The Top 10 Things For 2023


As higher education enters a phase of early disruption seeded by the Pandemic, and now accelerated with exponential technologies like ChatGPT, it’s important to get a perspective of the road ahead.

At Beyond Academics, we spend a great deal of our time guiding clients to where higher education is going, and how to position their institution to be future-ready.

This year’s Top 10 Things for 2023 gives you our perspective for what’s ahead this year. We hope it leads to meaningful discussions, and challenging conversations within your department or institution.

These trends are not “potentially” going to happen. They are already in their early deployment, so consider how ready your institution is to adapt to each trend, so you can take full advantage of each trend in the months to come.

If clicking the image above does not work, Click Here Instead.

What Clubhouse Has Taught Me In Just One Month


A New Social App That Offers Real, Genuine Connection

Clubhouse is a new social networking app that launched in May of 2020. The developers describe the app as “a space for casual, drop-in audio conversations,” but after using it myself for almost a month, I have quickly learned that it is much more than that.

Social media platforms have always boasted about their ability to connect people, share information, and learn about each other, but they rarely achieve these things. And if they do achieve them, it’s only halfway. Conversations (though they happen fast) don’t happen in real-time and words get lost in translation or cut short by a character limit. Meaningful, valuable connections are rare. Clubhouse changes that.

The real-time voice chat of Clubhouse eliminates that loss of context, tone, and meaning, making the conversations that happen on the app more valuable, clear, and collaborative. It’s like an in-person networking event, except better because you have access to people across the world, not just the people in the same physical space with you.

In less than one month of using Clubhouse, I have learned a lot about the app and the power it has. Here are the top ten things that Clubhouse has taught me:

1. Your Voice Matters

Everyone’s voice matters, Clubhouse has given everyone a platform to express their thoughts, perspectives, and ideas. 

2. Everyone Belongs

No matter who you are and what you are passionate about, there is a community waiting for you.

3. There’s Power In Diversity

One of the reasons organizations stagnate is they surround themselves with people who look the same, who have the same background, same experiences, and same perspectives. However, Clubhouse shows us the power that diverse thought has to build a better world.

4. Listening Is a Powerful Tool for Personal Growth 

Too often, we live in a world where we want to be heard, but Clubhouse teaches us that everyone has powerful insight worth listening to, even if they don’t have a prestigious title or a leadership role. Listening is the most important part of having a valuable conversation.

5. The World Is Connected 24/7

With Clubhouse’s Global community, we are able to collaborate 24/7 and work together to understand and solve each other’s problems. 

6. It’s Important To Be Clear and Concise

With rooms ranging from ten to thousands of people, Clubhouse teaches us the importance of getting to the point. Beating around the bush isn’t valuable or productive. With the ability to add a short personal profile, there is no need to introduce ourselves and our backgrounds. Getting to the point in a clear and concise manner makes for a powerful contribution.

7. Everyone Has a Role They Can Play

In Clubhouse, you can play any role you are comfortable with—moderator, speaker, or just a listener. These roles enable us to create platforms on topics for audiences of thousands or a private room for only two people.

8. It’s a Give and Take Environment

To flourish and grow, you have to give to Clubhouse as much as you take. The strength of Clubhouse is that it encourages everyone to be a part of the discussion. And for the topic to thrive, you need to participate with your voice as well as be a part of the audience who is listening in to the diverse perspectives of the others.

9. Two-Way Discussions Are Better Than One-Way

In a world of one-way presentations, lectures, and webinars, Clubhouse is showing us that hosting the voices of individuals who are passionate about the topic and listening to what they have to say is more powerful than speaking at them and asking for input later.

10. Multitasking Is Encouraged

Clubhouse is a 24/7 ecosystem. We all have responsibilities and priorities that need our attention, but that doesn’t stop us from listening in. Discussions can be put in the background like a radio while we do other things, and we can jump in when we can.

All these things come together to create genuine connections in a way that hasn’t been done by social media in recent years, or possibly ever.

Honorable Mentions

False Spins Are Checked by the Community

In a world driven by sales and marketing spin, the ability to have a live narrative allows us to call out the imposters and shed light on false or manipulative spins.  

Your Network Is a Powerful Tool

To build anything you are passionate about, you need a supportive network. Your network is not just your community, but anyone who can help you achieve goals or simply share in your passions.

