Christian Colleges in the Twenty-first Century

By Gary Weedman

INTRODUCTION: Gary Weedman, senior vice president of TCM International Institute (Heiligenkreuz, Austria, and Indianapolis, Indiana), has worked nearly three decades in academic administration, most recently as provost at Palm Beach Atlantic University, West Palm Beach, Florida, and vice president for academic affairs and dean at Milligan College (Tennessee).

He used Ten Trends in Higher Education from Magna Publications as his primary source to write this analysis of colleges and universities associated with Christian churches and churches of Christ. He describes Ten Trends as “a terrific source for administrators” and “the most comprehensive of its kind.” The annual report summarizes data from public and private sources and is used by college presidents, provosts, and even state governments.

Weedman focuses on three of 10 trends with particular impact on our institutions. He chose these based on his own experiences as well as interviews concerning “victories” and “challenges” with five presidents: John Derry of Hope International University (Fullerton, California), David Eubanks of Johnson Bible College (Knoxville, Tennessee), David Faust of Cincinnati (Ohio) Christian University, Keith H. Ray of Lincoln (Illinois) Christian College and Seminary, and Don Jeanes of Milligan College.

 

 

 

 

The colleges that report their activities to CHRISTIAN STANDARD face many of the same major challenges that impact institutions of higher learning throughout the nation. Of the more than 4,000 colleges and universities in the United States, approximately 1,600 of them are private institutions. Nine hundred of those private institutions describe themselves as having a “religious” affiliation. Of those, 102 are intentionally “Christ-centered” and members of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, and 100 are Bible colleges accredited by the Association of Biblical Higher Education.

How our colleges fit into this scene and how they respond to the challenges of the 21st century are important to our constituency. These schools represent a significant investment of our congregations, operating with budgets totaling nearly $155 million for the year ending 2005. Many of them are revisiting their mission as it relates to local churches and to the challenges of finances, facilities, prospective students, accreditation demands, and provision of the kinds of education that advance the needs of students and churches alike.

Each year Magna Publications issues Ten Trends in Higher Education, a compilation of trends from annually tracked demographic data. Several of these trends will affect all Christian institutions, including the colleges in this report. It is not possible to address all 10 trends in this short article. Rather, I will focus on three that seem to have the greatest impact on our schools.

Changing Demographics

The first and most significant trend is the changing college population and how it relates to the mission of the institutions. A majority of our schools were created because churches wanted a trained ministry. Especially after World War II, many congregations were without trained ministers, and schools were birthed to meet this need. The beginning of Lincoln Bible Institute (1944) illustrates this effort. Earl Hargrove, the founder, proclaimed throughout the Midwest that “the preachers are coming” and called on churches to support this new school as an answer to a real need.

On the other hand, before World War II, some schools, such as Cincinnati Bible Seminary (1923-24) were begun in reaction to modernist theology that was perceived to exist in institutions historically connected to our movement.

A third felt need giving rise to several colleges was to provide Bible education to university students. Thus, a number of institutions were established adjacent to university campuses. Examples include Manhattan Christian College and Minnesota Bible College, now known as Crossroads College.

These three “models” of colleges had a curriculum that focused primarily on biblical studies and were designed to prepare leaders for churches. Two earlier models preceded these three. One of the earliest models, Bethany College, patterned after the first institution founded by Alexander Campbell, provided a “classical” education, including the liberal arts and sciences as well as biblical studies for all students. Milligan College and Johnson Bible College fit this category. A fifth model was originally a teacher-training institution, Kentucky Normal Institute (1913), now Kentucky Christian University.

College administrators increasingly question how to respond to the “felt needs” of the churches. Are the same five motivations for the founding of these colleges as relevant today as they were when they were begun? Do the churches have the same expectations and want the same “products” from these institutions as they did 50 years ago? Do the faculties and the administrations envision the same mission for the schools as their constituents? Does the same integral relationship exist today between congregations and institutions? Are they working toward common mission such as that which originally helped create the institutions?

