A student cannot be successful in class if they do not have the reading materials that form the basis of assignments.  Yet in more cases than one might imagine, students do not purchase the required reading due to rising costs of text, whether in print or available in electronic format for download.  This is because a growing number of students on tight budgets have housing and food insecurity and they must make survival choices that cannot prioritize expensive books.  Without the learning material, student success suffers as they fall behind, neglect to the do the work, fail to achieve a passing grade or overall required gpa to stay in their course of study, and they become another negative statistic for retention and graduation rates.  

The purchasing of textbooks is just one more “hidden” cost or fee that goes along with rising tuition rates. While students may scour the internet for deals on used books (careful to ensure they are purchasing the correct edition, translation, etc), savvy students may select courses based on the expense of the required reading materials, and they may look to see whether copies of the texts are available in the library and under what conditions they may be borrowed (e.g., a couple of weeks or a couple of hours due to reserve policies to enable maximum sharing).  Some students may also form a “collective” and purchase one set of reading materials to share amongst the group. This too limits the flexibility and sometimes focus of class preparation. 

Taking on the role of a Chief Academic Officer (CAO) is a significant responsibility, one that demands a delicate balance of strategic vision, operational oversight, and empathetic leadership. Having served as the Interim CAO at a university with three distinct colleges for the past year, I've gained invaluable insights into what it takes to succeed in this pivotal position. Here are some pieces of advice for new CAOs embarking on their journey.

When I first stepped into the role, I quickly realized that no amount of preparation can fully equip you for the breadth of responsibilities and challenges you'll face. Be prepared to learn continuously. Seek guidance from your predecessor, if possible, and don't hesitate to reach out to other experienced CAOs for advice and support. Your willingness to learn will set a positive example for your colleagues and help you navigate the complexities of your role.

In today's highly regulated and litigious business environment, which includes colleges and universities, it is crucial for provosts/chief academic officers to stay updated on legal matters relating to the delivery of academic programs. This includes ensuring the legal adequacy of policies, contracts, and compliance practices, as well as being proactive in identifying potential legal issues that could impact the institution. Your institution’s legal counsel is a vital partner in navigating these challenges, especially since most provosts are not lawyers, and even those who are do not function with responsibility of providing legal review/advice.

Sometimes audits are conducted by internal auditors or other offices, and often the provost is involved on the academic side.

According to a July 2023 report by McKinsey & Co, since 2020, the number of mergers and acquisitions in higher education has increased nearly threefold from 11 between 2001-2005 to 31 between 2016-2020. Since 2016 Higher Ed Dive has been tracking college closures and mergers.  Last updated on April 29, 2024, New York has had the most activity with 11 schools closing, merging or planning to do so. Massachusetts follow with 10 schools, 9 in Illinois and 8 in California.

The National Student Clearinghouse Research released in January 2024 reveals that there are still more than one million empty seats on college campuses as compared to five years ago, and there is still no growth among Freshman 20 years old and younger (this number is 5.3% below 2019 levels).  Further, undergraduate enrollment overall is down and remains 3.3% below pre-pandemic levels. 

There is no doubt that serving as the campus Provost is more than a full-time job.  In fact, rarely does a day finish as was initially planned in the morning, and there is an endless “to do” list that is constantly subject to reprioritization based on the continuous need to triage.  As the chief academic officer, most provosts arrive in their positions having been elevated from the ranks of the faculty (often coming from a deanship or chair position subsequent to a faculty position). While it is true that provosts must possess a range of skills including exceptional interpersonal communication and management prowess, provosts must also be creative and innovative, and they should possess entrepreneurial and business savvy.  To excel in the role, provosts must be student-centered and they should appreciate the challenges facing faculty particularly when it comes to policies and procedures, professional development and the balancing of teaching, scholarship and service responsibilities.