Change Is Here

All the discussions that I have been a part of on Clubhouse have shown that the world is constantly changing and that change is happening faster than ever. Platforms like this one are a big part of that.

Your Voice Is Your New Look

Because Clubhouse is an audio-only platform, it eliminates most of the vanity that exists on other platforms and puts your voice front and center. 

There Are Unwritten Rules:

  • Turning your mic on and off repeatedly is like “clapping” to show support or encouragement.
  • Adding a host or guest to an event without permission from the room’s creator is frowned upon, even though the app allows you to do so. Be courteous!
  • Wait your turn. You will get your chance to speak, but listen first.
  • State your name when you start speaking and when you stop. This helps the folks who are hearing-impaired and using closed captions.
  • Everyone has the right to speak and offer their perspective. Titles don’t matter; passion does.

About Clubhouse

Right now, the Clubhouse app is still in beta, and new users need an invite to join. Each user receives two invites when they sign up and this method of adding new users has spread like wildfire. The number of users has jumped from 600,000 in December 2020 to 10 million in February 2021. It’s quite possible that everyone will have Clubhouse before the app’s official release. It’s a testament to how great this platform is, and also how innovative. 

Clubhouse didn’t wait around until everything was completed to be shared with the world—they don’t even have a website yet. The app already has millions of users, but those users are also beta testers, and the improvements made based on their feedback will undoubtedly make this app user-friendly and sustainably successful.

The conversations that are happening all day, every day on Clubhouse are truly amazing. If two heads are better than one, imagine what 10 million can do. 

To learn more about Clubhouse, you can click here

If you’re already on Clubhouse, follow me! My handle is @mattalex5. I’m participating in conversations about the Future of Higher Ed every day. I would love for you to join me.

If you don’t have an invite yet, finding someone who is using the app and can invite you is getting easier every day. Reach out to your network on Twitter or LinkedIn; I’m sure you’ll be joining conversations very soon.

Don’t Let Technology Drive Your Transformation


Higher Education is on a jet-powered ride to a brand-new world and the models schools have used to run their institutions for decades simply don’t work anymore. To survive and thrive, every institution must transform some, or all, of the ways it operates.

Technology Mistaken for Innovation

For many leaders, transformation means installing the newest software. But, in the end, all they have done is attach new-world technology to old-world processes, and they are no better off than when they started. These leaders miss opportunities to forge new paths, to set new goals, to rise to the challenges of the new world around them.

This technology-based approach to transformation in higher education is driven by the Consultant/Vendor/IT complex with its iron triangle of vendor-partner consultants, technology vendors, and university IT shops. Many consultants have a vested interest with partner software vendors and will try to convince schools that their future success and sustainability depends on selecting their preferred vendor’s software.

Generally, IT shops are structured to do one thing—install and support software. Academic leadership has bought into the concept that change and innovation are purely based on technology, so they are all too ready to listen to what their IT group recommends. They are eager to accept the consultant’s recommendation that a new software is what is needed to move their school forward—but that is not always the case.

Over and over again, institutions reach out to consultants and get the same answer: “Buy this new software! It will solve all your problems!” It’s an answer that excites institutional leadership. As a result, they purchase the software.

The mandate for “transformation” is driven through the whole organization. For up to two years the institution works hard to implement the new solution only to be no better off than when they started. By the time the new software is in place, the market has moved on and the situation has changed. In the end, the institution has simply put one more block on a teetering technology tower, ready to collapse at the slightest touch. The institution’s technology portfolio doesn’t properly support their operations or strategy and is so inflexible that it prevents any change of direction.

And then, the cycle starts all over again. The winners in this story are the consultants, the software vendors, and the IT shop. The losers are the institution. Higher Ed struggles on, lugging all this technical debt and leaving students to navigate through contradictory and non-supportive systems.

How Do We Break the Cycle?

The answer is simple: Don’t hire consultants.

That’s right. Don’t hire consultants. Hire strategic partners.

You may be thinking “all consultants sell themselves as strategic partners.” But there is a significant difference between a true strategic partner and a consultant. It is the difference between an architect and a contractor.