Anecdotally, I was surprised, upon moving back to the Midwest three years ago, to discover how many congregations had hired ministerial staff who had not graduated from our Christian colleges, a situation not readily found a few years ago. Such situations seem to indicate congregations may not be looking to these institutions in the same way as in earlier years.

Furthermore, how do answers to these questions correlate to the demographic data? Those data are sobering. There is a projected 13 percent increase in college enrollment throughout the next decade. Yet the traditional college””with students 18-22 years old, enrolled as full-time students living on campus””will continue to decline.

Only 16 percent of the current national enrollment meets these criteria now. Sixty-five percent of the increase in population through 2020 will be in ethnic minorities. Three states, California, Florida, and Texas, will account for half of the increase in “traditional” students through 2011. The largest increase of students is projected in the 25 to 34 age group. Furthermore, by 2010 there will be 142 females for every 100 males enrolled and 156 females to 100 males by 2020.

Thus, the challenge is how administrators will determine the “needs” of the constituencies that support their schools and fit those needs to the rapid changes in college population.

Rising Costs

A second major trend is students” difficulty in dealing with college costs and college administrators” struggle with rising expenses. Data are not readily accessible, but many students graduate from our schools with significant debt incurred through loans made to finance their education. Many who work in churches are paid minimum income and are burdened with this debt for years. Nationally, the undergraduate student loan debt has increased by 66 percent over the past five years and private borrowing for college by 346 percent since 1995.

Four of the college presidents I interviewed listed finances as a primary concern. Diligent in their attempts to control the costs of education, they admit it is a primary concern for the future of their schools.

The financial data for the last two years bear out this concern. In 2003-04 nine of the schools reporting to Christian Standard had deficits totaling more than $2.58 million. In 2004-05 eight schools had deficits of more than $2.44 million.

The costs per student indicate part of the problem. The average expenditure per student is about $15,500 per year, compared to $11,354 for resident students at public schools. Yet some schools had per student expenditures far above the average, some as high as $86,794 per student!

While most costs in our schools compare favorably with others in private higher education, administrators face a challenge to keep adequate faculty, facilities, and technology. Most of our schools do not have endowments sufficient to offset rising tuition and corollary costs.

Added to this financial picture is the uncertainty of the entire federal student aid system. The major student aid program, the Pell Grant, is “reauthorized” by Congress every five years. It was to have been reauthorized in 2005, but Congress postponed a decision until March 2006. Furthermore, this grant has covered a decreasing percentage of the total costs for several years. Yet, many students in our schools depend on this resource; a continued decrease of student aid can have only a negative impact on the administration of our schools.

New Providers

A third trend that will impact our schools is the significant growth of new educational providers. For-profit institutions are the fastest growing sector in higher education. The University of Phoenix is now the largest in the United States, enrolling 239,000 students in 2004 with locations in 30 states and two foreign countries. Their revenue was more than $2 billion without an endowment or tax subsidies. For-profit baccalaureate schools have increased by 266 percent during the last decade. This growth is almost mirrored by the expansion of community colleges.

In both of these categories of institutions, the target audience is the same as the changing demographics””minorities and working adults. The education is delivered in a way that accommodates their lifestyles and backgrounds. These institutions have come to realize they must adapt what they do to the changing environment. Furthermore, they frequently partner with businesses and corporations to accomplish their mission, another growing trend in higher education.

Some of our schools have already begun to form alliances across traditional lines. Milligan College has partnered with nearby East Tennessee State University, allowing students from either school to enroll in the other”s classes seamlessly. Milligan also partnered with a local health consortium, which provided funding to support a nursing program and an occupational therapy program. Other schools are exploring ways to share the tasks with local or national entities without losing their Christian mission.

While the challenges to our higher education institutions are daunting, many schools have identified those challenges and are posturing themselves to respond proactively. There is a compelling sense that our institutions must still be tied closely to the churches and to identify what those churches now want from higher education. It appears the schools perceiving those constituent needs are flourishing and positioned to do so in the future.