In September 2020, ACE surveyed college and university
presidents in order to capture how they are responding to the challenges presented by COVID-19, as well as to better understand both the immediate and long-term effects of the pandemic on higher education more broadly. In this second survey of the fall 2020 term, 268 presidents* responded to share their most pressing concerns, how the pandemic has affected their fall enrollment and financial health, plans for the spring 2021 term, efforts to support student, faculty, and staff mental health, and strategies for internationalization. The survey also captures college and university efforts to promote civic engagement and student voting in the last election, as well as presidents' thoughts on the level of priority the incoming Biden administration should place on some key higher education-related policy topics. What follows is a summary of our key findings.
Most Pressing Issues for Presidents
In our September survey, presidents were asked to select up to
five issues from a list of 18 that they deemed to be most pressing. In the
November survey, presidents were again presented with a list of 18 issues and
asked to select up to five they view to be most pressing for them currently
(see Figure 1). As was the case in September, the most commonly selected
pressing issue was student mental health. Nearly 70 percent of presidents
identified student mental health as among their most pressing issues.
- Presidents also indicated “mental health of faculty and staff”
(60 percent), “enrollment numbers for the spring” (40 percent), and “long-term
financial viability” (38 percent) as top issues.
- The top two most pressing issues for presidents across all
sectors were “mental health of students” and “mental health of faculty and
staff.”
-
Regardless of sector, “enrollment numbers for
the spring” was the third most pressing issue among all presidents. However, a
higher share of presidents of public two-year institutions (54 percent) than
that of presidents of public four-year institutions (35 percent) and presidents
of private four-year institutions (35 percent) indicated that enrollment for
the spring was a pressing issue.
Fall 2020 Enrollment
With the fall 2020 term in full swing, presidents were asked to
report on how their fall 2020 enrollment compared with their fall 2019
enrollment in four categories: undergraduate enrollment, graduate enrollment,
international student enrollment, and total enrollment. For each category,
presidents could report that their enrollment had increased, decreased, or
stayed about the same relative to fall 2019. Presidents could also indicate
that a particular enrollment category was not applicable to their institution
(e.g., undergraduate enrollment at a graduate-only institution).
- Over half of presidents (54 percent) reported that their fall
2020 total enrollment had decreased relative to fall 2019 enrollment (see
Figure 2). About a quarter (22 percent) of presidents reported that their fall
2020 total enrollment remained about the same as last fall, while 23 percent
reported that their fall 2020 total enrollment had increased relative to fall
2019.
- Presidents at public two-year institutions (84 percent) were
the most likely to report a total enrollment decrease, followed by presidents
at public four-year institutions (52 percent) and presidents at private
four-year institutions (47 percent).
- Unlike undergraduate enrollment, presidents were more likely
to report an increase in graduate enrollment. Fifty-eight percent of presidents
at public four-year institutions and 48 percent of presidents at private
four-year institutions reported an increase in graduate enrollment.
-
More than 70 percent of presidents across each
sector reported a decrease in international student enrollment.
Among the 54 percent of presidents who reported
a decline in total fall enrollment, 31 percent saw a decline of “5 percent or
less,” 40 percent saw a decline between “6 and 10 percent,” 28 percent saw a
decline between “11 and 20 percent,” and 1 percent saw a decline between “21
and 30 percent” (see Figure 3).
Because few presidents reported an increase in
total fall enrollment, results regarding the size of the increase are not
presented by sector. Of the 23 percent of presidents who reported a fall
enrollment increase, 55 percent saw an increase of “5 percent or less,” 24
percent saw an increase between “6 percent and 10 percent,” 19 percent saw an
increase between “11 percent and 20 percent,” and 2 percent saw an increase of
“31 percent or more” (see Figure 4).
Presidents were also asked to estimate how their institution’s
total enrollment numbers for spring 2021 will differ from the fall. Overall,
more than half of presidents (56 percent) reported that they expect their
spring 2021 enrollment to be similar to their fall 2020 enrollment. However,
close to one-third (32 percent) of presidents reported expecting an enrollment
decline from the fall 2020 term to the spring 2021 term (see Figure 5).
- Presidents at private four-year institutions (16 percent) were
the most likely to report expecting an increase in total enrollment between
fall 2020 and spring 2021.
-
Across each sector, the share of presidents
expecting a decline in enrollment between fall 2020 and spring 2021 was the
same, at approximately 32 percent.