A true strategic partner is the architect. Architects put their clients’ needs first and are focused on their goals. They are trained to analyze a client’s site or problem and design a structure that best fits the site or solves the problem. They work closely with their client to develop a fit-for-purpose design, and they develop their design and draw the blueprints with that client’s unique needs and goals in mind. They understand their client’s budget, the long-term cost of ownership of their solution, and the need to demonstrate a return on investment on the project. Only when all these items are understood and in place do they engage a contractor.

The consultant is the contractor. Consultants are best at following a predetermined blueprint to build the structure. You wouldn’t hire a contractor to design your house. Their expertise is carpentry, plumbing, and electric. Like a building contractor, consultants have a deep understanding of configuration, programming upgrades, and testing, not structural design and architecture. We need to stop hiring contractors to do an architect’s job. Institutions must find a strategic partner to develop the solution, and only then should they hire a consulting partner to implement whatever technology solution—if any—is required to achieve that goal.

How Do You Find a Strong Strategic Partner?

Before you start any innovation or transformation journey, you must be crystal clear on what your goals are. It is vital for the success of your institution to define those goals, independent of any technology solution.

For example, define your goal as “I need to improve my student’s experience,” not “I need to replace my SIS system.” If you understand what your overall goals are—independent of a technology product—you stand a much better chance of meeting the strategic goals you have set out to achieve.

Once you have clearly defined your goals, start looking for your strategic partner. When looking at a potential partner, first understand how strongly they are allied with a software.

A good strategic partner won’t have strong ties to a specific solution or set of solutions. They will be free to help you build a pathway that is right for you, not for the vendor.

Next, when you are selecting a partner, observe their approach. Do they try and understand what the strategic goals are for you and your institution? Or do they jump to a technology-based approach?

You need someone who listens and understands what you are trying to achieve, not someone who will come in with pre-determined answers.

They need to be able to work with you to layout an effective approach to meeting your goals, even if that doesn’t require new software.

Finally, clearly understand how they will support you though your journey.

A partner will be with you from the start and is committed to you for the long haul.

If a technical solution is required, a partner understands your goals well enough that they can help guide you to the technology solution and an integration consultant that works best for you.

This “find a partner, not a consultant” approach means not only changing how and when we create our strategies. It changes how we respond to the market and how we relate to technology. We need to create structures where strategies are designed and implemented quickly, with a firm focus on the destination. Having these clear goals and flexible structures makes for a successful partnership, which results in effective initiatives that are truly transformative.

Stop hiring consultants. Start hiring partners.

The 4 Flaws of Traditional Higher Ed ERP/SIS Consulting


Higher Education and the technology that drives it is changing at a lightning-fast pace. Naturally, institutions are turning to consultants to help them implement new technology and navigate the installation safely. Consulting is hugely beneficial to Higher Ed, helping them to expand and transform their capabilities. But not all Higher Ed consultants are the same. To avoid costly setbacks, inadequate tech, and diminished ROI, leaders must be aware of the 4 major flaws in traditional Higher Ed consulting.

1. Certified Consultants – What That Really Means?

Software vendors and system integrators tout the number of certified consultants they can provide. But what does it really mean to be “certified”?

A certification simply verifies that outside providers have passed a test validating their knowledge of the basic architecture of a system, a general understanding of how to configure the software out-of-box. By nature, certification tests are designed to cover the broadest functionality—not the nuances required by a specific industry such as higher education. A certification can only confirm that a consultant knows the very basic functions of the software. It does not guarantee they know how to configure the system to meet the unique needs of your campus. 

This is not to say that certifications are without value, just be sure to keep that value in context. A base-level of knowledge is crucial, but so is the added expertise that certifications do not necessarily provide.

If you have ever found yourself in a conversation with a vendor when they could not provide any assurance that your specific needs could be met with the software they provide, then you understand the difference between someone who has passed a test and someone who is an industry expert.

Additionally, when major software updates occur, some consultants are not required to re-take their certification test. They become “grandfathered in” to the program, even if the software has completely evolved since its conception. This creates incompetence within the consultant space.

It explains why many consultants are competent technologists who understand bits and bytes but do not have the knowledge or expertise to advise schools on contemporary software design and architecture.

 That gap causes several schools to struggle through implementation, resulting in delays, cost overruns, and poorly configured software that does not meet the institution’s needs—effects that can impact the school for years.