Keeping a foot in the classroom during the academic year is a smart way for provosts to stay connected to students.  An immediate reaction for provosts (and their presidents) may be that the provost has no time to spend in course and classroom preparation, providing formative and summative assessments throughout the semester, and being available to students for extra help, academic advising and/or career advising. However, quality academic time with students can be professionally rewarding for provosts and it is worth the extra effort to model the best practices we advocate for the rest of the faculty.  

The evaluation of faculty members is an important process at colleges and universities.  Faculty play the major role in the functioning of colleges and universities and the performance of the faculty is a significant factor in determining the quality of institutions of higher education.  National institutional accrediting organizations (e.g., Middle States, WASC, etc.) require that colleges and universities present evidence on the method that is used to evaluate faculty members and the way that information is used.  Specialized program accreditors (e.g., AMA, ARC-PA, ACOTE, etc.) also require that the programs they accredit have a carefully constructed plan to evaluate faculty and a plan for the use of that information.  

Faculty members have three major responsibilities: teaching, scholarship, and service.  Colleges and universities, and the schools and programs therein, place different weights on each of these factors depending on the goals and objectives of that college, university and program.  Teaching is usually evaluated using student course evaluations and some institutions use peer reviews.  Student course evaluations can be helpful, but they should be considered as just one piece of evidence. It is important to view these course evaluations for purposes of promotion considerations and future employment as longitudinal data points. For example, the faculty member may be a rigorous grader or attendance taker and students may react negatively to this. There may also be occasional conflicts between faculty and student expectations that can lead to harsh evaluations. On the other hand, there may very well be merit to constructive student feedback. Chairs and deans are in the best position to assess these situations.

Inside Higher Ed, together with Hanover Research, recently released its annual Survey of College and University Chief Academic Officers, providing insight into the priorities of and challenges facing higher education institutions. With 331 provosts fully or partially completing surveys (a 13% response rate), the survey covered a wide range of topics including artificial intelligence, diversity, equity, and inclusion, campus speech, the future of academic programs, and more. While the comprehensive key findings and data tables can be found in the report, below is a highlight of several major areas.

Artificial Intelligence: Artificial intelligence continues to be an evolving focus at many institutions. 92% of provosts responded that faculty and staff members asked for additional training related to the developments in generative AI. Seventy-eight percent (78%) have offered training in response to faculty concerns or questions about generative AI within the last 18 months and an additional 20% have planned training. For students, only 14% of provosts said that their institution has reviewed the curriculum to ensure that it will prepare students for AI in the workplace, though 73% plan to do so. The use and future of AI is far from settled. Although 47% of provosts are moderately concerned, 20% very concerned, and 6% extremely concerned about the risk generative AI poses to academic integrity, only 20% of institutions have published a policy or policies governing the use of AI, including in teaching and research. An additional 63% have a policy under development. However, in contrast to those concerns, 40% of provosts are moderately enthusiastic, 32% very enthusiastic, and 11% extremely enthusiastic for AI’s potential to boost their institution’s capabilities. Several institutions are using AI for virtual chat assistants and chatbots, research and data analysis, Learning Management Systems, predictive analytics to predict student performance and trends, and in other capacities. This is an area where we can expect rapid developments in the coming months.

The rapid growth of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is creating both excitement and angst on where and how to begin safe, effective integration. While there are many ways AI can be applied, these suggestions are focused on educational delivery. For those who have begun applying and engaging student-facing AI, the vertical evolution requires structured and continuous development of institutional-level AI governance to maintain safe and ethical use. Governance structures should consider continuous growth of policies, guidelines and directives for use, approval processes, and staged training for faculty, staff, and students based on the speed of changes occurring in the market. 

Lacking or vague policies, structure, or training approaches may leave administrators, faculty, and students without the guidance needed to reap the benefits of AI use. Lacking governance structures or broad policies may unintentionally promote unsafe or unethical use of AI on the part of students, faculty, staff, and instructional designers who may not have the proper guidance to integrate. This can lead to compromised course design and program content, AI hallucinations, misinformation, and privacy breaches to proprietary university content, impacting the university and quality of education.