My kids love the snow. They can’t wait to have another snow storm after which they will spend hours snowboarding and just return home for periodic snacks and meals. My feelings are not quite as positive. I love the beauty of newly fallen snow; I hate driving in it, walking in it, and I equally hate the after snow clean up of my walkway and driveway. The more snow, often the greater the beauty and inevitably the greater the hatred.

On a University level, snow is very clearly a no win situation. From the first flake, the phones begin ringing and the emails flying regarding whether and when we will close. Even if the snow is still days away, the questions are already here. And when the snow begins, the problems actually multiply. Should we stay open and should classes be held? Should we close and if so, what facilities should remain open? And there is never a right answer. Thursday, a week ago, we looked carefully at the snow forecast and given most of the predictions, concluded that evening classes would be fine. At the beginning of the evening classes and even well into the evening, that prediction made sense and so did our decision to remain open. But for the last of the evening classes, they began and ended in fairly heavy snow complicated by slick roads and limited visibility. Was it the right decision to stay open? I think so because given when the decision was made, with no snow on the road and a forecast that focused on overnight accumulation, there could be no other logical decision. But with any snow decision, there is always second guessing and anything but unanimity regarding whether the correct decision has been made.

A few weeks earlier after another major snow storm, we closed one day and reopened at 12:30 PM the next day. We wanted to make sure that all major roads were clear and that travel to the University was as safe as it could be. But for many individuals, it appeared that classes starting in the middle of the day served as a deterrent to coming to class (and for some students starting at the regular time after such a storm would also have been a deterrent). Attendance suffered. And remember, once you get into a situation where many students are missing from class, there is a loss. First of all there is a loss of student class participation. Second, given that the number of students missing is significant, the dilemma a faculty member encounters is whether to repeat the class or just continue moving forward. My decision was always based on the difficulty of the material presented. If there was a significant number of students absent and the material was in my opinion critical, I repeated the class. This puts pressure on the remaining classes to complete everything that the course should cover. Once again, a no win situation.

There is another impact that comes from a snow storm. If classes are canceled, we sometimes have to make up the in-class time lost. We work within a parameter that most classes require 750 minutes for each credit earned. Clearly this time in class varies with certain classes, such as independent study, internships, department honors projects, graduate courses etc., but are always guided by this parameter. In constructing the calendar, we try to build in extra time in every class so that, even with a snow day or two, we still meet this parameter. But this year we have begun to run out of this extra time and consequently will have to extend a number of our classes into one of our snow/study days. Ideally, these are two extra days between classes and exams, when students can concentrate on the last minute studying that often precedes final exams. This year, the number of such study days will be cut, even if we have no further snow related cancelation.

And the final snow related problem comes down to money. In a mild winter, the money we set aside for snow (almost $300,000) can be used for other purposes. Nothing is lost and something extra is gained. More databases for the library or a classroom renovation or another worthwhile use. This year, the money will be used for snow and possibly we will use more than what was originally allocated, which means less for something else. Clearly a no choice situation but I’m certainly not happy about how the money is being used.

Overall, for all of us in education, there is no business like snow business.

The dean position has become one of the most challenging administrative positions in higher education. Not only does a dean need to provide long term as well as day to day academic leadership but the dean also needs to be a willing and, over time, successful fundraiser. To find a good dean, colleges and universities typically undertake a national search and often use a “head hunter” to help make sure that the effort is as comprehensive as possible. I am presently involved in two deans’ searches, both for very important schools at Hofstra University. We are looking for a business school dean and also a communication dean. We started with almost 250 candidates for these positions. As in any search, it takes almost no time to dramatically reduce the number. The reality is that almost two thirds of the applicants for these positions have almost no qualifications whatsoever for the job. The best example comes not from this search but from an earlier search where a brand new college graduate wrote that he wanted to work in higher education and felt that dean would certainly be a good starting position. Who could argue with logic like this?

Working with the remaining one-third of the candidates, the next step is to further reduce the number to those individuals whose qualifications are strong enough that they merit an interview. We had 24 such individuals, 10 in business and 14 in communication. And over a four day period of time we did an in-depth interview of each of these individuals. The “we” in this case is a committee that consists of faculty, administration, and trustees and the goal is always to develop a consensus slate of finalists. Here again, reducing the number of candidates is not that difficult.