So, while software and system integrators may boast the number of certified resources they can provide, Higher Ed must recognize that one week of technical training on a platform does not necessarily mean that person is capable of advising you on the strategic architecture of a campus system that will work seamlessly and specifically for you.

2. The Consultant – Who Do They Really Represent?

Let us not confuse having a consultant assigned to your implementation with having a consultant who is dedicated to your outcomes. Remember, consultants are paid by the software vendor or system integrator and are therefore loyal and beholden to the software they make a living on.

In some cases, consultants stay silent when they recognize gaps in the platform’s capabilities when it comes to meeting your needs. They may know that their new product is not ready or is not customizable enough to meet the needs of your campus. However, to admit that would mean a canceled contract.

Certified consultants are not likely (or even allowed) to recommend a product from another vendor—even when they know that a different software would be better for you. Consultants can only recommend a solution from the assigned vendor or the consulting firm they work for. So emerges a very dangerous conflict of interest.

That is why schools—even with the support of their “certified consultants” have struggled through the design and implementation of their new ERP/ SIS applications.

The truth is, the ERP/SIS was probably never the right fit for that school.

3. The Go-Live Utilization Model

It is important to point out that the traditional consulting model is built on the 40-hour workweek; consultants are hired by a firm as full-time employees for a fixed wage. Those consultants are then dispersed to clients for a fee higher than what they pay the consultant. There is nothing wrong with that until you recognize that a consulting firm’s top priority is to keep their utilization of staff, or outside billing, as close to 100% as possible.

This drives firms to load implementation projects with 40-hour work weeks billed to you, the client, in consecutive weeks leading up to a go-live. In this model, the consulting firm’s main goal becomes to take a school live, not to install the new system in a way that provides the best outcomes post-launch.

The result of this outdated business model makes consulting engagements needlessly expensive and has a devastating impact on ROI for the school.

It is especially damaging for small schools with already strained budgets, schools that often must opt-out of implementing new and increasingly essential technology.

That digital divide driven by income disparity has always existed in Higher Ed, but the pandemic has shed new light on the inequality. Larger institutions can afford to pay consultants for endless rounds of 40-hour workweeks. But the mid-market community colleges and HBCU institutions, the schools that need the most help and are in the crosshairs of the pandemic, are left out to dry.

This digital inequality demands a transformation in Higher Ed consulting.

4. Resource Allocation

One of the most costly inefficiencies Higher Ed has been experiencing for more than two decades is allocating expensive (and often inexperienced) consulting resources to tasks that do not really require consulting, at least not according to the textbook definition.

To understand this claim, let us identify what is expected of a consultant. In their article, defines a consultant as this:

“A consultant is a person who provides professional or expert advice in a particular field of science or business to either an organization or individual, and the consultant provides expertise that a client lacks or support that a client is unable to fulfill.”

The latter part of this definition is what we need to focus on.

For the past 20 years, the traditional consulting model took on roles and completed activities on behalf of the client at an extremely high hourly rate. Many of these roles could have been fulfilled by the client themselves, or other human resources, at a significantly lower cost. In other words, consulting firms (who need to keep their people billing 40 hours a week) have guided clients to use them for activities that do not require a consultant.

Here is a short list of low-cost, non-consulting activities that have been billed at high rates by traditional consulting for the last 20 years:

  • Configuration
  • Testing
  • Training
  • Production Support

Just because a school may not have had the bandwidth or internal expertise to do these tasks, does not mean they are activities that fit the expert consulting definition (or price point). At best, they fit the definition of gig work or staff augmentation.

In the long run, it is much more cost-effective to use internal resources who know your school to do these tasks with better efficiency. And an experienced project manager who understands your culture can certainly add value to the process.

In fact, spending money and resources on a more educated internal team is sometimes more valuable than hiring an outside consultant. Many software firms offer certification in their software to clients or prospective clients. Having someone from your organization get certified in the software gives your school the best of both worlds. You end up with someone who knows the architecture of the software as well as how your organization works. It saves money and speeds up the implementation by reducing rework and costly configuration mistakes that so often plague schools for decades.

The short-term investment needed to free up your internal resource to go through certification is well worth it. The same can be said for testing, training, and production support.