To further understand institutional responses to
changes in enrollment, presidents who reported decreases in total enrollment
were asked an open-ended question about the strategies their
institutions have implemented to encourage student retention and new student
enrollment in the spring term. Presidents shared strategies such as increasing
monitoring of student progress data, increasing financial assistance, and
enhanced outreach and multi-layer communication strategies involving social
media to increase enrollment. For example, one president noted launching
targeted marketing via social media, individual outreach to prospective
students, and targeted follow-up with currently enrolled students and those who
stopped out to encourage their return. Other presidents referenced their
institutions’ expanded efforts to support student success by enhancing
in-person and virtual services, such as student coaching, tutoring, and
academic advising. Regarding financial support, one president noted awarding
COVID-19 relief grants equal to 25 percent of tuition to all students to help
support retention.
Spring 2021 Operating Plans
With the end of the fall term fast approaching,
campus leaders are working to finalize their institutions’ operating plans for
the spring 2021 term. In this survey, presidents were asked three questions
related to their spring 2021 plans. First, presidents were asked to indicate
the mode of instruction their institution is planning to offer in the spring
term. Next, presidents were asked about any changes or adjustments being made
to their spring academic calendar. Finally, an open-ended question allowed
presidents to share any lessons learned this fall that they felt have been
particularly helpful in aiding their spring 2021 planning efforts.
Mode of Instruction
Presidents were asked to identify the mode of instruction that
best described their institution in fall 2020 and which type of instruction
they anticipate offering at the start of the spring 2021 term. Presidents were
given four categories to select from: “exclusively in-person instruction,”
“predominantly in-person, with some online instruction,” “predominantly online,
with some in-person instruction,” or “exclusively online instruction” (see
Figure 6).
- More than half of the presidents (55 percent) indicated that
their institution plans to offer “predominantly online, with some in-person
instruction” in the spring. This percentage is similar to the share of
presidents who reported that their institution offered this mode of instruction
in fall 2020 (54 percent).
-
Across sectors, the type of instruction planned
for the spring 2021 term closely mirrors the type of instruction offered at the
beginning of the fall 2020 term. The largest difference is among institutions
who plan to offer “exclusively online instruction.” While 8 percent of the
presidents indicated offering “exclusively online instruction” in fall 2020,
only 2 percent of the presidents reported plans to offer “exclusively online
instruction” in the spring.
Lessons from the Fall Term to
Guide the Spring Term
Knowing that the fall experience will affect how institutions
prepare for the spring, presidents were given the opportunity to share lessons
learned from their institutions’ experiences in fall 2020. Regardless of the
mode of instruction offered at institutions this fall, some key themes emerged.
Many presidents emphasized the importance of being flexible and
prepared for change as a top lesson from this fall. For presidents at
institutions that offered some amount of in-person instruction, this meant
being prepared to move instruction online if case positivity rates began to
increase. One president noted, “If necessary, we are prepared to shift to
exclusively online instruction on short notice. All instructors have been asked
to prepare their courses for online and for in-person.” Other presidents
discussed maintaining flexibility in pacing the semester, shortening the number
of weeks of the fall term, and understanding differences in preferences among students
and staff. To this last point, one president shared, “Flexibility is key. Some
students and employees need completely virtual experiences while others
demand/require in-person experiences, but what really complicates matters is
that those who want/intend to participate in person may need to shift to
virtual participation for portions of the semester due to quarantine
requirements, mostly due to off-campus exposures.”
Beyond flexibility, many presidents shared that
their faculty and staff have gained valuable experience and knowledge related
to implementing COVID-19 safety protocols. One president wrote that their
campus community has developed, “better knowledge of how to open limited
residence hall occupancy, ability to more effectively test and contact trace
enabling in person instruction.” Presidents at institutions that held classes
predominantly online or in blended formats discussed the importance of
implementing a variety of classroom strategies and technologies to enable both
online and in-person instruction and to combat online education fatigue.
Presidents emphasized the importance of increased communications and
interactive instructional activities, the use of pre-recorded lectures and
breakout rooms to stimulate discussion, and flexibility regarding when and how
many students meet in person. To this point, many presidents mentioned
professional development opportunities for faculty to support effective online
teaching.
Spring 2021 Academic Calendar
Presidents were also asked to report any changes being made to
their spring 2021 academic calendar due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Presidents
were presented with a list of eight potential adjustments and were asked to
indicate all that apply to their institution. If their spring 2021 academic
calendar will look like past spring terms, then presidents were instructed to
select the option “maintaining a normal spring term schedule” (see Figure 7).