In a number of cases, a candidate comes to the interview not fully prepared. If you go back to a pre-internet time, the expectation of what an outside candidate would know was lower. Colleges prepared materials; if you were familiar with what was sent to you, you were considered prepared. Now we send less but expect more with the internet being the facilitator of these higher expectations. Colleges and Universities have expansive websites and it is not difficult to drill down to schools, departments, majors, minors, and faculty members. If you have not done your homework, if you are not well prepared, and even if you look good on paper, you will likely not be a viable candidate after the interview. In other cases, a candidate may be knowledgeable but either says too much or too little. If there is a pattern of too much or too little(being inarticulate), once again the person will likely not be a viable candidate. Other cases involve a candidate whose experience is too limited, especially in the area of fundraising. If a person has not been involved in fundraising or expresses some reluctance to be fully engaged in fundraising, the candidate will also likely not become a finalist. And if there is anything unusual in a resume that can’t be fully explained, the person will also not likely make it to the next level. For example, if a person is in a different college or university every two or three years, it raises a caution flag even if the experiences are at a senior level. Not only will the candidate need to make a very compelling statement as to why this pattern exists, but the references checked must fully back up that statement.

Our 24 interviews resulted in five finalists—three in communication and two in business. At this stage (and with the prior agreement of the finalists), all the candidacies become public and each of the finalists is brought back to campus for a full day of interviews. There are key interviews with the President; there are interviews with all the faculty in the school; interviews with the other deans; interviews with administrators, staff, and in the case of communication, interviews with students. And everyone is encouraged to communicate their feelings and recommendations after these interviews to the either the President or to me. And we certainly place great weight on the feedback we receive. In addition, especially with outside candidates, the reference checking takes place simultaneously. What will we find out? If I (or another search committee member) know someone well where a finalist is working the information is often both accurate and very helpful. If I am cold calling, the value is much more limited. Often individuals go out of their way not to say anything negative but, by managing the news, valuable information is often not communicated. This is bad enough but there are also other times, when someone wants their problem to be someone else’s problem, when the positive is vastly exaggerated or perhaps manufactured. And at times, the person checking references doesn’t ask the right questions or isn’t willing to invest the time in follow up questions to make the conversation as worthwhile as it can be. More than once, I have been amazed at the questions I have been asked and the questions I haven’t been asked. For example, a good starting question is whether a candidate is collegial. Clearly collegiality is an essential quality in a dean, but asking about collegiality alone doesn’t tell you about conflict resolution skills, about consensus building, about respect for diversity, and about leadership qualities. I will always answer a question honestly but I don’t feel an obligation to provide answers to questions that haven’t been asked.

At the end of the day, this is an imperfect process. Presentation skills may at times trump substance; recommendations may not fully inform. Mistakes will be made. There are in fact times in my career when I have worked (relatively briefly) with these mistakes. However, I am not aware of any better process and handled with care it is inclusive, transparent, and mostly successful.

A major story in last Tuesday’s Inside Higher Ed was that Middlebury College “will plan its budgets each year by capping its ‘comprehensive fee’ – the equivalent of tuition, room and board at other private colleges—at an upward limit of 1 percentage point above the Consumer Price Index.” Certainly this move makes good sense in terms of positive publicity for Middlebury and it also provides a valuable fiscal restraint framework to operate under. But would I, as an economist, advocate this framework and does it make sense for higher education in general?

It may, in some cases, make good sense. If we are talking about a university that contemplates no or very few major changes internally and is subject to limited or no changes externally, such a system may make good sense. It certainly helps students and their families plan and the college to know in advance the financial parameters it operates under. Middlebury is very good institution with a very robust applicant pool that can continue to flourish within such a system. And if it also develops new funding sources, this fiscal discipline will be even easier to live with.

