In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The Review of Higher Education 29.2 (2006) 258-260



[Access article in PDF]
Brian Pusser (Ed.). Arenas of Entrepreneurship: Where Nonprofit and For-Profit Institutions Compete. New Directions for Higher Education, No. 129. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005. 106 pp. Paper: $29.00. ISBN: 0-7879-8052-8.

The growth in entrepreneurial behavior by higher education institutions in recent years is unmistakable. The emergence of rapidly growing, multi-campus, for-profit colleges run by large, publicly traded corporations is the most obvious example but, as the authors in this volume emphasize, not the only significant one. Entrepreneurial behavior—defined as revenue-seeking, competitively oriented, and risk-taking innovations and initiatives—has broken out all over higher education, including in the public and private nonprofit sectors.

This somewhat eclectic collection provides a useful initial survey of important but little-studied parts of this emerging landscape. Several of the chapters draw on research from large, several-year empirical projects and thus, though relatively brief, convey considerable authority. The introductory [End Page 258] essay by editor Brian Pusser and the initial chapter by David Breneman offer a complementary analysis of the forces pushing academic institutions in all sectors to behave entrepreneurially. These authors point to the fundamental role of the shift in public finance that has seen public investment slip in recent years. Hence, new institutional forms, such as the multi-campus for-profits, have emerged to mobilize capital, exploit new technologies, and respond to new groups of students.

Importantly, though, public and private nonprofit institutions have also responded in innovative ways. Indeed, as some of the later chapters suggest, they seem to be faring quite well in this brave new world, although their new ventures and behaviors are not without broader social consequences that need attention. Both authors emphasize that the research and conclusions presented in the volume are quite preliminary, not just because the database is still rudimentary, but also because the arena is highly dynamic.

Breneman's chapter also summarizes the key conclusions of his forthcoming book, with Sarah Turner, Earnings from Learning: The Rise of the For-Profit Universities (SUNY Press). These are: (a) Degree-granting for-profits are now a proven concept and their broad acceptance by accrediting bodies seems inevitable; (b) For-profits are largely tapping different markets from those of traditional institutions with the most overlap in technical occupational training; (c) The U.S. market for these schools may be not too far from the limits of its capacity to support rapid enrollment growth; and (d) The timing of the rise of distance learning and corporate for-profits is largely coincidental; nonprofits appear to be involved in distance learning at similar rates. He closes with the conclusion that the increased market dependence in higher education is unlikely to be reversed, so the challenge is to preserve public purposes in the new environment.

Lara Couturier elaborates on this theme in the closing chapter, which draws on her 2004 book with the late Frank Newman, The Future of Higher Education: Rhetoric, Reality, and the Risks of the Market (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass). She catalogues a wide range of forms of marketization in higher education—indeed, sometimes getting a bit carried away in lamenting developments not close to the heart of the phenomenon—and proffers as a remedy an explicit "new social compact" between higher education and state policymakers. Such a compact would have institutions renew their commitment to a wide range of public purposes, as well as to measurable, transparent assessment of achievements and improvement over time. In return, state policymakers would renew their commitment to academic freedom, tax exemptions, and adequate state appropriations while also granting institutions more procedural autonomy.

The impetus for these mutual actions would be the public support ostensibly produced by a high-profile debate over the need for and elements of the compact. This noble set of ideals clearly contains an important insight about the disconnect between higher education as it is currently practiced and the expectations of the public and its elected representatives. One is left somewhat breathless, however, by...

pdf

Share