- Forty percent of all presidents indicated that their
institution plans to “eliminate spring break or other break periods.” This was
followed by 39 percent of presidents, who indicated that their plan is to
“maintain a normal spring term schedule,” and 32 percent who indicated that
they plan to “start the spring term later than normal.”
-
The majority of presidents at public two-year
institutions (71 percent) indicated that their institution plans to “maintain a
normal spring term schedule.” Only 34 percent of presidents at public four-year
institutions and 20 percent of presidents at private four-year institutions
reported plans to “maintain a normal spring term schedule.”
The Financial Impact of
COVID-19
The COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly created
financial challenges for many colleges and universities. In the September
survey, presidents reported on how revenues and expenses were being affected by
the pandemic. In this survey we asked presidents to indicate what financial
actions their institution had already implemented and which actions they may
implement within the next year due to the pandemic. Presidents were also asked
their perspectives on the overall financial health and stability of their
institution.
Responding to Financial Challenges
To better understand how presidents are responding to the
financial challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, presidents were given
a list of 14 actions and asked if the actions had already been implemented at
their institution (see Figure 8).
- The majority of presidents reported that their institution had
already implemented “hiring freezes” (60 percent) and freezes on employee
compensation and salary increases (52 percent). However, presidents at public
two-year institutions were less likely than their four-year institution
counterparts to report having implemented either of these two actions.
- Presidents at private four-year institutions were much more
likely to report “scaling back benefits” (50 percent). Only 3 percent of
presidents at public four-year institutions and no presidents at public
two-year institutions reported taking this action.
-
Presidents at public four-year institutions (44
percent) were more likely to report having instituted employee lay-offs than
presidents at private four-year institutions (31 percent) and presidents at
public two-year institutions (27 percent).
Overall Financial Health and
Stability
In order to better understand the overall financial health and
stability in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, presidents were asked to grade
their own institution’s overall financial health at three points in time—fall
2019, fall 2020, and fall 2021. Presidents were allowed to use their own
interpretation of overall financial health and stability, but were provided
with following simplified grading scale: “Excellent,” “Good,” “Average,” “Below
Average,” and “Failing.” It is important
to note that financial health and stability is a complex and multidimensional
construct. However, responses to this question do suggest that the overall
financial health and stability for many institutions is in jeopardy because of
the pandemic (see Figure 9).
- Three-quarters (75 percent) of presidents graded their
institution’s overall financial health in fall 2019 as being either “Excellent”
or “Good.” However, only 58 percent of presidents graded their institution’s
financial health in fall 2020 as either “Excellent” or “Good,” and only 48
percent expect their institution’s overall financial health to be “Excellent”
or “Good” by fall 2021.
- Only 6 percent of presidents graded their institution’s
overall financial health in fall 2019 as “Below Average” or “Failing.” However,
16 percent of presidents expect their institution’s overall financial health to
be “Below Average” or “Failing” by fall 2021.
- Among presidents at public four-year institutions, 76 percent
graded their institution’s financial health in fall 2019 as either “Excellent”
or “Good.” However, only 29 percent expect their institution’s overall
financial health to be “Excellent” or “Good” by fall 2021—a drop of 47
percentage points.
- Among presidents at public two-year institutions, 86 percent
graded their institution’s financial health in fall 2019 as either “Excellent”
or “Good.” However, 55 percent expect their institution’s overall financial
health to be “Excellent” or “Good” by fall 2021—a drop of 31 percentage points.
-
Among presidents at private four-year
institutions, 69 percent graded their institution’s financial health in fall
2019 as either “Excellent” or “Good.” However, 52 percent expect their
institution’s overall financial health to be “Excellent” or “Good” by fall
2021—a drop of 17 percentage points.
Mental Health
Student mental health remains a top of mind concern for college
and university presidents, with good reason. Over 66 percent of all presidents
are reporting an increase in the utilization of mental health services at their
institution due to COVID-19 (see Figure 10).
- Presidents at public four-year institutions (84 percent) were
most likely to report a rise in the utilization of mental health services,
followed by presidents at private four-year (69 percent) and public two-year
institutions (54 percent).
-
Approximately one in five presidents at public
two-year institutions (21 percent) reported that their campus does not offer
mental health services.
In order to address growing concerns over mental health, college
and university leaders are implementing different strategies to support the
mental health and well-being of their campus community. Presidents were asked
to select from a list of 12 strategies those that their institution has
implemented as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic (see Figure 11).
- Over half of presidents (59 percent) reported that their
institution has “invested in virtual or tele-therapy services and/or
tele-psychiatry,” the most commonly implemented strategy.
