PASSHE Institutions Merging

[ironmaniup]

That's a great point...and one I feel like we touched on months ago. All of these schools in PASSHE and beyond that are struggling don't have amazing leadership and just market forces are taking them down. The ones that do good, in a lot of cases...do certain things very well:

1 ) Make it as easy as possible to enroll and become a student. (People might laugh this one off, but at some schools it's not easy to become a student.)
3 ) Really high quality on-line experience. They don't just translate in-person classes to online. They totally build online classes that are high quality.
4 ) It's an intangible but employee morale is likely higher on successful colleges and there is more energy. Maybe it comes from better leadership. Maybe other factors.

Anything that anyone is thinking should be done is going to come crashing down when the Spring enrollment numbers are finalized. The rumor is that the covid HS seniors and the covid freshman did not fare too well in their first semester back face to face. Add to that many seniors are graduating a little early since they took advantage of on-line courses that weren't previously available.

[iupgroundhog]

That's a great point...and one I feel like we touched on months ago. All of these schools in PASSHE and beyond that are struggling don't have amazing leadership and just market forces are taking them down. The ones that do good, in a lot of cases...do certain things very well:

1 ) Make it as easy as possible to enroll and become a student. (People might laugh this one off, but at some schools it's not easy to become a student.)
2 ) Great tour experiences for the on campus students.
3 ) Really high quality on-line experience. They don't just translate in-person classes to online. They totally build online classes that are high quality.
4 ) It's an intangible but employee morale is likely higher on successful colleges and there is more energy. Maybe it comes from better leadership. Maybe other factors.

What's a great point? That it is all a charade? If so, that sentiment does not come through in your comments. If you were referring to the respective leadership at each school that has a minimal impact. The issues stem from the other factors.

[iupgroundhog]

The state gave PASSHE that 1 time funding. And they did the thing with the pension fund that gained them millions. Plus, the covid dollars.

Please see link that has the breakdown:
The Pa. State System of Higher Ed. has $75M in one-time funds. Here's the preliminary spending plan - Pennsylvania Capital-Star (penncapital-star.com)

The irony is...there aren't many PASSHE schools doing well enough that they can siphon funding from. Enrollment was bad nearly across the board this past Fall with small exceptions.

I'm interested in seeing their report to the Legislature on the Accounting of this all to see how they allocate costs, etc.

When I suggested the triads "will" siphon money from the non-triad schools I was referring to future annual budgets. I am not talking about a 1-time disbursement to help get it off the ground, although that, in itself, is discriminatory against those outside of the triads. I think there will be a disproportionate amount of resources directed to the triads which will, in effect, hurt other schools in the system. This is because it's in his self-interest to make the triads work. When I referred to siphoning off resources I am referring to the equitable allocation of the state subsidy across all of the schools.

[complaint_hopeful]

I am starting to think that this is all a charade made to show the largely GOP state assembly "look, we're doing something about it!" but actually not fixing anything.

Spent some time on a PASSHE campus last week and the culture from one that has largely maintained enrollment is night and day from those that have been losing (and cutting).

That's a great point...and one I feel like we touched on months ago. All of these schools in PASSHE and beyond that are struggling don't have amazing leadership and just market forces are taking them down. The ones that do good, in a lot of cases...do certain things very well:

1 ) Make it as easy as possible to enroll and become a student. (People might laugh this one off, but at some schools it's not easy to become a student.)
2 ) Great tour experiences for the on campus students.
3 ) Really high quality on-line experience. They don't just translate in-person classes to online. They totally build online classes that are high quality.
4 ) It's an intangible but employee morale is likely higher on successful colleges and there is more energy. Maybe it comes from better leadership. Maybe other factors.

[complaint_hopeful]

It's going to siphon off resources from the schools outside the triads, too. If I end up being wrong about this in 5 years, please remind me. But I don't think so.

The state gave PASSHE that 1 time funding. And they did the thing with the pension fund that gained them millions. Plus, the covid dollars.

Please see link that has the breakdown:
The Pa. State System of Higher Ed. has $75M in one-time funds. Here's the preliminary spending plan - Pennsylvania Capital-Star (penncapital-star.com)

The irony is...there aren't many PASSHE schools doing well enough that they can siphon funding from. Enrollment was bad nearly across the board this past Fall with small exceptions.

I'm interested in seeing their report to the Legislature on the Accounting of this all to see how they allocate costs, etc.

[Fightingscot82]

I am starting to think that this is all a charade made to show the largely GOP state assembly "look, we're doing something about it!" but actually not fixing anything.

Spent some time on a PASSHE campus last week and the culture from one that has largely maintained enrollment is night and day from those that have been losing (and cutting).

[iupgroundhog]

I really think there is something near nefarious going on. There is no way cutting programs and staff is going to raise enrollment. It appears to be a backdoor way of weakening some schools so they have to close or it just a very poor idea that won't work. Someone knows something and they are not talking.

It's going to siphon off resources from the schools outside the triads, too. If I end up being wrong about this in 5 years, please remind me. But I don't think so.

