Why the name change? Western New England will develop a Ph.D. program in Engineering Management to join its existing Ph.D. in Behavior ...]]> Western New England College of Springfield, Mass., was awarded "university" status by the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education and will change its name to Western New England University on July 1, 2011.

Why the name change? Western New England will develop a Ph.D. program in Engineering Management to join its existing Ph.D. in Behavior Analysis. But as we noted in Higher E(d)volution: Six Mass State Colleges "Re-branded" as Universities, the main reason institutions make the jump from college to university usually has more to do with marketing than actual offerings.

Western New England noted in its announcement: "While the name will change, President [Anthony S.] Caprio says the character of the institution will not. 'We have no plans to sacrifice the personal attention provided to students, the collegial atmosphere on campus, or the flexibility that comes with being a relatively small institution,' says Caprio. 'The goal of the university's founders was to provide outstanding academic programs with a professional focus that prepare our graduates to become leaders in their fields and in their communities. That commitment will remain in place, stronger than ever.'”

The announcement goes on to note mostly cosmetic changes: "Between now and July, Western New England staff will be working to make a myriad of changes to its Springfield campus, including updating signage and scores of publications to reflect the new name."

Barbara A. Campanella, vice president for Marketing and External Affairs, added: “It allows us to compete more effectively with many of our peer institutions in other states that have become universities and with which we share common student applicants. ... It also allows us to be more attractive to foreign students, given the different definition of ‘college’ outside the United States and the international perception that a ‘university’ represents the highest level of education possible.”

Western New England College was founded in 1919 as the Springfield Division of Northeastern College and served mostly part-time adult students. In 1951, an autonomous charter was obtained to confer bachelor's degrees and what was then called the Springfield Division of Northeastern University was renamed Western New England College.

The College Board's Advanced Placement (AP) exams, often preceded by AP courses, have a reputation for spitting out an overwhelming amount of information, but that is about to change. The nonprofit, which also administers the SATs, says it will revamp the biology and U.S. history tests to give students the opportunity to learn the materials, ...]]>

The College Board's Advanced Placement (AP) exams, often preceded by AP courses, have a reputation for spitting out an overwhelming amount of information, but that is about to change. The nonprofit, which also administers the SATs, says it will revamp the biology and U.S. history tests to give students the opportunity to learn the materials, rather than cram for the exam.

The College Board has AP exams in 30 subjects, with 1.8 million students taking 3.2 million tests. While the program is recognized for giving students the opportunity to get an early start on more challenging, university-level work, some exams require too much study—material that, in turn, deters students from learning "big concepts." The biology and U.S. history exams are two of AP's biggest culprits with their ever-expanding laundry list of "ought-to-knows."

The new focus of the AP exams in these two subject areas will allow more time for the "big picture," the College Board says, and eliminate the need to squeeze in extraneous information that generally isn't absorbed.

High scores on an AP exam can get students college credit. Compared to college courses, whose prices range from the hundreds or even thousands of dollars, the $87 AP exam is a worthwhile investment for any high school student looking save some money and/or get the most out of their college years. For some, entering college with AP credit can leave room for extracurricular courses, an earlier graduation date or a double major.

But as students are burdened by the challenges of advanced coursework earlier and earlier, and colleges come to expect AP scores on transcripts, some educators have had enough. Indeed, AP courses and exams emerge among the key villains in the film "Race to Nowhere."  The documentary argues the "push to achieve has created a generation of high-strung students constrained in a one-size-fits-all’ system."

The new focus of AP tests will change lesson plans and study techniques for hundreds of thousands of educators and students in New England over the next couple of years. In fact, in 2008, nearly 80,000 New England students took more than 135,000 AP exams, with the both biology and U.S. history being among the five most popular exams. And since 2004, the number of exam-takers in New England has increased by 31%. Click here for a PDF of facts and figures about AP exams in New England.

The Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce has engaged in a highly publicized campaign claiming that the nation will face a very substantial deficit of college graduates by 2018 if the American postsecondary system fails to rapidly expand the number of college degrees it awards each year. Indeed, the employment ...]]>  

The Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce has engaged in a highly publicized campaign claiming that the nation will face a very substantial deficit of college graduates by 2018 if the American postsecondary system fails to rapidly expand the number of college degrees it awards each year. Indeed, the employment projections developed by Anthony Carnevale and his colleagues at Georgetown University suggest that there will be a shortfall of 3 million college graduates by that year. Such a labor shortage, if it were to actually materialize, could result in an enormous amount of lost production, reduced incomes in the U.S. and a deterioration in our competitive position in the world economy. Firms unable to hire domestic college graduates might shift their production overseas or look to postsecondary institutions abroad for new sources of high-end labor supply to meet the shortfalls predicted by the Georgetown authors.

So what is the evidence of future labor shortages in college labor markets? Should higher education institutions place some bets in terms of organizational structures and resource allocation in response to this projection of a serious labor shortfall? These are important questions since the higher education system has been burned by faulty projections in the past. Perhaps, the most egregious example of this was the “college enrollment crisis” that was forecast by a number of observers in the early 1980s. At that time, some college analysts expected that by the end of the ’80s, postsecondary institutions would face large enrollment shortfalls, as the size of the high school graduate cohort was forecast to decline sharply through the mid 1990s as a consequence of the baby bust generation coming of age. While the number of graduating seniors from the nation’s high schools did indeed decline, no enrollment crisis occurred. Instead, higher education experienced a renaissance from its 1970s doldrums, with increased enrollments and sharp rises in tuition and fees-signaling the effects of a sharp increase in demand for college degrees as the economic gains from completing college rose sharply.

While decline, consolidation and merger were the watchwords of the "enrollment crisis" proponents, colleges and universities in fact prospered over the period when shortfalls in enrollment were expected. While the forecasters got the demographics right, they didn’t account for changes in the nature and magnitude of job growth that favored those with more years of formal schooling. Thus, they missed the rise in college enrollment rates that would take place among high school seniors and the sharp growth in college enrollments among adult women that occurred during that time period; both associated with sharp increases in the earnings advantages of graduating from college.