You Control Your Consulting

The purpose of this article is not to villainize software vendors and their certified consultants, but it is a warning that their agenda does not necessarily align with yours. So, before you start any technology implementation, clearly define how you are going to use consultants and what their qualifications need to be for the various roles you envision. Having this framework puts you in control of the consulting relationships.  Identify the right resources (both internal and external) so the right things can be done by the right people for the right cost.

 Beyond Academics can assist you in this pre-implementation strategy so that you can move through the buying, design, and go-live process with confidence that you have stewarded the process properly. For now, start with this:

First, make sure any consultant you bring on comes to the table with a deep understanding of how higher education works and is committed to working for you, not the software vendor. Ensure they can provide you strategic, outcomes-based guidance—not just technical setup and wrench-turning.

Next, recognize that, while there are many vendors and system implementors who want to bring true long-term value, others see you as a revenue opportunity. Sometimes, their true motivation is to sell licenses and 40-hour workweeks for their consultants. They may call themselves “partners,” but they take no stake in your long-term success. Their objective is to get you live and move on to the next client. You are the one who gets left behind to deal with the results. You need to learn how to identify and separate the two groups.

Finally, own your implementation. Do not be tempted by the false economy of hiring full-time consultants supported by part-time institutional resources. It may feel cozy to be surrounded by lots of people billing $200+ per hour, but that does not mean guaranteed success.

It is much more cost-effective to provide full-time resources from within the school and pay for the staffing backfill while using implementation consultants to solve specific technical problems under your oversight.

Also, consider looking for software-agnostic consulting firms. They are more likely to find the ideal fit for your school, rather than working to convince you that their vendor’s product can be customized for any school (because it cannot).

Always remember that the decisions you make will impact your institution long after your consultants are gone. You are building the future of your school—do not leave it to inadequate software provided by unaligned consultants.

Mental Health Monday: Increased Anxiety In Students


What to look for, when to seek help, and what schools can do to support their students’ mental health.

Anxiety is a common and sometimes helpful tool that can help students stay motivated, prepared, and alert. For example, when students are preparing to take tests, a certain level of anxiety can be helpful in order to get tasks accomplished. However, when that feeling of anxiety becomes debilitating and stops them from accomplishing their tasks, generalized anxiety could be to blame. It is important to note that the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in increased uncertainty, loneliness, stress, and worsening of generalized anxiety for the student population.    

Per the CDC, in 2019 (prior to the pandemic) 9.5%, 3.4%, and 2.7% of adults have experienced mild, moderate, or severe symptoms of anxiety in the past 2 weeks, respectively. Most adults who experienced mild, moderate, or severe symptoms were between the ages of 18-29.  Women were more likely to experience mild, moderate, or severe symptoms of anxiety than men.   

The Problem: 

Once anxiety becomes overwhelming and unmanageable it is referred to as Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD). GAD can be described as a feeling of excessive worry that is associated with restlessness, irritability, muscle tension, or difficulty concentrating.  

Student Barriers: 

We already know that students are facing worsening anxiety due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, students often delay seeking care, citing lack of access to care, the stigma associated with mental health conditions, and the lack of understanding of the condition. Students often self-medicate with increased alcohol consumption, drug use, or self-isolation which can only worsen GAD. 

For Students: 

Seek help when you need it. Some signs that you may benefit from support are when: 

  • You are experiencing feelings of hopelessness.
  • Your anxiety is causing you to feel physically ill. 
  • Your anxiety is impacting your grades.
  • You are sleeping more than usual and feel a lack of energy to get your day started.
  • You have a decreased appetite.

For Schools: 

  • Train your staff to recognize when students may be displaying signs of worsening anxiety.
  • Improve access to care for students.
  • Increase focus on student wellbeing.

5 Reasons Campuses Are Unwilling to Change


The world around us is moving at an incredible pace, and industries are modernizing right in front of our eyes. This shift is due to the urgency to stay relevant and, more importantly, sustainable in a competitive, post-pandemic marketplace. 

Within these modern industries are agents of change who hold various roles from the highest level of leadership to the operational level of the workforce. They have innovated to stay relevant and competitive. Their goal is to ensure they create products and services to meet the expected, fast-paced demands of their consumer. And their nimbleness has allowed them to succeed.

So why has Higher Ed struggled to modernize?

