| Up
to Standard? |
| The
main article in this edition of Perspectives is about
the pressure for colleges and universities to "keep up
with the Joneses" as competition for students continues
to play an essential role in enrollment management and
as perspective students compare one institution to
another. The second article is about the fact that
facility space standards have not changed to reflect the
enormous changes in technology, pedagogy, or research on
how people learn. It is time for a fresh look.
Arthur
|
| Keeping up with the
Joneses or Serving Student Needs? |
|
 In
our practice, we have a close view of the front lines in
the competition for students, faculty, and alumni
support. The Higher Education (HE) sector's remarkable
vitality and drive in improving institutions' appeal for
support is impressive in its scope and
accomplishment.
- undergraduate
science labs that surpass cutting edge research
facilities of the 80s;
- student
housing that rivals 4-star hotel accommodations;
- small
college athletics/fitness/wellness/recreation centers
that the majority of national Olympic programs covet;
- administrative
and faculty office buildings that Fortune 100
executives would be proud to call their own;
student
centers that are urban microcosms offering a staggering
array of activities, services, and venues for
entertainment.  How does all this square with HE mission
statements? Do high-end facilities truly improve student
learning and development of personal strengths? Or are
the "palaces" merely irrelevant, costly evidence of a
demented "edifice complex."
Well, Mark Hopkins's only
facility requirement was a log to sit on to engage the
student sitting on the other end. Good for the Hopkins
student, because that's all the finest teacher of his
generation needed.
What terms do today's students
and faculty stipulate? Most liberal arts faculty I've
asked say the most important thing in job satisfaction
and their career decisions is the quality of the student
body. Likewise, committed students mention the
reputation of the institution (the quality of the
faculty), the "feel" of the place (the facilities and
grounds).
Facilities and environment create
a strong pull on students.  Logically,
then, the more attractive the facilities the stronger
the pull; the stronger the pull the more selective the
institution can be; the more selective an institution
is, the stronger the pull on faculty; the stronger the
pull on faculty, the better the faculty is likely to be;
the better the faculty is, the stronger the
institution's programs and reputation; and so on in
continuous improvement cycle.
While the specific
characteristics of the facilities may or may not provide
measurable benefits for advancing student learning, that
the facilities are perceived as being effective is taken
as strong evidence of the institution's commitment to
its mission and its students' success. These qualities
will provide the necessary traction on students and
faculty, strengthening the institution.
The facilities' impact on
attracting and retaining the best requires a
mission-driven investment. By assembling the strongest
student and faculty groups possible, HE institutions are
acting vigorously to enhance learning and the impact
they have on students' lives.
George |
| Standards, Standards,
Standards - Everybody's got Standards |
|
"The nice thing about
standards is that there are so many of them to choose
from."
Andres S. Tannenbaum
One of the benefits of facility standards
and guidelines is that  they
provide a consistent measure applied in a variety of
different circumstances. The use of the word "standard,"
however, carries the implication of having been vetted
and accepted as right or appropriate. But who makes that
judgment? How and when should standards
change?
Most facility standards today are based
directly or exactly on standards developed in the late
50s and early 60s. The early thinking of the Western
Interstate Commission on Higher Education (WICHE) is
evident. Some facility standards have not changed in
over 50 years, even though dramatic change in
technology, teaching, pedagogy, research, and our
understanding about how people learn should have
effected at least some of them.
An interesting example is the faculty office. In
many states, the standard for a faculty office is still
120 net square feet. When that standard was set, desktop
computers didn't exist - in fact, computers wouldn't
show up on the desktop until 20 or 25 years later (Apple
1976 and IBM 1981).
 This
enduring standard shows the difficult evolution and slow
response for facility standards in ever changing
circumstances. It also shows a misunderstanding of the
purpose and use of a faculty office. The faculty office
is a personal work space as well as a teaching space,
meeting place, and research area. It is a place to learn
and discover. It is used to meet with students, staff,
and other faculty. It is used for administrative
functions. It is a dining room, a place to nap, and a
space for contemplation.
In our office database of over 20,000 citations
from colleges and universities, both public and private,
the average office size is 145 net square feet. We have
analyzed a number of faculty office sizes and
configurations and recommend that a typical faculty
office be in the range of 140 to 160 net square feet for
most departments and institutions.
The typical college and university campus dedicates
more space to offices than to classrooms.
Institutions need to recognized this office space as a
critical learning environment on campus - and treat it
as such.
More importantly, though, it is time for
State Higher Education offices and colleges and
universities to take a fresh look at facility
"standards" that are being used to define space. These
institutions would not use old, out-of-date building
codes to construct new buildings - why use out-of-date
standards to plan them?
Arthur
|
|
| |
|
|
|
What's New |
|
PKAL has invited Arthur Lidsky to speak at its
2007 Summer Institute
PKAL's
has announced that Arthur Lidsky will speak at two
sessions during its 2007 Summer Institute in Chantilly,
VA. On June 15th he will participate in a plenary
session on Continued conversations - leadership in
building research-rich learning environments that serve
21st century students, science and society and a
breakout session on Gaining the support of skeptical
or hesitant faculty colleagues, dealing with the
politics of institutional change and
renewal.
George Mathey to present at Society for College
and University Planners Annual Conference
George Mathey, together with Peter Gorer,
Facility Asset Strategies; Leith Sharp, Harvard
University; and Kurt Teichert, Brown University, will
present Realizing Green Campus Initiatives through
Facility Programming on Monday, July 9, 2007 from
2:30-4:00 pm. The presentation describes the realization
of green campus policies from their integration into
capital projects through transformed institutional
facility planning and programming
practices.
Arthur
Lidsky, together with Randolph R. Croxton of Croxton
Collaborative Architects and Jose Alminana of Andropogon
Associates, will present
The Sustainable Campus:
Restorative Pathways of Growth on Campus on July
25th from, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. The seminar, part of the
Harvard University's Graduate School of Design Executive
Education program, focuses on the disciplines of campus
planning, landscape architecture, and
architecture. |
| |