The Georgetown analysis begins with a rejection of the better-known and well-documented industry and occupational employment projections developed biennially by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). They argue that the employment projections of BLS sharply underestimate the future demand for college graduates. They note that when they compare earlier BLS forecasts of employment growth between 1988 and 1998 with projections based on their own method for the same time period, that

“The Bureau under predicted how many workers in the U.S. labor force would have associate’s degrees or better by 19 million. That projection was off by 47 percent. Our methodology for that same period over predicted post secondary educational demand by about 2 million workers or just 4 percent.”

They go on to argue that the BLS underestimates of projected college graduate demand “… encourage a consistent bias against investing in postsecondary education.”

Could BLS, the most objective, impartial and certainly data-rich observer of American labor markets, so grossly underestimate the projected demand for college graduates for such a relatively short time horizon? Our answer to this is no! Instead, after a careful review of their data and methods, we find that the Georgetown authors radically overstate the size of the college labor market and, in the process, ignore perhaps the most pressing problem facing college graduates in the nation today—malemployment. A concept used by Frederick Harbison in his 1973 book titled Human Resources and the Wealth of Nations, malemployment represents the inability of a college graduate to find a job that effectively uses the knowledge, skills and abilities acquired in college and relegates them to employment in low-skill and generally low-wage occupations that don’t utilize college-level proficiencies. Since the skills of the malemployed remain largely unused by employers, they experience considerable wage losses.

Unlike virtually any other analyst of labor market activity, the Georgetown authors define the size of the college labor market as equal to the total number of college graduates that are employed. BLS and most other college labor market analysts define the college labor market as essentially a set of occupations that most often require persons to earn a college degree in order to be fully qualified for employment in that occupations. As a rule of thumb, we could define the college labor market as being composed of professional, technical, managerial and high-level sales occupations (like bond and stock sales representatives or commodity brokers), although BLS uses a much more careful approach than this.

Perspectives on occupations

To understand the difference between the Georgetown and BLS approach, let’s compare data on two occupations: bartender and compensation and benefits manager—jobs that most readers have some familiarity with in either their personal lives or professional capacities. An analysis of the data provided in Table 1 (derived from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey) reveals that workers in both occupations have varying levels of formal schooling. But a closer look at the data reveals that most bartenders don’t have any type of college degree (only one in four bartenders report they have graduated from college). In contrast, compensation and benefit managers are much more likely to have finished college. More than six of 10 compensation and benefits managers have a college diploma, and nearly one in five have obtained an advanced academic degree.

Table 1: Mean Annual Average Percent Distribution of Employed Persons Ages 25+ by

Selected Occupation and Level of Educational Attainment, 2006, 2007 and 2008 Averages

Source: American Community Survey, 2006-2008 public use files. Tabulations by authors

When we look at existing data on the skill requirements needed to work in either of these occupations, we find similar disparities between bartenders and benefit and compensation managers.

The U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration’s O*NET system is a massive database compiled over the past 15 years on occupational skill needs in the U.S. economy. Developed and maintained for the express purpose of understanding the education, training and work experience requirements of different occupations found in the nation’s labor markets, it is designed to inform workforce development, education and training professionals, higher education leaders and the business community about the wide range of skills needs within hundreds of individual occupations in the U.S. labor market. An examination of the O*NET studies of these two occupations reveals sharp differences in education and skills requirements.

O*NET assigns the bartender occupation to job category two, while compensation and benefit managers are assigned to job category four. What the significance of these assignments? O*NET studies of the bartender occupation found that the fundamental educational qualification for employment is a high school diploma and that bartender skills are largely acquired though work experience (although there are training schools including Harvard University, where one can prepare for employment in the occupation). English language and math skills required for work in this field were assigned relatively low values. In contrast O*NET studies of the compensation and benefit manager occupation found that most employers require a college degree for initial qualification for employment along with a considerable amount of work experience directly in the human resource and compensation fields. The English language and math skill requirements for this occupation are considerably higher than those for bartenders and the occupation requires a high degree of specific knowledge of human resource principles and procedures.

Taking the data on the distribution of employment by occupation and the findings from the O*NET studies of the skill requirements of both occupations, it would not be difficult to conclude (as BLS did) that, while the compensation and benefits manager occupation should be considered part of the college labor market, the bartender occupation should not. Indeed, even without these two objective sources of information it would not be hard for the informed reader to conclude from their own experiences that becoming a bartender requires no college experience (other than the usual undergraduate extracurricular experiences of interacting with bartenders) while the gateway to becoming a compensation and benefit manager is by initial completion of a college degree. And there is the rub.

The Georgetown measure of the college labor market includes all employed college graduates, irrespective of the occupation in which they are employed. So for the Georgetown analysts, all the college graduates working as bartenders are part of the college labor market. Indeed, those college grads working in cashier, retail sales, clerical, health aide, moving and transportation occupations, landscape and janitorial services and the like are all part of the college labor market.

BLS analysts disagree. They would not assign any bartender employment to the college labor market because, although one in four bartenders are college graduates, these jobs do not typically utilize the knowledge, skills and abilities acquired in college. Most of us would agree that college graduates working as bartenders are not utilizing their college education. We would regard many, though not all, of these individuals as underutilized with respect to their education or what labor economists refer to as malemployed. Amazingly, in the current labor market environment characterized by a high incidence of malemployment among young college graduates, the Georgetown analysts argue this type of skills underutilization problem simply does not exist. Essentially, the Georgetown approach assumes a world where no under-employment or malemployment of college graduates exists. Indeed, they expressly acknowledge this choice and reject the idea that college graduates could become underutilized or malemployed. The authors explain the discrepancy by arguing that overeducation or underutilization of college skills is non-existent among employed college graduates:

“… BLS’ educational and training requirements data undercount postsecondary degrees by 22 million in 2008. This implies that 22 million workers are overeducated. The overwhelming consensus in the literature contradicts this”.