But if you are talking about an institution that is contemplating more major change, this system may not be workable. For example, if a college or university is making a major addition to its scholarship budget to either reshape the credentials of the entering class, or to generate more need or merit based financial aid, the system may not work. If a college or university is adding new majors or more first year or senior year seminars the system may not work. If a school is committed to a significant change in its student faculty ratio or if a school wants to implement a more robust co-curricular program or more student counseling or more academic advisement the system may not work. There are also external variables to take into consideration. What if there is a major change in payroll taxes, energy costs, health care costs, technology costs? Can these cost increases always be absorbed to make sure that tuition increases are limited to no more than one percent above the CPI? What if government funding or loan opportunities decrease? What if expenditures on intercollegiate athletics need to rise, can we always adhere to such limits? I know there is a possibility of every major cost increase being offset by a major cost decrease but is there really a likelihood of this happening?

Implementing a tuition limitation mechanism in the absence of planning and without continuous assessment is not a workable long term system. Tuition is a dependent variable; dependent on a host of educational, student life, and external variables. Let the planning come first; let assessment always be part of the process; and then set the tuition rate. Increases should absolutely be limited to the extent possible but formulas aren’t the answer.

I know there is important work that all of us in higher education need to do. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education and Public Agenda poll documents a perception among the public that we in higher education are more interested in “the bottom line” rather than the educational experience. Middlebury is responding to this public perception in a very reassuring manner. We all need to reassure the public. But at the same time the public needs to be educated that a good education costs money and continuous improvement of the educational experience may cost more money. Limit tuition increases by all means; limit such increases by a link to the CPI only if and when it makes sense.

I have just made my airline reservations to Fort Lauderdale for the middle of February. This is not a vacation; rather I am serving on an ABA reaccreditation team for Nova Southeastern Law School. Over the years, I have served as a Middle States periodic reviewer (most recently as the first reviewer for Johns Hopkins and the second reviewer for American); ABA reviewer (most recently for Memphis Law School) and during my earlier life as a business school dean, I served not only on visiting teams but as a member of the Initial Accreditation Committee of AACSB. I have also been on the receiving end of accreditation visits numerous times — just recently we had 14 reaccreditation visits at Hofstra in the last two years.

I have a very high regard for the peer review process. Almost without exception, the teams I have served on and the teams that have visited Hofstra have been as diligent and objective as a group of individuals can be. Yes, on rare occasion I have had the sense that a visiting team has been overly picky. And yes, on rare occasion I have felt that a visiting team should have asked more questions.

From my recent service as well as my earlier service, I have also sometimes had a sense that the schools with the most prestigious reputations, at times, get a pass because reviewers feel that their overall reputation justifies overlooking some individual standards.

But overall, I have tremendous respect for those involved in the peer review process. It takes significant time and effort to prepare for an accreditation review and it takes significant time and effort to be a reviewer. Any school, college, or university that I have reviewed or visited, I have researched extremely well as part of the process. And any part of Hofstra that has been subject to accreditation (and there have been many) I have understood much more clearly at the conclusion of the process. My feeling is that, overwhelmingly those involved in any aspect of the peer review accreditation process are better for the experience.

Every year, I also participate in the US News Review of Colleges and Universities. Those asked to review are the Presidents, Provosts and Deans of Admission and the response rate is just under 50%. The goal of this review process is one we can all support: namely, providing useful information in an easy to digest format that the public can conveniently access and use as part of the decision making process.

Toward this end, I am sent a list of all national colleges and universities and asked to provide an overall assessment of each one (using a five point scale) and I do the best I can to respond. In some cases I know the college or university involved very well; in other cases, I know one or more programs or faculty members or administrators at the institution and I base my ranking on this microcosm of the institution.

As a long serving university administrator, I probably know the landscape of higher education better than most, but the reality is that at best I can provide a credible assessment on a relatively small minority of the institutions I am asked to rank.

I believe that the vast majority of those of us who are asked to respond to this survey recognize that there are significant weaknesses in the US News methodology beginning with the peer assessment. And yet, here we are providing credibility but likely not expertise and accuracy to the process.

We should as a group, either make a commitment to being fully up to speed on any and all institutions we comment on, or we should refrain from providing an assessment. Comprehensive peer assessment programs are the backbone of higher education; superficial evaluations, on the other hand, weaken us all.