1. Comfortability

Humans are creatures of habit, and we are comfortable with what we know and do. The same goes for Higher Ed, which has relied on the same methodology and technology for decades. Even though these things slow institutions down and inhibit their innovation, Higher Ed is comfortable and unwilling to change.

The good news about the global pandemic is that it has finally forced Higher Ed to evolve the outdated practices that should have been changed years ago.

2. Title Ownership

People are entitled by their titles. Their assigned roles are heavy with accountability. This responsibility creates fear of failure but also over-empowers the role. The focus is on personal advancement, not on the advancement of the institution.

3. Boxed-In

Many leaders are insulated by their campus, laser-focused on internal operations. With their head down, it is difficult to imagine that their problems are the same problems that other institutions are facing. They believe that their problems are unique, so they cannot innovate in the same way as other schools.

Campuses are unique, but not as unique as their leaders may think. Enrollment sustainability, campus affinity, transfer rates, and technology are all top-of-mind within Higher Ed. All campuses need to evolve, and that evolution will be easier and more valuable if campuses look to each other for how to innovate.

On a large scale, campuses need to transform together. Then, once they’ve accomplished that, they can tailor their approach to fit their smaller, more unique needs. It’s time for Higher Ed to lift their head up and look to one another for ways to change. 

4. Tenure Workforce

Faculty and staff (more often than we would like to admit) view tenure as a security blanket, and, once they are under it, they cease to improve upon their role. This goes back to the comfortability of Higher Ed. But comfort inhibits innovation.

Higher Ed is a competitive landscape, and faculty and staff must constantly strive to make improvements. If the tenure doesn’t go away, it at least has to change. It is among the many elements of Higher Ed that do.

5. Retirement Horizon

Similar to the tenured workforce, leaders, faculty, and staff who are within retirement age are not motivated to make improvements. Their sights are set on their personal advancement into retirement, not the advancement of the institution.

A common theme arises among tenure, retirement, and title ownership: the individual is placed above the organization.

What needs to change? Whether it’s a change in operations or a change in culture, Higher Ed needs to align their institutions’ value with the value to its faculty, staff, and students. There is no motivation for innovation within an organization that cannot inspire loyalty. To create loyalty, value must be placed on the campus experience, the services the university offers, and a shared mission.

So how do campuses address each of these struggles?

Try starting here: Consider every campus role with term limits. Put people on the clock and give them a set time frame to make an impact. This will create motivation that leads to innovation. 

It will allow individual mobility to high-impact roles alongside the growing and evolving institution. It will also allow for others to get exposure to new jobs and experiences, creating a workforce with a diverse set of skills. All the while, campuses will benefit from innovative, driven faculty and staff who are striving to make a positive impact.

Innovative campuses are campuses that are constantly in motion, especially when it comes to the ever-changing technology that enables their innovation. Faculty and staff need to be nimble and comfortable in a fluid campus. And they have to start now.

As the new, post-pandemic era begins, will your institution be innovative? Or will it plant its feet in its old practices and get left behind?

Student Mental Health and COVID-19


Due to the long-lasting pandemic that has led to stay-at-home orders, lockdowns, and social distancing, COVID-19 has had a disastrous impact on the mental health of college students. During this time, students have been feeling isolated which has led to an increase in their stress, anxiety, and depression. Many schools have shifted to online learning, and, for some students, this less interactive form of learning has increased that feeling of isolation and its adverse effects.

During increased levels of stress, students may have thoughts of hurting themselves and thoughts of suicide. Due to the lack of access to care, students may put off seeking help when amid a mental health crisis. That is why it is important for school officials, family members, and peers to look for warning signs to make sure that those who need support receive it. Some common warning signs to be aware of are:

  • Isolation from friends
  • Expression of feelings of tiredness or sleepiness more often than normal
  • Drug and/or alcohol use that is more than normal
  • Increased mood swings

It’s also important that students recognize the warning signs in themselves. Students should be aware of these common signs of chronic stress, anxiety, and depression:

  • Feeling like a burden
  • Being isolated
  • Increased anxiety
  • Feeling trapped or in unbearable pain
  • Increased substance use
  • Looking for a way to access lethal means
  • Increased anger or rage
  • Extreme mood swings
  • Expressing hopelessness
  • Disturbed sleep patterns
  • Thoughts of self-harm
  • Making plans for suicide

If you or someone you know is struggling to cope and need immediate assistance you should call 911, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline (1800273TALK), or call/text the Disaster Distress Helpline (1-800-985-5990).