While reasonable individuals can argue about the specific degree of overeducation or surplus schooling or malemployment of college graduates, it is surely the case that even in times of near full employment substantial numbers of college graduates are malemployed and are unable to effectively utilize the proficiencies associated with a college degree on their jobs. And the labor economic literature has long recognized problems of overeducation in both the U.S. and in Europe.[1]

If malemployment among college graduates simply does not exist, as the Georgetown forecasters argue, then there should be little difference in the earnings among college graduates regardless of whether they were employed in college labor market occupations or not. We examined the issue of malemployment in greater depth using data on annual earnings of employed adults during the 2006 to 2008 period to determine if earnings varied systematically by our measure of college graduate malemployment. Not surprisingly we found very large and statistically significant difference in the annual earnings of college graduates based on their malemployment status. Specifically, we found that:

• At the associate degree level, those graduates employed in a college labor market occupation had expected annual earnings that were 60% greater than those of high school graduates, while their counterparts who earned an associate degree but were employed in a non-college labor market-related occupation had expected annual earnings that were just 10% higher than those of high school graduates.

• Among bachelor’s degree recipients, those who worked in college labor market occupations had expected annual earnings that were 88% higher than their high school graduate counterparts, while the earnings premium for those who were not employed in a college labor market occupation was only 15% higher.

Indeed, we find that at every level of college attainment and across all age groups, large negative earnings impacts were associated with failure to find work in the college labor market. These findings clearly suggest that most of the economic gains to a college degree are strongly associated with the ability to obtain employment in the college labor market in occupations that utilize the knowledge, skills and abilities developed as part of a program of study leading to a college degree. Despite the claims of the Georgetown researchers, the available empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that the personal and social payoffs to a college degree occur largely when graduates have access to jobs within the college labor market and that gains to a college diploma are quite small when graduates are relegated to jobs outside of the college labor market.

This finding implies that the Georgetown researchers dramatically overstate the size of the college labor market by including a substantial amount of employment in low-skill occupations. Paradoxically, by including this low-end employment in their “college demand forecasts,” they actually produce a slower projected growth rate in the demand for college graduates than projections based on our definition of the college labor market, although the absolute size of their projected college graduate demand remains quite exaggerated.

The demand for college graduates would grow more substantially if the U.S. economy can get back on a sustained recovery track and generate jobs in key industrial sectors that hire relatively large numbers of college graduates. Whether a generalized labor shortage of college graduates will emerge or only spot shortages in a few technical areas is simply unknown at this time. The Georgetown study fails to provide any serious evidence of college labor shortages in the future. The study is fatally flawed by its methods and even by its interpretation of fundamental labor market concepts.

As we have shown, the economic gains to earning a college degree can be quite high and, thus, college completion can be a very important determinant of lifetime success in American labor markets. However, the existence of these returns is highly dependent on one’s ability to obtain access to jobs in college labor market occupations. Rather than responding to unsubstantiated claims about future shortages, education leaders should focus on the results of serious research and evaluation and improve higher education efforts to broker new graduates into college labor market jobs, to build stronger relationships with employers to help develop more college labor market jobs for graduates, and assist alumni to get them back into the college labor market when they re-enter the workforce or lose their jobs.

Today, labor market problems especially for our younger college graduates are associated with both relatively high levels of joblessness and especially malemployment. The personal and social costs of these malemployment problems can be quite severe in forms of decreased employment, lost earnings, diminished job satisfaction as well as real output losses to society. The higher education community should seek innovative  strategies to reduce the very real problems of unemployment and malemployment that plague college graduates today instead of relying on unsupported forecasts that their problems will be solved if they simply wait long enough. As the late John Keynes once forecast with 100% certainty, “In the long-run, we are all dead.”

________________________________________________________________________

Paul E. Harrington is associate director of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University. Andrew M. Sum is the center’s director.

Endnotes

[1]. For a review of the concepts of malemployment and overeducation and their costs to workers in the nation and the world, see: (i) Andrew Sum, Ishwar Khatiwada, Joseph McLaughlin, et. al., The Status of Teens and Young Adults (16-24 Years Old) in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Implications for State and Local Youth Development Systems, Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University, Prepared for The Commonwealth Corporation, Boston, MA, April 2009, p. 90; Selected studies of overeducaton include: (ii) Richard R. Verdugo and Naomi Verdugo, “The Impact of Surplus Schooling on Earnings; Some Additional Findings,” Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1989, pp. 629-673; (iii) Wim Groot, “The Incidence of and Returns to Overeducation in the U.K.,” Applied Economics, Vol. 28, pp. 1345-1350.(iv) Russell W. Rumberger, “The Impact of Surplus Schooling on Productivity and Earnings,” The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 22, No. 1, 1981, pp. 29-50; (ii) Richard R. Verdugo and Naomi Verdugo, “The Impact of Surplus Schooling on Earnings;  Some Additional Findings”, Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 24, No. 4, 1989, pp. 629-673; (v) Nachum Sicherman, “Overeducation in the Labor Market”, The Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1991; (vi) David Mills, Overeducation and Earnings, Labor Economics Seminar Paper, Northeastern University, 1996; (vii) Paul Harrington and Andrew Sum, The Post College Earnings Experiences of Bachelor Degree Holders in the U.S.:  Estimated Economic Returns to Major Fields of Study, 1998 Conference on Higher Education and Workforce Development, Portland State University, March 1998; (viii) Steve Rubb, “Post-College Schooling, Overeducation, and Hourly Earnings in the U.S.”, Economics of Education, Vol. 11, 2003, Issue 1, pp. 53-70; (ix) Lisa Kahn, The Long-Term Labor Market Consequences of Graduating from College in a Bad Economy, Harvard University, Cambridge, 2006. Santiago Budria and Ana Moro-Esido, “Overeducation and Wages in Europe”, University of Madeira and Granada, January 2007

The nation seems to have suddenly awoken to the reality that for-profit academic institutions are a force to be reckoned with. For so long, they have been ignored as inconsequential, second-rate competition, and vilified for their greed and lack of quality. Two events seemed to have changed their image into something far more formidable: the ...]]>

The nation seems to have suddenly awoken to the reality that for-profit academic institutions are a force to be reckoned with. For so long, they have been ignored as inconsequential, second-rate competition, and vilified for their greed and lack of quality. Two events seemed to have changed their image into something far more formidable: the realization that government-sponsored financial aid goes disproportionately (and with a dangerously high default rates) to the for-profit sector, and the excellent exposé on Frontline (College, Inc.) that slammed the aggressive recruiting practices of these schools.

There is much hypocrisy as newspapers, themselves for-profits, and the politicians who previously promoted the development of more storefront enterprises in their own districts, now question the fundamental ability of for-profit universities to deliver higher education—and “not-for-profit” universities now feel the threat of this competition. This is not to say that for-profits haven’t been guilty of excessive behavior, but they operate in a much larger academic ecosystem, which needs to be acknowledged. I offer these five uncomfortable observations.

