew together, their
campuses more or less divided by Euclid Avenue, the city's major
east-west thoroughfare. Symbolic of the symbiosis between the two
institutions was the Michelson-Morley ether-drift experiment in 1887.
Albert Michelson was a Case physicist who was at The University of
Chicago by the time he won a Nobel Prize for his work. Edward Morley was
a Western Reserve chemist. Their collaboration would one day help
confirm Einstein's theoretical work (Cramer 1976, pp. 57-70).
While
the two institutions would not formally merge until 1967, in a very
real sense they were to Cleveland what The University of Chicago was to
the Windy City and Carnegie Mellon University was to Pittsburgh for the
half century before they tied the legal knot.
It was the titans
of American industry, enriched, sometimes to fabulous levels of wealth,
during the latter half of the 19th century, who built these great
private universities. Case in point was Rockefeller. No industrial
magnate's story is more closely tied to the rise of American industrial
might than his. On February 1, 1865, Rockefeller bid $72,500 and bought
his first oil refinery--in Cleveland. "I ever point to that day as the
beginning of the success I have made of my life," he later wrote (Yergin
1992, p. 35). The purchase was the start of the rationalization of the
chaos that was the western Pennsylvania oil boom. And Standard Oil was
the instrument of Rockefeller's power. By the end of the 1870s,
Rockefeller and his associates ruled an empire of refineries, pipelines,
and oil fields that amounted to a near monopoly.
So powerful had
Standard Oil become by the turn of the century that in 1904, recently
elected President Theodore Roosevelt targeted the conglomerate for
attack under the newly enacted Sherman Anti-Trust Act. In 1909 the
federal district court found in favor of the government in its suit to
bust the Standard Oil trust, and in 1911 the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed
that verdict. Although the remedy resulted in the creation of seven
separate companies from the Standard monopoly, the so-called Seven
Sisters (Yergin 1992, pp. 109-10). Rockefeller himself would end up even
wealthier than before the lawsuit. Indeed, he was the wealthiest
American of his time, his riches surpassed only by some few potentates
and royal families.
Rockefeller's charitable activities touched a
wide range of causes and projects. In higher education, his baby was
The University of Chicago, where his largess enabled the theft of top
faculty from competitor institutions around the nation, including
Michelson of Case (Cramer 1976, p. 213). But Rockefeller did not ignore
the leading private institutions of his hometown. For example, in 1904
he provided Case with $200,000 to build two new buildings, one for
physics, the other dedicated to mining and metallurgy (Cramer 1976, p.
243).
THE FOURTH WAVE: 1945-2000
For
a while, at least, all boats rose on the gargantuan fourth wave of
American higher education. Millions of returning servicemen, supported
by the GI Bill, sought learning at institutions of all shapes and sizes
across the country. To this day, the odd Quonset hut, hastily erected to
help house this vast influx, is still being used in one way or another
on a few campuses. While World War II devastated the rest of the world,
the United States was much more than just untouched: its economy was
strengthened and expanded. Population growth drove a housing boom that
swept into the countryside, where William Levitt used Henry Ford's
techniques in the development of suburban sprawl (Halberstam 1993, p.
132).
Added to the influx of students was an influx of government
funding as higher education was enlisted into the Cold War in the
1950s. The Vietnam War kept the largess flowing throughout the 1960s,
notwithstanding the leftist critique of the megaversity and the antiwar
sentiment and the campus violence the war spawned. Only in the 1970s, as
the war wound down and new competition--notably, a proliferation of
community colleges--grew did the quarter century of growth and affluence
show signs of weakening.
By the early 1970s, many universities
were overbuilt and financially overextended. The male student population
dropped off as the draft gave way to a lottery system and then ended
entirely. In Cleveland, meanwhile, two new institutions, Cleveland State
University and Cuyahoga Community College, competed primarily for
undergraduates with Case Western Reserve and the other private colleges
and universities in the city. On top of all this, in Cleveland the great
steel mills were starting to contract and finally close in the face of
foreign competition from countries economically recovered from World War
II. During the first year of its merger, Case-Reserve suffered a $3
million deficit. Shortfalls of $4 million followed in each of the
succeeding three fiscal/academic years (Cramer 1976, p. 284).
During
the past three decades, higher education has pursued a range of
strategies that have enabled most of its institutions to survive
challenges and even to grow and prosper. Numerous colleges have expanded
their offerings anc activities and become universities.
Major
private institutions like Case Western Reserve discovered the capital
campaign and learned to overlap the private stage of each new campaign
with the public stage of the one just winding down, ideally having
surpassed its stated monetary goal. By the end of the century,
billion-dollar capital campaigns had become almost common. The
billion-dollar club among university endowments included some 30
members. Harvard is consistently on top with an endowment approaching
$20 billion, and the likes of Case Western Reserve bring up the rear
with about $1.5 billion in the bank (Chronicle of Higher Education
2002).
