SIGNS OF NORMALITY? Me, in mid-October.

It may be a while before we joke about the desk drawers labeled "up" and "down" that financial reporters rummage in and fish out a slip of paper labeled "short covering" or "better earnings" or "profit taking" to explain that day's movements.

Perhaps we see the first return to that drawer.

"It's an oversold rally after days of selling," said Joseph Saluzzi, co-head of equity trading at Themis Trading. He said that the market action so far in 2009 is likely to continue throughout the next few months. "We're going to see this kind of thing, where you have negative headline after negative headline, until one bit of good news comes out that squeezes the short-sellers."

That October post offered a suggestion for future research.

There are research papers to be written on the effect of the short-selling ban on market movements. I'd be surprised if there won't be at least one that will suggest the ban on short-selling made the price declines more drastic.

The news coverage raises the odds on such an article being written.

Short-selling is a process by which investors that have sold stocks short so as to take advantage of a falling market need to buy the shares back.

Short interest as absorbing barrier? The proof is left to the reader as an exercise.

FUTURE RESEARCH. A prohibition against short-selling on U.S. exchanges expired Thursday. Friday morning, the Dow Industrial average dropped at opening to about 8,000, then rallied, and stayed above 8,000 the rest of the day. Some observers were guessing that standing buy orders with execute levels at 8,000 kicked in. Another possibility is that traders covered their short positions once prices fell that far. One weblog anticipates that possibility. I haven't seen any other commentary on the days events. (It may be a while before we joke about the desk drawers labeled "up" and "down" that financial reporters rummage in and fish out a slip of paper labeled "short covering" or "better earnings" or "profit taking" to explain that day's movements.)

There are research papers to be written on the effect of the short-selling ban on market movements. I'd be surprised if there won't be at least one that will suggest the ban on short-selling made the price declines more drastic.

AFTER THEY'VE TRIED EVERYTHING ELSE, PERHAPS THEY'LL DO THE RIGHT THING.

Here I stand, I can do no other.  "Few things would help students so much, or harm the core functions of education so little, as a 50% across the board cut in higher ed bureaucracy costs."

Inside Higher Ed columnists Peter Eckel and Cathy Trower might yet catch on.  "Stop Planning!"

Certainly, strategic plans are important to academic institutions. Colleges and universities invest a tremendous amount of time and effort (holding many meetings with various constituent groups on and off campus to gain input) -- and sometimes also money (for consultants) -- in their strategic plans. Once finished, there is great fanfare and publicity, often around the plan’s creative name and new, bold priorities. Plans appear in highly visible places on websites. Institutions hold retreats, often over many days, to talk about plan implementation and progress. They design and put in place new data systems to track progress and create elaborate metrics and key performance indicators. And all the while, those who lead the planning process can be heard saying, “This plan will not sit on the shelf (this time).”

Yet despite all this investment of time and resources, few strategic plans enjoy strong consensus that they are meaningful and have a real impact on the trajectory of the college or university.

Too often strategic plans fall short of serving as a guiding light for the future. Some are triumphs of form (or wordsmithing) over substance. Their key points often are expected, and they share much in common with those of similar, but also dissimilar, institutions. “Educate students for the global 21st century,” anyone? How about “Produce cutting-edge research?”

So if the results are less than impactful, then why do we invest so much in strategic planning? Trustees and faculty members wonder what all the fuss was about, why the process was so time-consuming and arduous and why, in the end, the work seems to have had so little real impact.

Perhaps because it's a phony quest for consensus, and consensus often means the most anodyne of sentiments.

I see no reason to withdraw a previous statement.  "The remedy is part Ko-Ko and part John Galt: identify the twenty percent of the deanlets and deanlings who would not be missed, and fire them."

Messrs. Eckel and Trower are writing for a house organ for business as usual, and yet wisdom is dawning.

During a recent workshop on strategy (and not planning), the following exchange occurred between an experienced administrator and one of us. “I’ve been involved in three different strategic planning efforts at my institution. And with each one we get better,” she said. “Great,” we said, “but better at what? Better as an institution or better at planning?” Her reply, sheepishly: “Ah, better at planning.”

As she realized during this exchange, the real objective shouldn’t be to improve planning, but rather to improve the institution and position it for success in the long run. Given the demands on campuses and the complexities that academic leaders face, might institutions be better served by looking at the future through some new lenses rather than reinvesting in yet another round of similar work? Thus, we have the title of this essay (which is an intentional overstatement, as we will explain below).

Strategy, as a concept, sits between mission and operational plans. And historically in higher education, it has been overlooked in conversations about each. An institutional mission statement says why a college or university exists; it’s the purpose. The better ones convey particular actions with respect to target audiences, as well as articulate outcomes. Strategy is the pathway to deliver on that mission. It is the game plan that contains answers to key questions, such as in what arenas will you engage (undergraduate, graduate; health care, humanities; liberal arts, professional; local, national, global; adult, traditional age, etc.) and how will you succeed? Operations are the steps to implement strategy and therefore deliver on the mission. Too many university strategic plans are mostly outcomes or ideals (or unfunded “wish lists”), without an articulation of strategy.

Their understanding of strategy, however, suggests deficiencies in their understanding of market competition.

Strategy is the purpose for which you will be taking these operational steps. Operations address how to do things right, whereas strategy is about the right things to do.