First is that the for-profits fill the void relinquished by the rest of us. A case in point is the University of Phoenix, which began in the 1970s as a small for-profit program aligned with the Jesuit University of San Francisco, then moved to Phoenix to escape the scrutiny of the California accreditors, and slowly morphed from a bricks-and-mortar enterprise to mostly online in just the last decade. At no point did the University of Phoenix invent anything especially new, discover something that wasn’t otherwise obvious, or unearth a market that wasn’t being systematically neglected by the mainstream educational establishment. I recall asking a senior administrator at an urban flagship state university on the East Coast why Phoenix was able to develop such a successful presence there. She replied that the business school faculty at her university were not interested in teaching part-time adult students and simply surrendered that market to the for-profit.

Second is that the for-profits make the equivalent of hamburgers, and sell them in large quantity to a mass market—nothing exotic, nothing even especially novel or risky. Credit for every academic invention should go to highly acclaimed universities. The for-profits simply took those innovations and turned them into commodities, and high-priced ones at that. While originality, creativity, and academic imagination reside in the nation’s most prominent universities, the will and the way to cast a wide net for students exists in the for-profit world, which produced major marketing machines. The numbers are staggering: The four largest companies/universities have a combined headcount of more than one million students and annual revenues of $11.7 billion. Their stocks, though, are plummeting under the pressures to reform.

Third is the painful reality that the for-profits are not so different from the rest of us. All major colleges and universities engage in glitzy self-promotion, student recruiting, and assistance with procuring federal financial aid. We try, however, not to cross the line into misrepresentation and manipulation. What was portrayed on College, Inc. occurs in the not-for-profits as well, just, one hopes, less aggressively and deviously.

Fourth is the simplistic backlash that anything for-profit is inherently evil and any association between a nonprofit and a for-profit is inevitably corrupting. The more nuanced question is how to divide the labor and determine a legitimate space for the profit motive. For example, few colleges, other than Cornell University, make their own ice cream—this is something easily outsourced. But we do make our own education, which shouldn’t be subcontracted to an outside vendor. There are fundamental skills and defining features of our institutions that simply cannot be compromised or confused by outsourcing. While a partnership of for-profits and nonprofits, in so many domains, is inevitable, where the line is drawn between the two is not.

For-profits are now enormous and here to stay, though perhaps humbled and constrained by the barrage their reckless behavior inspired. We now need a détente rather than a blanket and universal rejection or a see-no-evil approach between mainstream academe and this emerging giant. But the traditional universities and accrediting bodies need to reassert their say over what is educationally credible.

Fifth is the dangerous convergence, in the public’s perception, of distance learning and for-profit corporations. Distance learning is not the exclusive domain of the for-profits, most of which developed first in the conventional classroom offered at convenient sites. And prominent universities should not shy away from online learning for fear of guilt by association. Quality online learning is often lost in the schlock being peddled to the naïve consumer. There are important opportunities, if not a responsibility, to embrace the role that technology can play in providing powerful educational options for adult learners. These shouldn’t be stigmatized because of the mass marketing of online programs by for-profits or the mistaken notion that distance learning and the profit motive are somehow synonymous. I am concerned that important, laudable online initiatives might become collateral damage of the front-page exposés on for-profit mischief.

And now a sixth observation, perhaps more of a prediction: We ain’t seen nothing yet. While legislators wring their hands on how to get the genie back in the bottle, the for-profits are moving quietly and imperialistically throughout the world where the fine distinctions between for-profit and nonprofit are less clear. At some point, U.S. institutions will wake up to an even more glaring case of neglect—and find the for-profits have gobbled up the global marketplace with their version of U.S. higher education.

________________________________________________________________________

Jay A. Halfond is dean of Metropolitan College and Extended Education at Boston University.

The following is excerpted from “Make Way for Millennials! How Today's Students are Shaping Higher Education Space” by Persis C. Rickes, founder of the Massachusetts-based higher education consulting firm Rickes Associates. The full piece first appeared in Planning for Higher Education, the journal of the Society for College and ...]]>

The following is excerpted from “Make Way for Millennials! How Today's Students are Shaping Higher Education Space” by Persis C. Rickes, founder of the Massachusetts-based higher education consulting firm Rickes Associates. The full piece first appeared in Planning for Higher Education, the journal of the Society for College and University Planning at www.scup.org/phe.html.

The monikers are many: Generation Y, Echo Boomers, GenMe, the Net Generation, RenGen and Generation Next. One name that appears to be gaining currency is “Millennials,” perhaps as a way to better differentiate the current generation from its predecessor, Generation X. Millennials are those individuals born between 1982 and 2002, give or take a couple of years (Howe and Strauss 2000, 2007). They represent a generation that began to spill onto college and university campuses at the turn of the millennium and have already had a subtle—and sometimes not so subtle—impact on campus space. Millennials now influence space planning, design, and construction and will continue to transform higher education as they return to campus as faculty and staff.

Generations in perspective

The Baby Boomers have garnered much of the press in recent years given their sheer numbers, although we were clearly reminded by Tom Brokaw of the incalculable contributions of the G.I. or “Greatest” Generation. How do the Millennials fit into the historical constellation of generations? Although an entire generation cannot be uniformly categorized, it is clear that generational cohorts have some values and traits in common given their shared social and historical experiences. The dividing dates between cohorts are not rigid—and, indeed, individuals on the generational “cusps” share traits from neighboring generations—but there is rough agreement regarding how these cohorts are distributed over time. Following are brief descriptions of the four generations immediately preceding the Millennial Generation (Howe and Strauss 2007):

The G.I. Generation (born 1901 to 1924) arose at the start of the last century. Civic-minded and team-oriented, this generation was responsible for creating the suburbs and landing on the moon. Members also helped fuel a major campus construction boom when they flooded higher education institutions as beneficiaries of the G.I. Bill. Since time was of the essence in reducing the pressure on overtaxed facilities, many of the buildings built in response were basic in both design and construction.