Questions for Higher Ed Leaders:

  • Are schools ready to take care of their student population knowing the increased mental health crisis facing them?
  • How will schools lead the next generation of students to better health and a better life?

The college campus will never be the same again, and old solutions will not solve new problems. Higher education has a responsibility to its students to provide them the mental health resources that they need.

Beyond the Post: 1/8/21


Beyond Academics asks to hear your thoughts, comments, and opinions on the topics we’ve covered throughout the week. Let’s keep the conversation about Higher Education going.

BA Featured

Listen to Beyond Academics members Joe Abraham and Joel Mathew on The Scott Becker Business and Private Equity Podcast as they discuss what motivates BA and how we are actively transforming Higher Ed.

Our Posts

BA’s Top 10 Predictions for Higher Ed in 2021

Though 2020 is over, Higher Ed still has a lot of work to do. We must continue to adapt and transform—as we should be doing every year—to create a better future for students of today and beyond. Take a look at our top 10 Higher Ed predictions for 2021.

Read the full post >>>

Other Posts

Video: Flexible Learning Options” by Maricopa Community Colleges

Maricopa Community Colleges recently posted this videos outlining their flexible learning options which include online (asynchronous), live online (synchronous), in-person, and hybrid (a combination of in-person and online).

Schools like Maricopa that have adapted their classrooms to better accommodate students are leading the way in higher education. Though creating a campus that works for everyone is still something we need to work toward, offering a variety of learning options is a huge step in the right direction. But we still have some questions.

BA Bold Thoughts:

  • This is great in theory, but how do we execute this in reality?
  • Maricopa lists “campus life” as something all their students (even the online ones) will have access to. What is campus life and how does it translate to digital, asynchronous learning?
  • What technology will be required to allow classrooms to exist on multiple platforms and operate smoothly?

Let us know your thoughts and answers to these questions.

Watch the video >>>

Excerpt: 8 things that could derail innovation at your company—and how to avoid them” by Alex Salkever, Ismail Amla, and Vivek Wadhwa via Fast Company

Replace the word “company” with “university” and these 8 things still apply.

In this excerpt, the authors talk about “ambidextrous leadership,” which gives resources to internal innovations and start-ups without “being eaten or crippled by legacy business units.” In order to transform, universities must give their institution the funding and space to actually innovate.

BA Bold Thoughts:

  • Innovative ideas are not enough, they require action, funding, and support.
  • The entire institution must be willing to change and willing to compromise in order to allow essential transformations.

Read the full post >>>

Tell Us Your Thoughts

Comment on this post, reach out on LinkedIn, or submit your take on any of these topics via email. We want to talk with you about the future of Higher Ed.

No comments to show.

BA’s Top 10 Predictions for Higher Ed in 2021


Higher education faced some unprecedented challenges in 2020 and we were forced to adapt. But though 2020 is over, Higher Ed still has a lot of work to do. We must continue to adapt and transform—as we should be doing every year—to create a better future for students of today and beyond.

Here are our Higher Ed predictions for 2021, including the challenges still to overcome:

Online and hybrid education will be here to stay post-pandemic.

Schools will continue to use online and hybrid education to expand their geographic market and reduce costs. The quality of remote learning will continue to increase as faculty build up their skills and schools enhance their technical capabilities. The prevalence of online courses will make it easier for students to transfer between institutions. More students will continue to live off campus which will greatly reduce housing and fee revenue.

COVID mitigation protocols will continue to impact campuses through 2022.

Schools plan for the possibility that the pandemic won’t significantly ease and many COVID protocols become permanent. The appearance of more contagious variants and the slow roll-out of the vaccine will mean academic years 2021 and possibly 2022 will look a lot like Fall and Winter of 2020. The Federal DOE will issue comprehensive COVID guidelines and institutions will have to change their current protocols to meet the new nationwide standard.

Students will expand their choice of institutions beyond traditional boundaries and transfer credit will increase at 4-year institutions.

Student transfers will continue to increase. Remote education will make it easier for students to assemble their diplomas by taking relevant classes from a series of institutions. At the same time, responding to the drop in number of college age students, schools will increase recruiting Sophomores from other schools to become Junior transfers.