Articulating the right things to do is difficult work. Roger Martin, former dean of the business school at the University of Toronto, has a wonderful test about plans versus strategy. He argues that you do not have an effective strategy if you and your competitors are doing the same things. Strategy exists if some competitors choose different, if not opposite, paths. Therefore, if the opposite of your strategic choices looks stupid, then all competitors are going to have pretty much the same strategy as you, doing you little good.

For example, the opposite of “performing high-impact research”? Perform low-impact research. The opposite of “provide all students with a transformational learning experience”? Provide some students with a transformative experience or provide all students with a less than transformative experience. While each opposite may occur in practice, rarely are they stated as institutional goals. How well do the strategic choices in your institution’s plan pass this opposites test? (Most do not, but they generate a pretty good laugh.)

That's really about scale and scope. If you're making steel, and Bethlehem is making steel, and you're both making money making steel, perhaps you ought to be thinking about making your steel a little bit better and selling it at a better price,  That shouldn't have to involve consultants and facilitators and all the other trappings of repeatedly meeting, retreating, visioning, and revisioning.  Anybody seen Bethlehem Steel lately?

In higher education, the continued existence of those U.S. News guides ought to be sufficient evidence of what matriculants (or their aspirational families) perceive as the better experience, and the price (third party payments notwithstanding) it commands.  Higher education types might not want to hear about market tests, but market tests have heard about you.

Furthermore, we in higher education seem quite enamored with five-year plans. Yet unlike operational priorities, strategy is not time bound. Most strategic plans tend to adopt an artificial focus of five years (the bold ones aim for 10 years or more). What is magical about 60 months? Why should time matter more than other variables that might define strategy and its direction? (For some, the answer is simply five years of reprieve before they have to go through the planning process again.)

The environment for most universities is volatile and variable, not static and predicable; it is challenge dependent and not time dependent. Yet, most plans are time bound. Therefore, institutions either: 1) revise their plans and priorities as the world evolves during that five-year window or 2) ignore some (or most) of what is in their plans as they respond to new challenges and pursue emergent opportunities. It’s also common to hear someone say, “Culture eats strategy for lunch (or breakfast),” which is fine. But the more substantive the strategy meal, the better, yes?

The result for most institutions is that faculty members, administrators, trustees, alumni and others spend a lot of time and energy developing documents that give incomplete directions. As the roads and conditions keep changing, colleges and universities may be better served by keeping an eye on the horizon rather than trying to follow turn-by-turn signs. Think compass, not map.

Hallelujah!  "They could have listened, thirty years ago. Perhaps they hadn't thought it through back then. Now, restoring a state of good repair will be more difficult."

SELLING THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISENGAGE?

In the Wall Street Journal, Charles Murray claims For Most People, College Is a Waste of Time.

The BA acquired its current inflated status by accident. Advanced skills for people with brains really did get more valuable over the course of the 20th century, but the acquisition of those skills got conflated with the existing system of colleges, which had evolved the BA for completely different purposes.

Outside a handful of majors -- engineering and some of the sciences -- a bachelor's degree tells an employer nothing except that the applicant has a certain amount of intellectual ability and perseverance. Even a degree in a vocational major like business administration can mean anything from a solid base of knowledge to four years of barely remembered gut courses.

The solution is not better degrees, but no degrees. Young people entering the job market should have a known, trusted measure of their qualifications they can carry into job interviews. That measure should express what they know, not where they learned it or how long it took them. They need a certification, not a degree.

The Pope Center's George Leef concurs.

Throughout our whole educational system, we are “asking too much from those at the bottom, asking the wrong things from those in the middle, and asking too little from those at the top,” he maintains. From kindergarten to college and from the smartest students to the dullest, our education system underperforms.

What is the matter with higher education in America? The main problem is that most students go to college because they think it’s the best or only path to a good job. Unfortunately, Murray argues, it hardly ever makes sense to go to a traditional four-year college simply to acquire vocational skills: “For the student who wants to become a good hotel manager, software designer, accountant, hospital administrator, farmer, high school teacher, social worker, journalist, optometrist, interior designer, or football coach, four years of class work is ridiculous."

I dissent in part from this line of thinking. I will not go so far as to concur with two dissenters Inside Higher Ed retained to rebut Mr Murray. First up, Kevin Carey, very much of the deaducationist establishment, as evidenced by his internally inconsistent piece. Here's what might be the peroration.

It’s wrong to say that too many students are going to college. Too few are going, particularly those from disadvantaged communities. The history of American education is one long series of decisions to open up the halls of academia to students who, at the time, were looked down upon as undeserving. The naysayers have been disproven, over and over again. More broadly, our nation has long had an usually open economy and education system, one that puts a premium on second and third chances and shies away from giving the government power to shut citizens out of educational opportunities based on some imperfect estimate of “ability.” Again, the wisdom of this philosophy in hindsight seems clear.

That language about disproving the naysayers fails to convince in the face of the high proportion of matriculants in remedial classes, the high attrition rate, administrative handwringing about retention, and the replacement of the B.A. with the M.A. as the credential for more responsible jobs. (Is there any other business that gets away with selling a defective product and then selling an upgrade in the same way that education has allowed the high school diploma to become a ticket for time served, the baccalaureate to become all too often the new high school diploma, and the master's degree possibly producing what the baccalaureate once represented?)