The Silent Generation (born 1925 to 1942) came of age betwixt and between the war heroes and the flower children; shaped by the Great Depression, members of this generation lacked a cause for which to fight. In many ways, they were a “quiet” generation, committed not only to their career (often spending their entire work life at a single company), but also to their family and friends. On college and university campuses, they are now the most senior faculty members and administrators.

The Boomer Generation (born 1943 to 1960) exploded on the scene, especially in contrast to the preceding generation. As idealistic optimists, Boomers were confident of themselves and distrustful of authority, questioning the relevance of social structures. Their sheer numbers made them a dominant cultural force. They attended higher education in the turbulent 1960s and 1970s, and many are now returning to campus to enroll in courses for personal enrichment or to prepare for new careers in “retirement.” Roughly half of current higher education faculty and staff members are Boomers. With the first Boomers reaching retirement age in 2008, that number will begin to decline as Gen Xers and Millennials swell the faculty and staff ranks.

Generation X (born 1961 to 1981) emerged in the 1960s. This is a generation that the media has pegged as cynical and disconnected, the first “latchkey kids” grown into adulthood who feel that the world is out to get them. In reality, Gen Xers are the practical skeptics and entrepreneurial free agents who fueled the dot-com boom. They attended higher education in the 1980s and 1990s and now make up over one-third of the faculty and staff at colleges and universities. Their proportion will not achieve the lofty level of Boomers; as a generation, their numbers are relatively small, creating a generational birth dearth that led some academics like Lewis Mayhew (1979) to ponder how well higher education would survive the 1980s. The pessimistic view that higher education enrollments were in an unchecked tailspin proved to be unfounded. While enrollments did decline in the 1980s, births began to rise, foreshadowing the current higher education enrollment surge.

Generational cycles

The current enrollment surge is fueled in part by the Millennial Generation, a cohort considered to begin with those born in 1982. Born to Boomer and Gen X parents, Millennials are wanted and nurtured children and are the first true “natives” of the Information Age. For this demographic cohort, personal computers have always been there and are as omnipresent and mundane as a toaster. In contrast, their predecessors have been branded “digital immigrants” who tend to lack Millennials’ natural and almost instinctual relationship with technology.

The first Millennials arrived on campus at the turn of the millennium and will be enrolled in higher education through 2020 and beyond. At nearly 100 million strong (including some 10 million immigrants), Millennials are the largest generational cohort in history. They are also the most racially and ethnically diverse cohort, with one in five Millennials the child of an immigrant parent.

Howe and Strauss (2007) note that “through the coming decade, they will transform the university world as profoundly as the Boomers did in the 1960s—but in very different, even opposite, ways. As happened in the ’60s, some universities will figure out the new generation, deal with it correctly, and rise in reputation—and others will not” (p. 4). Martin (2007) ventures that Millennials are a burgeoning Renaissance Generation, or “RenGen,” that will culturally transform society.

A milestone was reached in 1998 when the number of Millennial births peaked, exceeding the 1957 peak year of Boomer births (Howe and Strauss 2007). The year 2008 was yet another milestone, marking the peak high school graduation year. Some have suggested that generations evolve not linearly, but cyclically (Howe and Strauss 2007; Lancaster and Stillman 2002). Each generation “breaks” with the youth of the previous generation, “corrects” the adult excesses of the generation prior to that, and “replaces” the generational archetype associated with the departing generation. In the case of Millennials, they are breaking with the youth culture of Gen X and emulating only the “best” Boomer characteristics. Meanwhile, the loss of the G.I. Generation has left a societal vacuum to fill. If generations run in cycles, then this suggests that Millennials will display many of the characteristics associated with this departing generation.

Characteristics of the millennial generation

What of this new generation? Millennials clearly have a different set of life experiences. The Beloit College Mindset List is an annual set of observations about the experiences that have shaped incoming college students (Beloit College 2008). For example, where recent college students are concerned, IBM has never made typewriters, there have always been charter schools, a coffee has always taken longer to make than a milkshake, you never had to roll down a car window, bottled water has always existed, and members of the Rolling Stones have always been geriatrics (although the latter is not an issue, because many Millennials share the musical tastes of their Boomer parents and may even attend concerts together). This bond continues after college when a high proportion of Millennials graduate and “boomerang” by moving back home with their parents.

While both the number and nature of generational characteristics are subject to debate, the seven associated with Millennials identified by Howe and Strauss (2000, 2007) are described here. It is likely that these characteristics will continue to evolve as this generation ages, but many of the fundamental elements will remain the same. Millennials are motivated and achievement-oriented team players that respect authority and are concerned with social justice. They are also realists, blending the staid loyalty of Silents with the unbridled optimism of Boomers, while adding a healthy dose of skepticism from Gen Xers.

The first characteristic is one of specialness. Millennials feel special and entitled, due in no small part to the media. Perhaps this could be dubbed the “Mister Rogers Effect,” after the children’s television show that repeatedly told children that they were special (Zaslow 2007). Millennial children “graduate” from kindergarten and are often awarded trophies just for showing up. For young adults, specialness has become a generational watchword: an iPod filled with selected songs, food made to order, or custom-fitted jeans. Between the 1960s and the 1990s, reported self-esteem among college students increased dramatically (Twenge 2006).

Sheltered by overprotective Boomer parents, Millennials are strongly tied to parents, family and friends. Parents, in particular, may be heavily involved in the day-to-day activities of their Millennial children, earning the nickname “helicopter parents” (with the more aggressive dubbed “Black Hawks”). Some institutions have suggested that when they accept a student, they actually “co-admit” the parents. Many colleges and universities have responded accordingly by adding staff and programs that engage a student’s family more intensely or by drawing the line as necessary when parental involvement becomes counterproductive.

Millennials are both confident, believing that their generation is capable of correcting societal ills, and team-oriented, a closely linked fourth characteristic. Students study, socialize and travel in groups, which lowers the pressure on individuals and raises confidence levels. Although Millennials are slow to establish deeply trusting relationships, they ironically tend to have a no-holds-barred approach to openness while online. The current generation of students is constantly online in a variety of venues: texting on their cell phones (the third screen), befriending others on social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace (each now with over 100 million members), posting videos on YouTube, and inhabiting an avatar in Second Life.