Many institutions will reduce their workforces (faculty/staff) and many programs will be sunset due to budget constraints.

Tenured and tenure-track faculty positions will continue to dwindle. Schools will soon have faculties made up entirely of adjuncts and short-term contractors. State systems will consolidate their smaller, financially weaker schools. All schools will start evaluating their programs and close low enrollment programs that are losing money.

ERP / SIS transformation projects will be scrutinized.

The technology budgets of state and private schools will be slashed over the next two years. As a result, schools won’t be able to afford 9 figure ERP/SIS transformation projects anymore. Instead, they will focus their resources on smaller technology initiatives with clear strategic goals targeted on specific processes. There will also be an increase in high-impact transformation initiatives that are not technology based.

Consulting firms dependent on ERP and SIS will downsize.

Without a steady pipeline of large ERP or SIS initiatives, consulting firms that specialize in technology implementations will have to downsize. However, firms that specialize in developing strategy, business process transformation, and the student experience will thrive.

Parents will be more critical of the ROI of sending their child to college.

Parents (and students) will question why they are paying pre-pandemic tuition and fee rates for their children to take online classes. As the pressure to reduce tuition and eliminate fees increase, schools will have to find ways to redefine the value students receive from their tuition investment.

Schools will struggle to maintain their campus affinity with remote learning.

Online learning makes transferring from one school to another significantly easier. Students will see an individual school they’ve attended as simply one stop of many on their way to a degree. This weaker affinity will make it harder for a school to develop its students into institutionally loyal, lifelong learners, supportive alumni, and long-term donors.

Enrollment of socioeconomically disadvantaged students will continue to drop, especially in community colleges.

Enrollment for both 4-year and community colleges dropped in 2020. Economic uncertainty, housing and food insecurity, lack of internet access, and having to teach their children at home are leading many people to put off enrollment. As long as these roadblocks remain, the downward trend in enrollment will continue.

Private schools will have to increase discounts.

In the Fall of 2019, the average tuition discount rate for private colleges was 53%. Institutional aid paid, on average, 60% of the published tuition price, leaving colleges in a tight financial bind. In an effort to keep their enrollments stable, colleges will continue to increase discount rates and institutional aid—further weakening their financial position and causing some schools to close.

Do you agree with these predictions? What other predictions for 2021 do you have?

Beyond the Post: 12/8/20


Beyond Academics asks to hear your thoughts, comments, and opinions on the topics we’ve covered throughout the week. Let’s keep the conversation about Higher Education going.

Thanks for Listening!

We’re excited to share that we have reached over 100 downloads for The FutureX Podcast! We are glad to know that you’re interested in the future of Higher Ed. If you like what you hear, make sure you share the podcast. Together, we can transform the future of higher education.

Listen to our most recent episode, with special guest Dr. Paul J. LeBlanc, president of SNHU, on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or Google Podcasts.

Other Posts

“The 5 Biggest Lessons We’ve Learned About How Coronavirus Spreads on Campus” by Francie Diep for The Chronicle of Higher Education

As the threat of COVID-19 continues, we are learning more about how the virus spreads on campuses. With this new information, we can take more targeted safety precautions and hopefully reduce the infection rate of students and faculty who still attend classes in person.

BA Bold Thoughts:

  • Classrooms are not major spreaders, but social gatherings outside of school. With little control over social gatherings off-campus, is it wise to continue in-person classes?
  • How is your organization dealing with the spread of the virus on campus? What about off-campus?

Let us know your thoughts and answers to these questions.

Read the full post >>>

Doubts About Going to College by Scott Jaschik for Inside Higher Ed

“More than one-third of prospective college students are reconsidering higher education in light of the coronavirus pandemic.”

BA Bold Thoughts:

  • Does remote learning offer enough value to students?
  • Younger students are less likely to find value in online learning, how can we shift this way of thinking? At Beyond Academics, we think the answer is creating a stronger inline culture.

Let us know your thoughts and answers to these questions.

Read the full post >>>

Tell Us Your Thoughts

Comment on this post, reach out on LinkedIn, or submit your take on any of these topics via email. We want to talk with you about the future of Higher Ed.

No comments to show.