[iupgroundhog]

I really think there is something near nefarious going on. There is no way cutting programs and staff is going to raise enrollment. It appears to be a backdoor way of weakening some schools so they have to close or it just a very poor idea that won't work. Someone knows something and they are not talking.

True. I don't have confidence that what the Chancellor says is real. And I think the BOG members drank the Kool-Aid.

[iupgroundhog]

From what I recall from the projections, the West didn't break even over 5 years even with modest enrollment growth predicted each year. And all 3 schools lost a lot of enrollment this past Fall which makes it much worse. I believe passhe showed what this meant in a BOG meeting.

The NE lost a lot of enrollment too which hurt their projections.

So both Triads will likely be in financial trouble for the next half decade...unless they start to gain enrollment again. I suppose they could cut a lot of employee expenses, but I doubt they'd be giving these raises if that was the plan.

I honestly think that leadership and the consultants think they're going to build something innovative that makes enrollment takeoff. <-- I think it's as simple as that.

Now, how likely is it that schools losing enrollment for a decade that are probably priced too high will grow? That's another debate.

I don't know what all of that has to do with my point. My point is, and this should be pretty obvious, that the plans are predicated on cost efficiencies and savings. Reduce costs. Now Greenstein is spinning it as something completely different. He is touting alleged benefits to students which have little, if any, chance to materialize. That's what you call "smoke and mirrors" and if he is fooling people with this I am shocked.

If Greenstein thinks he will be able to buy a lot of time and kick the can down the road I think he will be in for a big surprise. I don't think there is any mid-term or long-term. It's going to have to work well over the next 2 years. If it doesn't I think the question will be "Where do we go from here?"

Ultimately, as I suspected in the beginning, Greenstein will move on and leave the constituents holding the bag.

[Bart]

I really think there is something near nefarious going on. There is no way cutting programs and staff is going to raise enrollment. It appears to be a backdoor way of weakening some schools so they have to close or it just a very poor idea that won't work. Someone knows something and they are not talking.

[complaint_hopeful]

I really don't understand this rationale. Didn't the legislature layout specific financial goals within (I think) a 3 year period (or less?)? The directives are not "mid-term" directives. Usually mid-term is over 3 years. To me, as an untrained observer, it looks like financially it is not coming together (particularly in the West) and Greenstein is trying futilely to change the narrative. "It was never about cost-savings". Give me a break.

From what I recall from the projections, the West didn't break even over 5 years even with modest enrollment growth predicted each year. And all 3 schools lost a lot of enrollment this past Fall which makes it much worse. I believe passhe showed what this meant in a BOG meeting.

The NE lost a lot of enrollment too which hurt their projections.

So both Triads will likely be in financial trouble for the next half decade...unless they start to gain enrollment again. I suppose they could cut a lot of employee expenses, but I doubt they'd be giving these raises if that was the plan.

I honestly think that leadership and the consultants think they're going to build something innovative that makes enrollment takeoff. <-- I think it's as simple as that.

Now, how likely is it that schools losing enrollment for a decade that are probably priced too high will grow? That's another debate.

[iupgroundhog]

Seeing what the costs are, I can believe it. The savings will likely come more mid-term than immediate. I think what people miss is these schools do things drastically different. Different software, processes, etc. Moving to 1 system costs a lot.

The bottom line is: The triads both need to drastically gain enrollment. That's probably the only way this can work.

On savings...many of these schools cut and cut for years. Merge 3 schools like that and you run out of things to cut.

I really don't understand this rationale. Didn't the legislature layout specific financial goals within (I think) a 3 year period (or less?)? The directives are not "mid-term" directives. Usually mid-term is over 3 years. To me, as an untrained observer, it looks like financially it is not coming together (particularly in the West) and Greenstein is trying futilely to change the narrative. "It was never about cost-savings". Give me a break.

[complaint_hopeful]

You can't possibly believe that. The entire concept is based on financial restructuring from Day 1. The Chancellor is a good BS'er.

Seeing what the costs are, I can believe it. The savings will likely come more mid-term than immediate. I think what people miss is these schools do things drastically different. Different software, processes, etc. Moving to 1 system costs a lot.

The bottom line is: The triads both need to drastically gain enrollment. That's probably the only way this can work.

On savings...many of these schools cut and cut for years. Merge 3 schools like that and you run out of things to cut.

[iupgroundhog]

Yes - And the Chancellor even says the Integrations weren't for cost savings. They're to expand student access to programs, etc.

You can't possibly believe that. The entire concept is based on financial restructuring from Day 1. The Chancellor is a good BS'er.

[complaint_hopeful]

That's the fallacy of administrative savings in mergers. If $100k is the market rate for a certain position at a 5,000 student school and it merges to create a 15,000 student school, while you might be able to eliminate two $100k positions, that third person can now argue they should be paid the market rate for a 15,000 student school.

There are also a lot of positions that can't be done across 3 campuses very well, such as alumni relations. So you end up with a model with 3 alumni directors and no cost savings.

Yes - And the Chancellor even says the Integrations weren't for cost savings. They're to expand student access to programs, etc.

Overall, Integrating is very expensive. It's hard to really see areas of savings.