While Boomers were radical and Xers detached, Millennials are much more conventional. Think any Harry Potter movie versus The Breakfast Club. Millennials “have learned that one of the best ways of getting along is to go along” (DeBard 2004, p. 37). Millennials are drawn to campuses that are full of students much like themselves (Howe and Strauss 2007), an attitude that could prove challenging for the unconventional and experimental campuses that arose during the Boomer years. In contrast, today’s students are attracted to campuses with a strong sense of tradition and community-building rituals (Lancaster and Stillman 2002).

Pressured and achieving Millennials do not care about the journey as their Boomer parents did; they want a clear indication of the destination to ensure that they are using their limited time wisely (Howe and Strauss 2007). They are the consummate multitaskers, juggling curricular and cocurricular activities, and are not shy about seeking professional assistance to help them with the daily juggling act. Above all, they want structure from within and without to guide them. And, since achievement is a badge of success, it is now considered cool to be a nerd

Facilities and college choice

It is clear that the quantity and quality of campus facilities play a marked role in a student’s decision to attend a particular institution. A 1984 study by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching reported that the appearance of an institution’s buildings and grounds was the primary physical factor influencing students to choose the college or university they ultimately attended, with 62% identifying that particular factor (Boyer 1987).

A more recent and comprehensive study conducted by the Center for Facilities Research (CFaR), the research arm of APPA, specifically identified those physical factors influencing student recruitment and retention (Cain and Reynolds 2006). The physical factors leading students to select a particular institution included facilities related to a student’s major (mentioned by 73% of respondents), the library (53%), academic technology (51%), classroom buildings (50%), and residence halls (42%). Echoing the Carnegie Foundation study of two decades prior, 64% cited the condition of facilities as playing a critical role in the decision to attend a particular institution.

Once a student is enrolled, there is a continued correlation between institutional cleanliness and academic achievement. CFaR recently reported that out of five descending levels of cleanliness, 84% of responding students preferred “orderly spotlessness” or “ordinary tidiness,” the top two levels (Campbell and Bigger 2008). Once cleanliness deteriorates below those levels (beginning with level 3, “casual inattention”), it becomes a distraction to students. After noise, air temperature, and lighting, cleanliness ranked fourth in terms of factors influencing student learning.

Facilities are noticed by college employees, as well. In a survey conducted by the Chronicle of Higher Education, college employees cited the physical environment as one of the elements of their job they value most (Biemiller 2008).

Influence of Millennials on space

The generational characteristics and traits of Millennials, combined with their awareness of space (whether overt or subliminal), are driving physical change on college and university campuses. Some of these repercussions are explored below. These observations are certainly not intended to be a comprehensive distillation of all the ways higher education space may be transformed by changing demographics. Rather, the goal is to suggest how morphing generational characteristics and space are inextricably linked.

Some have likened recent construction activities to an amenities “arms race,” which may begin to sort itself out as the underlying drivers are more clearly understood and used to inform capital expenditures. Above all, it appears there is an increasing emphasis on both human scale design (Strange and Banning 2001) and on aesthetics (Martin 2007).

Meeting and office spaces. Millennial students regularly seek out faculty for feedback and reassurance, which implies more meetings, either in an individual faculty office, in a common meeting room, or in “transitional” spaces where students gather before and after class. This has space implications, particularly for those campuses—many community colleges among them—with shared or particularly tight office space, and might suggest a need for larger offices, meeting “pods,” or more shared common space with nooks and crannies.

Admissions offices have already begun to experience a space pinch, as it is now not unusual for a prospective student’s entire extended family to attend an information session. This trend points to a need for both larger waiting rooms and larger meeting rooms, since an entire family cannot be readily accommodated in an office or in the small meeting rooms that currently exist.

However, there are trends that point to a need for less space, rather than more. In fall 2007, about 100 colleges and universities participated in a first-of-its-kind virtual college fair. Admissions officers staffed virtual “booths” and responded to student inquiries in real time via streaming video (Toppo 2007). As well, a growing number of higher education institutions have begun to develop YouTube-style-websites that can take the place of a campus visit.

In addition, it is interesting to ponder what may happen once Millennial faculty and staff have populated higher education. Given their current penchant to work in groups and to “see-and-be-seen,” will the private office be gladly shed in favor of flexible work spaces? Recent trends toward an open-office environment at such firms as the New York office of Bloomberg may presage a potential future.

Academic and personal support spaces. Millennials are pressured and achieving. They actively seek out tutoring and help with testing skills to excel and then look for recreational spaces to let off steam or meditation rooms and quiet sanctuaries to refocus. There is no longer a stigma associated with seeking counseling, either personal or academic, and sheltering parents encourage students to take advantage of all available services.

Recently, there has been a rise in the number of students who have mental health issues, suffer from complicated or chronic diseases, or take medication. Levels of depression have risen over the past 20 years, with one in three college freshmen reporting that they were “frequently overwhelmed” (Twenge 2006).

According to the 2007 findings of the National College Health Assessment, 15.3% of responding students reported having been diagnosed with depression at some point in their life; one-third of those individuals had been diagnosed in the past year (American College Health Association 2008). A smaller study of national universities and top liberal arts colleges suggested that, typically, more than one-third of the student body was actively seeking treatment for a host of anxiety disorders (Lopatto 2007). The study also noted that students at these liberal arts colleges were more likely to take advantage of mental health services than were their counterparts at larger universities, which could suggest a need for increased space to support traditional counseling services at smaller liberal arts institutions.

All institutions, however, should consider expanded academic support space accessible to students at every level. Workshops on stress reduction and study skills can also proactively address anxiety issues. Pressured Millennials see this assistance as a way to manage what is expected of them. They are also concerned with finding the “right” job, suggesting that career centers may be revitalized to take a more hands-on role.

Instructional spaces. Technology and pedagogy are converging. Given their comfort level with technology and penchant for team-oriented behavior, Millennials are substantively changing instructional space—as well as the very nature of instruction. Because today’s students socialize, study, and collaborate in groups, the learning environment is no longer place-bound. This translates to a need for multipurpose spaces for group activities, including small group/seminar rooms and blended social/academic spaces. As veteran multitaskers, students do not view spaces as single purpose in nature. Indeed, a recent survey of the Society for College and University Planning suggested that adaptability is the most critical characteristic of learning spaces (Grummon 2008). Support of student engagement and collaboration ranked second.

