- Amazon Student members save an additional 10% on Textbooks with promo code TEXTBOOK10. Enter code TEXTBOOK10 at checkout. Here's how (restrictions apply)
Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating Resources to Achieve Strategic Balance, Revised and Updated Hardcover – Jan 26 2010
|New from||Used from|
Special Offers and Product Promotions
Frequently Bought Together
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
No Kindle device required. Download one of the Free Kindle apps to start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, and computer.
To get the free app, enter your e-mail address or mobile phone number.
"Dickeson has no illusions about the difficulty of achieving 'strategic balance,' but his single-minded focus on identifying and eliminating those programs that require resources that could be used by higher priority programs can provide clarity to those about to undertake an institutional review, and his insistence that an institution can make informed and defensible judgments about programs will reassure those who are in the process of institutional review." (Continuing Higher Education Review)
"This book is a 'must read' for higher education leaders or those who aspire to become higher education leaders. Only Bob Dickeson, with his many years of higher education experience, could have incorporated so much information in such a concise and informative manner." (James E. Walker, president, Middle Tennessee State University)
"This is a succinct and understandable guide to the very complex issues surrounding restructuring and prioritization. Every board member, president, and provost will find it essential to their own work." (Jessica S. Kozloff, president, Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania)
"Dickeson reverses the death of common sense. He challenges the prevailing assumption that all academic programs are of equal value and then demonstrates how to base resource allocation decisions on the merits of each." (Gary H. Quehl, president, Quehl Associates) --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
About the Author
ROBERT C. DICKESON is senior vice president for Corporate Advancement of USA Group, Inc. He heads the USA Group Foundation-a philanthropic organization dedicated to improving higher education. He is president emeritus of the University of Northern Colorado. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
Inside This Book(Learn More)
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Top Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
The process Dickeson prescribes is a one-size-fits-all program in which academic programs are slotted into five categories, essentially winners to losers, with the losers slated for elimination or consolidation. The numbers going into each category are supposed to be approximately equal, so that, even if only 5% of the programs are really problematic, another 15% must be tossed into the lowest category, regardless of their real situation. Other than Dickeson's astoundingly crude categories, obviously cribbed from the so-called "vitality curves" or "rank-and-yank" practices of some large corporations, there is really nothing original or striking here: universities can and should be constantly evaluating their programs, trimming those which no longer attract students and have no likely prospect of doing so in the future, creating new programs, etc. This is the kind of process a senior university administrator should know how to lead without having his or her hand held by an extremely expensive consulting firm. At the end of the day, Dickeson short-circuits his entire tough-guy schtick by saying that only the governing boards should have authority to close programs (p. 103), which is the situation nearly everywhere at present. This continues to allow trustees or regents, many of whom have very particular interests indeed, to swoop in and rescue their beloved programs--of which, by the way, athletics is often the focus--regardless of data concerning cost, reasonable future prospects, or the results of the actual prioritization study. If Dickeson were serious, which he most certainly is not, he would have provided an extended discussion of how many of the most non-viable programs remain in existence precisely because they are supported by senior administrators and trustees against all reason. He knows perfectly well who writes the big checks to his firm, after all. In my many years in higher education, I have yet to see a faculty line advertised without the authorization of a senior administrator, typically the president of an institution, a paycheck bearing the signature of one of those rank-and-file pointy-heads, or a new program created without the approval of the board.
The intention of mechanically slotting 40% of an institution's programs into "eliminate/consolidate" or "reduce support" categories is simply to scatter the attention of faculty and students between so many threatened programs that effective resistance becomes impossible. Departments with perfectly healthy programs by any reasonable standard are compelled to spend time defending themselves and their students' educations rather than responding to unreasonable threats to other programs. The more or less inevitable consequence of Dickeson's approach is a "bunkered" institution, in which other departments are seen not as potential partners, but outright adversaries.
Dickeson, like many consultants and administrators, is fond of evaluating outcomes, as opposed to inputs. Surprisingly, however, he offers absolutely no empirical evidence that his approach has measurably improved actual academic outcomes anywhere. One would think that by now, Dickeson, who has been flogging his approach for a long time, would be able to point to dozens of studies establishing a direct link between his prioritization process and positive gains in measurable student learning outcomes. Of course, he cannot.
After his presidency ended at Northern Colorado, during which time his unjustified firing of many faculty landed that institution on the AAUP's "Censured Institutions" list, Dickeson did not obtain further employment as a university president. Despite his flackery about his experience, the reality is that he has not held a line management position in an institution of higher education for over 20 years. He has spent the rest of his career attacking university faculty as lazy, disinterested in the viability of their institutions, and wholly resistant to change. His caricatures of faculty members bear as much resemblance to reality as some faculty members' opinions about administrators, who of course come in competent, so-so, and incompetent flavors. Readers should understand that this book is essentially an advertisement for his expensive consulting firm's services. It is written to appeal to politicians, board members, and in-over-their-heads administrators, using the very short sections and numbered/bulleted lists that are typical of this genre of management manual.