Prestigious liberal arts institutions, some dating all the
way back to the first wave--such as Swarthmore, Haverford, Bryn Mawr,
and Franklin & Marshall Colleges--chose to remain small, selective
colleges and enjoyed the financial soundness to sustain that choice
(Chronicle of Higher Education 2002).
Public universities,
enduring declining appropriations, learned to play the endowment game,
cultivating contributions from their often-vast alumni associations,
while competing successfully for the soft dollars of government and
private grants. Community colleges are also learning to raise private
funds in the face of legislative austerity, though their alumni are not
so easily tapped, because many go on to shift their affiliations to
four-year institutions. Population growth in the last decade of the 20th
century helped all these boats to rise.
THE FIFTH WAVE: 2001 -?
American
higher education enters the 21st century with great advantages. The
world respects it and wants what it has to offer. World population is
growing, many would say at an alarming rate. And only one person in 100
on this planet has a college degree. In short, there is a massive market
out there and American higher education has the product that most in
that market wish to purchase.
It must be added, though, that not
all current entrants in the market will benefit proportionally from this
unique opportunity. To the contrary, some will not even survive. Thus
far into the new century, four U.S. colleges have closed (Selingo 2002,
p. A10).
But no one would be surprised to learn that the many
weak sisters among the large number of U.S. institutions are planning
and striving to survive and to improve their financial and competitive
positions. The surprising news is that Harvard's new, and already
controversial, president, Lawrence H. Summers, is arguing that the
nation's richest and most prestigious institution needs "nothing less
than a cultural revolution on campus" (Symonds 2002). According to the
article, Summers has concluded that "Harvard College is failing to
provide undergrads with the education they need in today's fast-changing
global economy." He also wants to place Harvard at the center of
education reform and medicine and the life sciences, making
Cambridge/Boston the Silicon Valley of biotechnology.
While a
powerhouse like Harvard can pick and choose the paths it will take to
ensure its primacy in the new era, most colleges and universities may be
said to be reacting rather than leading. And much of this reaction has
been to the challenge of for-profit, often Internet-based competitors.
For many schools, meeting this challenge meant a leap (often, a leap of
faith) into distance learning ventures. Results have been decidedly
mixed to date. Some, like Temple University, shut down their e-ventures
after losing a bundle and took a step back from the distance learning
market. This corresponded with some disappointing results for business
schools that bet heavily on e-commerce programs (Alexander 2001) only to
be fried in the great dot-com meltdown of 2000-01 (Carr and Blumenstyk
2000, p A-39). But the online learning enterprises of at least some
traditional, nonprofit universities appear to be prospering in the
rough-and-tumble world of distance learning. Columbia University's
Fathom, which is strategically aligned with several for-profit players,
is one example (Arnone 2002).
As for the for-profit bogeymen
themselves, consolidation is the order of the day. Geoffrey Cox is
correct that "a new wave of institution building" is occurring "right
before our eyes" (Cox 2000, p. 14). For example, the University of
Phoenix started with a class of only eight working adults in 1976.
Today, it is the nation's largest for-profit university, under the
umbrella of a publicly traded parent, Apollo Group. It boasts some
70,000 part-time students attending classes at 100 physical locations
across the country. Its sister, the University of Phoenix Online, which
trades separately from Apollo Group, counted more than 25,000
degree-seekers in its virtual classrooms as it marked a 47 percent
increase in revenues and an 11 percent climb in profits between 2000 and
2001 (Brenowitz 2001, p. 22).
The response of many traditional
nonprofit institutions to the challenge of these for-profit players is
to forge partnerships across the gap. Some prime examples include the
following:
* Columbia's Fathom has teamed with four for-profits, including Kaplan Colleges, to offer online learning.
*
As the University of Phoenix made a second attempt to be licensed by
the State of New Jersey, it announced in 2001 a deal with New Jersey
City University to use the latter's library facilities, thus overcoming a
major problem that had led to denial of its application several years
earlier (Smith 2001).
* Corporate universities, which tailor
their offerings to the perceived needs of major corporations in
partnership with nearby colleges and universities, have reportedly
ballooned from 400 to 2,000 during the past dozen years or so. Some
examples include Walt Disney World and Valencia Community College; the
Bank of Montreal and Dalhousie University; Ford Motor Company and Mott
Community College; and The Hartford Financial Services Group and the
University of Connecticut (Meister 2001, p. B-10).
* Faced with
increasing student enrollments and the deferred maintenance of aging
dormitories, some institutions, such as McNeese State University and the
University of North Carolina at Pembroke, are partnering with such
private developers as University Housing Services to build new residence
halls (Sausner 2002, pp. 35-36).