Classrooms will begin to undergo a change, especially as Silent and older Boomer faculty retire. The average age of faculty is now around 50. The “sage on the stage” will be gradually replaced by the “guide on the side” approach. Student learning is now based on “seeking, sieving, and synthesizing” rather than on relying on a single source (Dede 2005, p. 7). This is partly a function of the trial-and-error style of a Nintendo generation that is more interested in hands-on, problem-based learning than passive listening.

One way to engage students in courses that may be more passive in nature is through the use of classroom response systems, or “clickers.” Faculty ask a question in real time and students “click” in their responses, which are immediately tabulated. This provides the desired instant feedback to pressured students, as well as to faculty who may not be altogether certain that students are “tuned in.”

Because Millennials prefer to learn and work in teams, small group rooms are needed that can be used as breakout space during class or for study and project work after class has ended. The permutations are limitless and range from “flyspace” at North Carolina State University to “GroupSpace” at Stanford University to SCALE-UP classrooms at North Carolina State that support large introductory classes (Oblinger 2006). However, these types of space pose a challenge to institutions in states with space planning guidelines predicated upon scheduled classroom seat-time.

Alternatively, students may also break out within the classroom environment during class, brainstorming while clustered in small groups around “huddleboards.” Collaborative hands-on learning has been stepped up in specialized instructional spaces as well. Instructors are interested in shifting seamlessly from a didactic approach to a hands-on demonstration, all in the course of the same class—and same space. This type of hybrid teaching space requires a considerable increase in square footage, sending space planning guidelines into a tailspin. The demand for space to support these new modalities is compounded by the anticipated increased interest in math and science (Howe and Strauss 2007) at a time when many such facilities are clearly dated.

And how do faculty embrace these new teaching modalities? They will need access both to appropriate training in a center for teaching and learning and to a faculty technology training laboratory where they can practice new teaching techniques privately and without interruption. This support must extend to the classroom, where immediate assistance with technology should be available whenever a faculty member is teaching.

Of course, some classroom needs seem basic and intuitive, but are not always adhered to: students should be able to see and hear what is presented and be comfortable along the way (Allen et al. 1996). Classroom furniture should be flexible and movable so that it can be repositioned as needed. Furniture criteria should also consider the “pedagogical value of a comfortable chair” (Bartlett 2003, p. A36). The traditional tablet armchair with its limited work surface is simply physically too small and uncomfortable for many of today’s students.

Finally, instructional tools should not be limited to the classroom proper; smart boards, video screens, and seating should be present in hallways and gathering areas to support informal interaction.

Libraries. When Samuel Johnson suggested “Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it,” he never envisioned the Internet and the World Wide Web (Boswell 1998, p. 627). Perhaps the contemporary version of this observation would be “Knowledge can no longer be measured by what you know, but rather by what you can access.” While the library proper is still required to access historical material that has not yet been digitized and contemporary material unavailable in electronic form, it is clear that “access” potentially exists wherever a student is located.

To adapt to a new generation of students, the library has become another partner in collaborative learning. Given the penchant of Millennials to multitask, it frequently serves as a quasi-student union space—and vice versa. Traditionally, a student went to a library to sit alone and read a book quietly. For Millennials, that approach is disconnected to the reality of their pressured lives: they want to work in groups, have access to multimedia materials, and consume coffee and energy drinks. The Johnson Center at George Mason University may have been ahead of its time with its combination ballroom, food court, movie theater, office, and convenience store building. And oh, yes, the Johnson Center includes a library as well (Geraghty 1996). Similarly, the Valparaiso University Christopher Center for Library and Information Resources has soft seating and a café, along with a gas fireplace and a piano.

The “information commons” concept integrates a variety of resources and services, ranging from traditional library services to multimedia technology to small group rooms, providing a one-stop, secure environment for harried Millennials. Examples include the InfoCommons at Northwestern University and the Digital Union at Ohio State University (Oblinger 2006). Where construction of a new library to accommodate changing student needs is not feasible, some libraries have relocated portions of their collection to compact or off-site storage to repurpose existing space.

Student centers and service spaces. Achieving Millennials seek outlets in extracurricular and cocurricular activities. While athletic facilities were constructed in    response to the demands of Gen Xers, Howe and Strauss (2007) suggest a need for a new “extracurricular infrastructure” that includes technology-rich space for art, student clubs, theater, and music to meet the needs of Millennials.

Student centers. There has been a building boom in the construction of student centers over the past decade. The title of a telling article from 2003 proclaimed: “Forget Classrooms. How Big Is the Atrium in the New Student Center?” (Lewis 2003). Because libraries now offer amenities that were once the sole purview of student centers, today’s student centers are attempting to shake out the cobwebs by differentiating themselves through expanded amenities and programs.

Bookstores. Bookstores on college and university campuses, frequently located in a student center, now offer cafés and a wide array of merchandise and services. The bookstore at the University of California, San Diego, for example, sponsors a weekly farmer’s market. The increase in retail offerings and services requires additional space. Bookstores may also want to be placed in a more visible location, given that they regularly compete with online alternatives.

Contemplative spaces. On secular campuses, contemplative spaces are frequently relegated to the odd room in a basement or at the end of a hallway. While the literature is distinctly mixed with regard to whether students are becoming more or less religious, anecdotal evidence seems to suggest a growing interest in nondenominational space for reflecting, praying, or meditating. Students may engage in such activities individually or may see them as a way to connect with others. Such a space may require plumbing, which makes its placement within a building crucial.

Mailroom. No longer a back-of-the-house operation, the mailroom is quickly becoming a comprehensive “postal center.” This change is driven by the increasing number of packages students receive as they order everything from textbooks to electronics to gourmet coffee online. Space is required to receive, track, and temporarily store large numbers of packages; additional space is needed if the center offers shipping services as well.

Campus safety. Millennial students, already sheltered by Boomer parents, came of age during an era of school shootings. The result is a marked rise in concern regarding student safety on campus and an increased focus on sufficient and visible campus security, ranging from an appropriate number of officers to the placement of emergency boxes. One challenge resulting from the desire to have a 24-7 campus operation is the provision of adequate security. Smaller or more remote campuses, perceived as easier to secure, could consequently seem more attractive. Community colleges could also fall into this category.

