Eye on America: Working with and within a winner-take-all competitive system

In this first of a series on regional perspectives, Brad Fenwick examines the American system of higher education.

The culture of American higher education – The Chivas Regal effect

In many respects, American higher education is like that of no other nation, with its mix of public and private institutions and distributed geography. The current system hearkens back to the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862, which set out to democratize education by creating land grant universities to open access to higher education for all citizens. Previously this access had been limited to an elite segment of the population attending private universities, founded in many cases by religious orders.

Conversely, land grant universities were forged by a tripartite relationship among the university itself, its respective state, and the federal government. The states provided the infrastructure and funding for faculty and staff. In later years the federal government funded research, and the universities created the intellectual environment and base to do the research. These universities brought to the public innovations in applied research (mostly in agriculture and engineering), and also exposure to fine arts and humanities as the country was growing. In my view, they played a significant role in the country’s economic domination in the Twentieth Century. It was the inherent spirit of competition in a widely distributed public higher education system that promoted innovation and quality.

There remains, however, an aura of elitism about certain institutions, which has strengthened rather than diminished over time. This is known as the Chivas Regal effect.¹ The effect is that while something might not in fact be all that much better, it is perceived to be better, and as such has more value. When you graduate in this country, you are branded with a pedigree, and the right pedigree provides you with the entrée to certain graduate and professional schools and enhanced career opportunities. For this pedigree, families are willing to pay two to three times the tuition of schools that offer an arguably equivalent education.

The American focus on college athletics is symptomatic of this perceived pedigree. Winning teams raise a university’s visibility and frame it—and by association its alumni—as winners. Typically, very good academic schools are not known by the public at large if they don’t have athletic programs. In comparison to the rest of the world, the tier effect that plays out in the United States is substantially different.

Of course, it’s not just the students and the alumni who are branded. Faculties at these same institutions benefit from an assumption of excellence that creates a predisposition in the awarding of grants and contracts, as well as awards and recognitions.

Current climate – The winner takes all and the cheese stands alone

Public universities still have a mission of access and quality, but the means are changing. As states have continuously reduced their funding (Figure 1), universities have turned to philanthropy, research, and raising tuition as different revenue streams. Thus public universities are facing increasing pressure to vie for elite students, the very best faculty, and grants and contracts from the federal government, foundations and corporations. In doing so, they have been playing catch-up with those institutions weaned on the winner-take-all system.

In the winner-take-all system, everyone pays to compete but only one person walks away with the prize. In the competition for grants and contracts, the investment in infrastructure is enormous if you want to remain competitive. As the cost of winning goes up, the resources become scarcer, the prizes become more precious, and the bidding rises.

So how do you play the game? The landscape becomes much more like industry where universities have to be very calculating in terms of which game to get into, and adept at analyzing and nurturing their competitive advantage. In other words, they must optimize the ability of the faculty to compete and reach their full potential as scholars and educators.

This winner-take-all system has been exacerbated by the current recession and ever-declining state support. Competition among universities is fierce and the gap is widening. Twenty years ago, faculty in public and private institutions garnered the same average salary; now the gap between the average salary of a full professor at a public versus private doctoral institution is pegged at close to $35,000.² In addition, the top producers of academic research are growing at a faster and increasing rate in terms of numbers of citations and publications (Table 1).

Ultimately, fortune favors those with a track record of success.

Collaborate – Join a posse or act as a lone ranger?

On a one-to-one basis, researchers are collaborating with colleagues around the world. These collaborations have never been easier. For mechanical reasons, institutional-level collaboration is much more difficult; however, it is increasing where it makes economic sense, such as in connection with high-stakes investments in equipment and facilities.

A prime example has been in the field of physics where governments with universities as facilitators have combined forces to fund particle accelerators and space exploration. These investments have expanded into other arenas as evidenced by the collaboration among five universities in Massachusetts, Cisco Systems and EMC Corp to build the Massachusetts Green High Performance Computing Center in Holyoke, Mass. This consortium came together to make an enormous investment in infrastructure that might have been unsustainable and unattainable individually. In other respects, the universities involved may be competing fiercely for the same grants and contracts.

What happens when we reach across national borders within fields such as biomedicine and engineering, where intellectual property is fiercely protected? In these situations, collaborating within your own country may be difficult, going offshore impossible. Entities like the Institute for International Integration Studies at Trinity College Dublin are examining the social and structural barriers created by institutional and national agendas.

The privatization of higher education – Market-smart and mission-centered

American universities are increasingly “mission centered and market smart.”³ This mantra has been driven by shifts in public policy and population demographics, increases in the numbers and type of competitors, declining public funding support, increasing operational costs, greater performance expectations, and declining pricing power. In the past, public universities focused more on the public good than on productivity and cost effectiveness — a luxury that no longer exists.

The University of California, Berkeley’s Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau and Vice Chancellor Frank D. Yeary posited in a September 2009 Washington Post editorial that if the United States really wants to promote innovation and stay competitive, there is a “need for an alternative model to preserve the public character of our great universities.” In effect, they counseled funneling more national resources into a select few public institutions. The affordability of the distributed system that is at the heart of America’s economic position in the world may be a thing of the past.

In industry, corporations succeed in flat markets via differentiation, fragmentation, segmentation, consolidation and innovation. Incrementally, higher education has implemented all these strategies over the past 30 years as state support has waned. Every decade higher education has evolved, and I can’t help but agree with pundits who predict that 10 years from now, particularly in light of the current recession and the accelerating federal deficit, the landscape will have dramatically changed. Though many institutions are finally awakening to the reality of the upcoming crisis, the high degree of uncertainty contributes to the fact that there is no real plan by which to navigate. Whatever the approach, it is increasingly clear that the focus must be on the development of systems that enhance institutional productivity and effectiveness.

Failing that, an increasing number of universities will not be able to maintain their current research efforts and may ultimately be forced to accept the reality of not being able to provide a quality education to the next generation of students.

In that case, there are no winners.

(1) Chivas Regal is a market-leading Scotch whisky. Millionaires Supplement Drinks International, July 2009. (2) Byrne, Richard (April 2008), “Gap Persists Between Faculty Salaries at Public and Private Institutions,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, Volume 54 Issue 32, p. A19. (3) Zemsky, Robert and Massy, William F. (2005), Remaking the American University: Market-Smart and Mission-Centered, Rutgers University Press.

Contributor: 

Brad Fenwick

Title: 

Professor of Pathobiology

Affiliation: 

University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Brad Fenwick formerly held research executive roles as Vice Chancellor for Research and Engagement, University of Tennessee, Knoxville and Vice President for Research, Virginia Tech. He completed his B.S. (Biology), D.V.M, and M.S. at Kansas State University and his Ph.D. (Comparative Pathology) and residency (Diagnostic Pathology) at the University of California, Davis. In 2011, he was named a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for distinguished contributions in the field of veterinary and comparative medicine, scientific association leadership, editorial review, and research program development and administration. He is currently a Professor of Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, and Adjunct Professor, Department of Microbiology, College of Arts and Sciences, at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.