Other traditional nonprofits
are looking to merge with one another rather than partner with the
for-profit sector. At the very start of this century, The Chronicle of
Higher Education reported that "a wave of collegiate mergers ... appears
to be picking up steam. Since November [2000] six mergers of
higher-education institutions have been announced. At least three more
are in the talking stages" (Van Der Werf 2001, A-26). In 2000, 24 of the
nation's 28 Jesuit colleges and universities formed JesuitNET to pool
resources, mostly via distance education offerings (McMurtrie 2000, p.
A-45).
Lastly, it's worth noting that a few universities are
moving beyond the well-established study-abroad models of international
institutional relationships to form more intimate links. These links are
aimed at enabling the American partner to deliver desired educational
services to needy foreign institutions, the logistical, financial, and
cultural hurdles notwithstanding. For example, early in 2002 Purdue
University signed a contract with Afghanistan's minister of higher
education under which the Midwestern university will work closely with
the new Afghan government in the rebuilding of shattered Kabul
University (Del Castillo 2002).
While not all strategies or all
institutions will survive, much less prosper, my prediction is that most
institutions of higher learning are demonstrating their creativity in
planning and their resilience in surviving as this next great wave hits.
ADDED MATERIAL
James
Ottavio Castagnera holds a J.D. and a Ph.D. in American studies from
Case Western Reserve University. Currently, he is the associate provost
at Rider University. Having published a dozen books and some 50
articles, chapters, and presentations, he has current professional and
research interests in the role of higher education in the 21st century,
particularly with regard to technology, entrepreneurship, and social
justice. The author wishes to express particular gratitude to Geoffrey
M. Cox, whom he heard speak at the Harvard Institutes for Higher
Education alumni seminar and whose article inspired this piece
REFERENCES Alexander, D. 2001. E-M.B.A. Just Another Dot-Com Casualty. Philadelphia Inquirer, 1 October.
Arnone,
M. 2002. Fathom Adds Corporate Training to Its Distance-Education
Offerings. Chronicle of Higher Education, 8 February.
Braudel, F. 1984. The Perspective of the World. New York: Harper & Row.
Brenowitz, S. 2001. Phoenix Rising. Matrix Magazine (September): 21-23.
Carr, S., and G. Blumenstyk. 2000. The Bubble Bursts for Education Dot-Coms. Chronicle of Higher Education, 30 June, A39.
Chronicle of Higher Education. 2002. The Chronicle Almanac 2002-03. Chronicle of Higher Education, 30 August.
Consortium of Liberal Arts Colleges. 2002. Charter.
www.liberalarts.org (24 Sept. 2002).
Cox, G. M. 2000. Why I Left a University to Join an Internet Education Company. Change (November/December): 12-18.
Cramer, C. H. 1976. Case Western Reserve: A History of the University, 1826-1976. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
Del Castillo, D. 2002. Afghanistan Signs Pact with Purdue to Aid Kabul U. Chronicle of Higher Education, 14 February.
Fischer, D. H. 1996. The Great Wave: Price Revolutions and the Rhythm of History. New York: Oxford University Press.
Halberstam, D. 1993. The Fifties. New York: Villard Books.
Illinois College. Historic Years.
www.ic.edu/About/historic.htm (24 Sept. 2002).
Kazin,
A. 1985. Fear of the City. In A Sense of History: The Best Writing from
American Heritage, edited by Byron Dobell. New York: American Heritage.
McMurtrie, B. 2000. Jesuit Colleges Try to Bring Their Values to Online Education. Chronicle of Higher Education, 12 May.
Meister, J. C. 2001. The Brave New World of Corporate Education. Chronicle of Higher Education, 9 February.
Sausner, R. 2002. Building Out of the Crunch. University Business (February): 35-38.
Selingo, J. 2002. New England Loses Its Edge in Higher Education. Chronicle of Higher Education, 15 February.
Smith, E. 2001. University of Phoenix. Personal e-mail to author, 28 September.
Symonds,
W. C. 2002. Larry Summers Has an Ambitious Agenda to Remake the
Nation's Leading University. Can He Do It? Business Week Online, 18
February.
www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/02_07/b3770001.htm (24 Sept. 2002).
University of Illinois. University Profile.
www.uillinois.edu/university (24 Sept. 2002).
Van Der Werf, M. 2001. More Colleges Are Seeing the Virtues of Merging. Chronicle of Higher Education, 23 March.
Wheaton College. General Information: History and Heritage.
www.wheaton.edu/heritage.html (24 Sept. 2002).
Worster, D. 2001. A River Running West: The Life of John Wesley Powell. New York: Oxford University Press.
Yergin, D. 1992. The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Source: Planning for Higher Education, December 2002/February 2003, Vol. 31 Issue 2, p52, 8p
Item: 507789877
No comments:
Post a Comment