I am fortunate to have a broad vantage point on education that spans kindergarten through graduate school. In addition to my position at Hofstra I have served on two school boards, the first at a Quaker School my kids were attending at the time and currently I serve on my local school board where my kids now attend. I also serve on the board for ProjectGrad Long Island, which provides extra support for economically disadvantaged school districts. And I have worked closely with Hofstra’s NOAH program, which was the template for New York State’s HEOP program, for over 25 years.

Based on all this experience, it is clear to me that success in higher education depends on the strength of the foundation a student receives in his or her K through 12 education (or afterwards but prior to beginning the full college educational experience, such as in a HEOP program). There is no substitute for this foundation; past schooling and past performance is a key indicator of future success in college and beyond.

Imagine my surprise then, when I arrive for a vacation in Hawaii, to find Furlough Fridays. In part, Furlough Fridays means that for 17 Fridays there will no public school whatsoever in Hawaii, and that the schools will in fact be totally closed. New York has also cut back on payments to school districts and across the country there is more of the same though none seems as draconian as the Hawaii position.

State and local governments need to have balanced budgets and to achieve such budgets in the midst of a severe economic downturn requires sacrifice from everyone. One form of sacrifice is that the government workers are furloughed for a limited period of time.

But local governments and state governments need to develop priorities and just as safety should not be compromised, education should not be compromised either. Think about all the kids involved, all the grades involved, and all the education that will be unavailable during this time. How could this have happened?

Part of the reason is that forgoing education is, for a period of time, an invisible loss. It won’t be clear for months or perhaps years what the actual loss is. It could be students who don’t read as well as they would with more time in class, or the math or technology skills will be compromised; perhaps the SAT scores will ultimately be lower—fewer students will get into the schools that they potentially could get into; some students may be discouraged from or left out of higher education. Ultimately the state involved or the country will pay the price — a less educated population; less able to function in a complex global environment; who earn less and pay less taxes that the states and localities have great need of.

There may be another factor involved in Furlough Fridays and other cuts in public education. There is a feeling that teachers have a tremendously good deal and so they should sacrifice more to keep school open and school districts whole. Teachers have summers off, they have numerous holiday breaks, and their day is over often by the middle of the afternoon.

What this doesn’t take into consideration is how difficult teaching is, how highly educated and up to date a teacher needs to be, and how critical good teaching is to the continued success of our country. If we want the best possible teachers, we need to provide the incentives that will encourage such individuals to pursue teaching.

Now I know there are examples of unions that have successfully negotiated for too many conference and planning days or too many salary steps, and I know there are examples of tenured teachers in the public schools that have lost that passion that one needs to be an effective teacher. I don’t want to minimize these issues. Unions need to do their part to curb excesses; and teachers need to be part of a continuous peer review process that moves ineffective teachers out of the system.

But the answer to these issues should never be the withholding of education from our kids. Our generation has certainly left enough world, national, and local problems unresolved. Our kids deserve better. At least we should make sure they have the best tools and the highest skill levels necessary to help bring about that better world that we have been unable to secure for them.

At our mid-year commencement a few weeks ago, a faculty member I have known for many years asked me if I had been reading his Huffington Post blog on a regular basis. I answered yes and he asked me what I thought.

Before I share my response, let me tell you more about the faculty member. I actually have known this person since he was an undergraduate at The City College and I was teaching there as an adjunct while completing my Ph.D. One semester, there he was, registered for my basic economics course. And all during the course he complained that my economics was just not liberal enough for his liking.

My feeling at the time, and it still holds today, is that there are foundational basic economic principles that need to learned first before a student should be exposed to either far left wing or far right thinking on these issues. But in actuality, I didn’t mind his complaints since they were coming from a very bright, interested, and focused student. This student earned a high B for the course and this was the last I would see or hear from him for over 20 years.