- Slightly less than half of presidents reported that their
institution has “implemented new student engagement strategies to provide
students with resources on mental health and well-being” (47 percent) and
“expanded campus access to digital mental health programs and promotion
platforms” (43 percent).
-
Over one-third of presidents reported their
institution had “expanded mental health resources through the Employee
Assistance Program (EAP) for faculty and staff and/or encouraged utilization of
this program” (36 percent), and that they had “held listening sessions with
faculty and staff to hear their concerns about their own mental health and
well-being” (34 percent).
Internationalization and
Global Engagement
ACE has long been committed to supporting colleges and
universities in defining and meeting their internationalization and global
engagement goals. With that in mind, two questions were included in this survey
in order to better understand how the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting
institutions’ internationalization strategies and priorities.
Using a five-point scale, presidents were asked to indicate their
level of agreement with the statement, “The COVID-19 pandemic will affect my
institution’s long-term strategy (past the 2020–21 academic year) related to
internationalization.”
- Sixty-six percent of presidents said they “strongly agree” or
“somewhat agree” with the statement.
-
Presidents at public four-year institutions were
the most likely to “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree” with this statement (84
percent), while 66 percent of presidents at private four-year institutions and
53 percent of presidents at public two-year institutions said the same.
Presidents were also presented with a list of nine
internationalization actions and asked to select up to three they believe will
be priorities for their institution’s internationalization strategy beyond the
2020–21 academic year (see Figure 13).
The 2020 Presidential
Election
On November 7, 2020, Joe Biden became president-elect of the
United States. Given this important moment, presidents were asked to review
seven higher education policy topics and using a four-point scale, indicate the
level of priority the Biden administration should place on each topic (see
Figure 14).
- Almost 80 percent of presidents thought “supporting
congressional efforts for additional, substantive COVID-19 relief funding for
higher education” should be a high priority for the Biden administration.
- Seventy-two percent of presidents thought “expanding
need-based aid (e.g., double the maximum Pell Grant)” should be a high priority
for the Biden administration.
-
Only 25 percent of presidents thought “increasing
research funding” and only 39 percent thought “expanding student debt relief”
should be high priorities for the Biden administration.
Presidents were also given an opportunity to
write in other topics they believe the Biden administration should prioritize.
Across all sectors, presidents expressed hope that the Biden administration
will do more to support international students and address visa issues. Some
presidents expressed hope that the new administration will work to increase
funding for workforce education programs, the National Science Foundation, and
the Fulbright programs. Additionally, other presidents discussed “beefing up
the support for the needs [of students] outside the classroom including food,
child/elder care, transportation and mental health.” Other priorities mentioned
include a renewed commitment to the value of higher education, support for new
ways to pay for college, support for civic engagement and service, strategies
to incentivize institutional partnerships, and an increased focus on racial
equity in higher education and support for minority serving institutions.
Student Voting and Civic
Engagement
Presidents were also asked to share how their
institutions helped support student voting and civic engagement during the 2020
election cycle, beyond distributing voter registration forms to students as
required by the Higher Education Act (HEA) (see Figure 15). Almost all
presidents (89 percent) reported that their institutions had active campaigns
to help students understand their state voter registration and voting
requirements. More than three-quarters (78 percent) of presidents reported that
their institution sent out reminders to students encouraging them to vote. Over
half (57 percent) indicated that their institution held in-person and/or
virtual get-out-the-vote events.
In an open-ended question, presidents were asked
about any challenges they perceived students at their institution encountered
in trying to vote. While the majority of presidents who responded to this
question reported no issues or challenges, a few presidents expressed concerns
around voter manipulation and suppression. Additionally, a few presidents
reflected on challenges in voting logistics, such as confusion around mail-in
voting or long lines for in-person voting. Others noted challenges around
combating voter apathy: “Despite all of our educational efforts, some students
still believe their vote does not matter.”
* Of the 268 presidents, 117 lead private four-year institutions (44 percent), 62 lead public four-year institutions (23 percent), 63 lead public two-year institutions (24 percent), 12 lead private graduate-only institutions (4 percent), seven lead for-profit institutions (3 percent), five lead private two-year institutions (2 percent), and two lead other institutions (1 percent).
Additionally, 42 percent of presidents classified their institutions as being “primarily residential,” 29 percent identified their institution as being “primarily nonresidential,” and 28 percent reported that their institution does not offer campus-based housing.
The survey was launched on November 10 and closed on November 17.