Will bricks and mortar campuses still be relevant in 20 years? How will universities be funded? What is the role of presidents in changing a university?

These were some of the questions discussed at this morning’s panel session on “The University of the Future.” The expertise at the table was impressive, including two former university presidents and one current president.

The funding question

Former University of Toronto President and current Berkeley Chancellor Bob Birgeneau made the Canadians in the room feel welcome with several references to our Canada Research Chairs program.

Birgeneau said he’d like to see something like the CRC program in the US. However when I spoke with him after the session, he said the Canadian model has inherent risks. If a government decides to do away with the program, universities wouldn’t be able to support these positions on their own. An endowed model, he argues, is preferable.

The increasing importance of endowments among public universities in the States was a focus of discussion, especially in light of decreasing state support. Some mused that the small level of state support now (it’s currently fourth on the list in Berkeley’s financial model), it’ll soon be at the point where it may no longer be worth adhering to the strict regulations associated with the money.

Finding ways to cut expenses is also a priority at universities like Berkeley, where a process is well underway to cut administrative spending by $75 million a year.

The panelists suggested the future calls for a greater funding role by the federal government, although it was pointed out that this would be politically sensitive in the US, where education is seen as a state responsibility and moving to a federal model is likely to stir up opposition.

“State governments have proven they are an unreliable partner,” Birgeneau said. “We need a reliable partner.” (To which the moderator responded: “Can in fact the federal government be a reliable partner?”)

Birgeneau suggests a permanent solution to the funding challenges facing public institutions south of the border would be state and federal governments matching private endowment funds raised to incent and reward successful development efforts by universities.

Global drivers of change

Dan Mote, former president of the University of Maryland, spoke briefly about the evolution of the role of universities. He said today, services to society rank right up there with teaching and research in terms of university priorities.

Mote talked about the challenge of keeping up with accelerating change in society. “Research universities find themselves on the curve of all these waves and are trying not to be thrown by them,” he said. Part of the challenge is keeping up with the increasing mobility and global-connectedness of people.

He said few universities have taken full advantage of communication technologies. And they have to do more to prepare students for global careers.

Another increasing challenge is attracting in-demand talent. It’s something in short supply and high demand around the world.

Bud Peterson, President of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, also stressed the need for universities to become more global. With respect to American universities, he says, “The gap between us and our international competitors is shrinking daily.”

As nations around the world recognize that investments in science and engineering leads to economic growth, competition is heating up. Asia-Pacific growth in science and technology investments is now outpacing growth in the US.

Look ahead, way ahead

Peterson also talked about how technology is changing the way we live our lives and run our universities. He said Georgia Tech is now developing a 25-year strategic plan. He acknowledges that it’s pretty tough to imagine what educational life will be like in 25 years. But when we look back 25 years, we can clearly see what the exercise is valuable. It was roughly 25 years ago when the first PC was available commercially. Now we’re texting billions of messages a day around the world. The world is largely transformed in 25 years.

“We must ask what has and what will continue to distinguish our graduates from other graduates around the world,” he said. “We can’t look two, three or five years ahead; we need to look 25 or 30 years ahead.” Universities need to make plans to meet the needs of future students being born today.

Universities have to re-evaluate the way they teach the digital generation, he argued. Young people see technology as part of their everyday lives; the expect a continuation and expansion of this at university.

And technological capabilities can come in pretty handy beyond the daily routine of a university. When a rare winter storm forced Georgia Tech to close down for three days, professors used Facebook, email and Skype to deliver their lectures and stay on schedule.

Peterson said universities also have to adopt a more flexible approach to education. He envisions a model of undergraduates working with a committee of faculty to choose their individual course path leading to a degree; younger students enjoying the kind of flexibility currently afforded to graduate students.

Another future possibility is a virtual class that’s entirely built around the needs of one student. This student would be the only real student in the class. The other students would be virtual creations, all designed to help the real student learn. For example, a virtual student would ask questions in the virtual class that get at something the real student is struggling with.

Peterson also stressed the important role of interdisciplinary research. Finding solutions to problems is easy, he says, “if you can find someone who knows the answer.” Interdisciplinary teams is the best way to get there.

Birgeneau pointed out that all buildings built at Berkeley in the 10 years he’s been there are interdisciplinary.

What’s the future of bricks and mortar?

Peterson refered to an exercise he was involved in a number of years ago that questioned whether bricks and mortar universities would eventually disappear in favour of online models. His short answer is “no.”

He points out that there is so much more to the student experience on campus that is still very much relevant and needed. “A lot more happens with young people at universities than just education,” he says.

Other panelists echoed the importance of the one-to-one relationship between the professor and student. Birgeneau gave the example of a first-year astronomy professor at Berkeley, Dr. Alex Filippenko.

He gives students the option of joining his class in person or online. This class would normally have 50 students, but his has 700. And more than half of them choose to get up early and attend class in person to have the dynamic experience of being there. How dynamic? Last  Halloween Dr. Filippenko dressed up as a black hole (i.e., all in black) and threw out candy.

A member of the audience suggested that traditional universities are elitist, outdated “medieval social structures” that should be replaced by online education which, he argued, is much more democratic.

Birgeneau was quick to disagree. He said it would be unfair to deny low-income students a traditional university experience because it’s cheaper to offer the program online. He pointed to the large chunk of Berkeley’s student body that comes from families with incomes less than $20,000 a year. He said traditional university can be “very democratic” in this way and he “couldn’t disagree more” with the attendee’s premise.

For love or money?

Universities are preparing the next generation of innovators and entrepreneurs. But what if the pressure to commercialize becomes too intense?

Peterson said Georgia Tech tries to equip its students to develop new products and bring them to commercialization. And they’re finding innovative ways to do so. One program is a competition on innovation; something that’s been nicknamed “American Idol for Geeks.” Top prize is $15,000 and the top three winners get a contract to help them commercialize their inventions. It works. So far five of eight finalists have commercialized their inventions or have a license agreement in place.

But there’s an ugly side to pressure for commercialization, according to Peterson. He said legislators want to see the ROI on public funds. They want to see job-creation numbers. They want to know how many companies have been formed.

It’s a very monetary-driven discussion that legislators want to have, but it neglects the discussion of the value  of universities for the public good more generally. The money discussion “leaves out two-thirds of the university’s role. It doesn’t talk about how universities make people better citizens.”

Are universities adverse to change?

Universities don’t typically turn on a dime. It was pointed out several times that universities are notoriously difficult structures to change and change happens rather slowly on our campuses.

Mote explained that university presidents can’t just direct things to change across a campus. “Their job is to lead a movement,” he said. Presidents should have a vision that people want to buy into. “That’s how big changes get made. And it’s huge when it happens.”

The alternative is pretty bleak. Mote says if, as president, you don’t lead with a vision people want to sign up for, “you’re just pushing the mail from the inbox to the outbox and people go on doing what they want to do and wait for the next guy.”

He also said “old timers” (a category in which he included himself) staying in the system and “clogging up the system” is a big problem. “If something could be done about that it would be very helpful.”