Food service. Food has become an increasingly important element of campus life. When it comes to food, today’s students typically graze, consuming four meals a day at hours that may not be consistent with “typical” mealtimes. In part because they feel they are “worth it,” Millennials crave made-to-order food—and when students get what they want, there is actually less waste. Food preparation is high drama, and students actually enjoy seeing their meal prepared, making the wait for the typically impatient, want-it-now Millennial worth it.

Alternatively, more than 200 campuses have adopted a Web portal that offers one-stop dining service (Maimone 2008). Students can view dining options across campus, order food electronically instead of at a counter, and view nutritional content information, which is particularly important for today’s increasingly health-conscious students. At the College of William & Mary, which piloted the portal in 2005, satisfaction scores associated with food service were consistently higher than the national average.

Millennials are conventional and oriented to brand names and comfort foods, but they also want choices. It is no accident that, according to a recent advertisement, Starbucks has 87,000 possible beverage combinations. Cereal cafés and bars have begun to proliferate, offering one of the ultimate comfort foods at any time of the day. And what goes on that cereal? Milk choices include skim, low fat, soy, rice, flavored, and carbonated. One mechanical cow in the dining hall is no longer an option.

Residence halls. Residence halls are expected to have all the comforts of home and then some. For example, private bathrooms and showers are not simply preferred; they are expected. (Apparently, being team-oriented does not necessarily carry over to the area of personal hygiene.) There may be growing pressure for more single rooms and apartments, since most students have never shared a bedroom at home and many have never shared a bathroom. Purdue University is constructing a two-building residential complex that includes a private bedroom and bathroom for each student along with communal spaces on every floor to encourage interaction. Pennsylvania State University and Stanford University have taken a similar approach (Schenke 2008). Iowa State University recently razed two high-rise residence halls and replaced them with contemporary facilities. Indiana University of Pennsylvania assessed its outmoded housing stock and took the bold step of replacing it—all of it—at a total cost of $270 million. The replacement project also allowed the university to promote its living-and-learning program as a means of enhancing student engagement outside the classroom (Supiano 2008).

The amount of electronic gear lugged to college by students—from micro-fridges to flat screen televisions—places an increased strain on residence hall electrical systems and also requires additional space. Based on an annual survey of newly constructed residence halls, the average square footage per bed continues to rise, currently exceeding 330 gross square feet (Abramson 2008). Almost one-third of recently completed residence halls include classrooms to support a living-learning environment, and one-fourth include fitness centers and computer centers. In addition, new residence halls consistently include study rooms, kitchens, and television rooms, and all contained a laundry.

Although doing laundry is not necessarily a high-pressure activity in and of itself, “LaundryView” was rolled out in 2004 at institutions in the greater Boston area to help students better manage their time (Pazzanese 2004). Washers and dryers can be monitored via a Web-based system, and students can be “pinged” on any Internet device when their laundry is done or a machine becomes available. Those so inclined can also watch their laundry dry virtually as the remaining minutes tick off. After its debut, LaundryView quickly became a “how-did-we-live-without-this?” amenity.

Recycling. Environmental concerns that began as a whisper almost 40 years ago are now deafening, with globally aware and civic-minded students among those at the forefront. Millennials are driving recycling efforts and encouraging college and university presidents to sign the American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment. There are 575 signatories to date (Presidents Climate Commitment 2008). In addition, The Princeton Review has provided “green ratings” for the first time in its 2009 edition (Princeton Review 2008). A total 11 institutions were awarded the highest score.

RecycleMania (see www.recyclemaniacs.org) is a 10-week contest that ranks various recycling efforts on participating campuses. Begun in 2001 with just two participants, interest has snowballed. There were 400 participants in 2008, recycling a total of 58.6 million pounds of material (RecycleMania n.d.). Although clearly valuable, recycling has space implications, ranging from providing clearly marked collection containers in public locations around campus to back-of-the-house operations. Older residence halls, in particular, may lack collection space in waste rooms or the space to create other convenient collection points. If recyclables must be carted to a different floor or to the loading dock, then recycling efforts may suffer.

The institution as a whole must also deal with the space required for the collection and temporary storage of recyclables, ranging from cardboard (a particular challenge on check-in weekend) to compost to cooking oil. Meanwhile, architects have begun to realize that they must appeal to the environmental awareness of students as much as to the interests of the institutional holders of the capital purse strings.

What of the future?

One of the key traits of Millennials is “specialness.” But when does the acknowledgement of a student’s specialness go too far? A recent Chronicle of Higher Education article described the “Club Ed” atmosphere at High Point University in North Carolina (Bartlett 2008). The amenities at High Point are numerous and unusual: a concierge desk, a gift card and balloons sent to each of the 2,000 undergraduates on their respective birthdays, kiosks offering free snacks around campus, and an ice cream truck with more free treats. The university’s slogan is “At High Point, every student receives an extraordinary education in a fun environment with caring people” (High Point University 2008, unpaginated Web source), and a Director of WOW! ensures that the fun never stops. Is this outrageous? Perhaps not entirely. Google is consistently ranked as one of the most desirable places to work by college students. On its Web site, one of the top 10 advantages cited for potential employees is the following: “There is such a thing as a free lunch after all. In fact we have them every day: healthy, yummy, and made with love” (Google 2008, unpaginated Web source). At Ben and Jerry’s, the positions of Grand Poobah and the Joy Gang have existed since the company’s founding in 1978. Meanwhile, back at High Point, enrollment has tripled and 18 buildings are either new or under construction. This is not to suggest that High Point’s efforts are to be slavishly emulated, but to emphasize the fact that it is not “business as usual” for higher education, and a sea change is at work.

Just like their occupants, buildings have a generational locus. They are designed with the expectation that they may stand 100 years or more—the equivalent of five generations. But how can the needs of future occupants be realistically anticipated? Barely a decade ago, ubiquitous data jacks and desktop computers were the goal. Students toiled in electronic isolation; achieving the designation of “most wired campus” was an institutional badge of honor. Today, transparent technology is the norm for the current generation of “digital natives,” the Millennials who use technology to build a community that transcends time and space. However, this community also has a place in real time and space, a place where students learn, work, and socialize in groups, suggesting that walls may need to come down as frequently as they go up.