Then one day, a personnel folder came across my desk. It was a recommendation that this person be hired as an assistant professor in our education area. He had the terminal degree, the professional experience, and very strong recommendations. He was hired, and his performance at Hofstra in teaching, in service, in scholarship have all been outstanding. Just one indication of this excellence is that this person has won the Teacher of the Year Award for the entire University which is the highest recognition we give to teaching excellence. To win the award a faculty member must be rated as a top teacher by graduating students for a three to five year period. Furthermore, not only does this person help train passionate teaching practitioners, he remains in contact with them after they enter the field so that they continue to benefit from his expert mentoring.

The background is important in the context of my comment on his blog. I indicated to him, that, though the education topics discussed were clearly very important, there were many cheap shot personal comments about leading political and corporate figures that offended me and, in my opinion, seriously undermined the credibility of the points made.

We have a number of our 500 full-time faculty members who write blogs. And just within the last few days, I have received a number of emails complaining about another faculty member’s most recent blog. Once again we are dealing here with a highly regarded faculty member. The gist of the complaints is that the faculty member unleashed a tirade against President Obama and described the President in a highly offensive and inappropriate manner. I responded to one of the individuals who emailed me that I agreed with him in regard to the blog being offensive but that I also supported the faculty member’s right to make such comments. He responded in return that I should use my “bully pulpit” to challenge and by inference condemn the faculty member.

Certainly an interesting point but I strongly feel that this is not the appropriate role of a chief academic officer. My bully pulpit should be focused on making sure that we provide the best education possible for our students. My pulpit is focused on excellence in teaching, on teaching informed by scholarship, on teaching that responds to changing times. My pulpit is used in support of diversity, in support of academic integrity, in support of standards, in support of outcomes assessment.

Faculty are very smart individuals and there is no shortage of political (and other) opinions emanating from faculty. And often, I find that my opinion is different from and at times in total disagreement with positions taken by individual faculty. But it would be a bad use of my time and energy to confront opinions which faculty have every right to have. As an educator, I choose to focus on the educational forest, not the opinion trees.

A day after our December commencement exercises and two days after a 24” snowstorm, I am on an airplane flying to Hawaii. At this and every other commencement, I always watch the parade of graduates – from the bachelor’s level to the doctorate- march across the stage. And as they march, I wonder whether we have done all that we can do to provide an education that will serve their needs and society’s needs.

I also sometimes draw “dress for success” conclusions that may have no basis in fact. A well dressed graduate is more conscientious than a sloppy graduate. A tie on a graduate is a better indicator of future success than a visible tattoo. Earrings look professional; other facial piercings look painful and pathetic. And of course there is the shoe theory. Polished dress shoes demonstrate a person who puts his or her best foot forward (pardon the pun); flip flops and sneakers at occasions like this demonstrate character flaws (perhaps a person who flip flops or a sneaky person).

The more graduates at the ceremony, the more theories I develop. And having now gone, over the years, to over 200 commencement ceremonies, I clearly have had the opportunity to develop and refine numerous theories. However, at the end of the commencement day, two facts always stand out. Looks and generalizations can be deceiving and we just can’t be certain that the education we provide instills the knowledge and the values we cherish the most.

Now, how does this relate to my flying to Hawaii? A ten hour flight provides great uninterrupted time to read and reflect and what I chose to read was Stones into Schools, Greg Mortenson’s new book. The flight was, in fact, long enough and my two kids (ages 11 and 8) were well behaved enough that I was able to read the book cover to cover.

What a great sequel to Three Cups of Tea and what a great story about how one person (and subsequently a few people) can make a huge difference. As the subtitle states, the book focuses on “promoting peace with books, not bombs in Afghanistan and Pakistan” and this is the kind of peace that clearly stands the test of time. In reality, Greg’s Central Asia Institute staff might never pass my commencement dress test theories, but their work has earned my enduring admiration and made what could be a huge and permanent difference for these countries.

What I want an education to provide, in addition to the liberal arts foundation plus the area of concentration, is a graduate, who like Greg, when the opportunity arises, will make a difference for his or her family and for society. Have we done all that we can to provide such an education? I am not sure we have. Is there an outcomes measure for this education? I am not sure we know how to measure it. But without such an outcome, we may never achieve the better world we all desire, and education can never realize its maximum potential.