By Richard Ekman

Common sense has long argued for the creation of voluntary associations by colleges that possess similar characteristics. For small or geographically isolated institutions especially, a forum to compare notes with counterparts in other places can be very valuable. And some teaching and administrative functions are more feasible or cost-effective if they are approached on a multi-institutional basis. American colleges are well served by a tradition of institutional autonomy coupled with a number of national, regional, state, and local voluntary associations, as well as by other groupings based on common characteristics such as religious affiliation or philosophy of education.

At the same time, the competition among colleges—for students, publicity, and funds—has grown more intense, and this intensity has exacerbated a tendency at almost every institution to underscore its distinctive, even unique, features and sometimes to claim that it has no true peers. It is easy to forget that the commonalities among institutions are much more important than the differences. In fact, even the differences among institutions are more often differences of degree, not kind.

Two common strategies have dominated association responses. On the one hand, large numbers of institutions possess certain interests and problems in common, and the American Council on Education, the most comprehensive membership association, tries to articulate the interests of the entirety of higher education to Congress and Executive Branch agencies. Also very capacious, the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities tries to give voice to the consensus perspective of all private colleges and universities on federal legislative and regulatory questions.

At the other end of the spectrum, much smaller groupings of colleges find benefit in working closely together. For example, the 12 colleges in the Great Lakes Colleges Association—all reasonably affluent, selective, and located in the same geographic region—offer many academic programs on a shared basis. The seven “work colleges” share a philosophy of education, which they help one another to promote. The 28 Jesuit institutions share a distinctive religious tradition, as well as a form of governance.

But what about the middle ground of consortia and associations—such as CIC? CIC’s 588 members see their relatively smaller size and their commitments to undergraduate education and the liberal arts as giving them a point of view that differs from other private institutions—including those that are focused primarily on research, those that are very large, and those that do not view the liberal arts as central.

How does a college or university decide which of these groupings are useful and which associations to join? In large part, these choices depend on perception of value in the programs and services that the associations offer. Most of CIC’s programs, for example, focus on distinctive areas of assistance to college leaders that are not duplicated elsewhere and are informed in specific ways by the circumstances of smaller, private institutions. Indeed, we try hard not to duplicate others’ services.

Imitation is the highest form of flattery, but it may also lead to the perception that an association doesn’t offer distinctive benefits to its members. Here’s an example. For many years, ACE offered a program for department chairs, but few chairs from small colleges participated because they believed that the program was geared mainly to the circumstances of large departments. Many colleges subsequently asked CIC if it would run a program for chairs that was more tailored to the needs of small institutions. For six years, CIC has offered workshops for department chairs in smaller institutions. The program is of shorter duration than ACE’s and less expensive, and it focuses on the distinctive needs of chairs of small departments in private colleges and universities. The workshops have proven to be popular and, because they are not expensive, quite a few institutions send teams comprised of anywhere from three to ten department chairs, many of whom participate year after year.

Recently, two smaller private college associations—one defined by geography and the other by religious identity—announced their own workshops for department chairs. The programs are similar to CIC’s but emphasize certain features that are defining characteristics of their member institutions.

The range of choices now available to a department chair who is looking for help is impressive. The challenge for all of the associations, however, is to be clear about the distinctions among programs that may look superficially similar. The challenge for the individual college or department chair is to be clear about what is needed most. The people who believe that the gathering of chairs at the CIC workshops is too heterogeneous are hopeful that even the same topics could be discussed more fruitfully if limited to a group of chairs from very similar institutions. (My view, not surprisingly, is that—especially for department chairs who rarely have opportunities to rub elbows with their counterparts elsewhere, in contrast to, say deans and presidents, who attend many conferences as representatives of their institutions—a more diverse grouping is a significant advantage.)

What lessons can be drawn about the role of associations and consortia? The first is that every college shares many characteristics in common with others; dwelling on the distinctive features of a college is useful only up to a point, and we must resist the temptation, even in an era of intensifying competition, to overstate institutional uniqueness. Second, some differences are more important than others. I have come to believe, for example, that the line between the public and private sectors of higher education is fundamental and the interests of the two sectors are, for better or worse, becoming increasingly different. I say this even as public universities complain about less generous state government support and the need to—in their terms—“privatize” their base of support. Third, a membership association needs to be certain when expanding its range of activities that another association is not already providing the same service. Providing a redundant service squanders precious resources and ultimately does a disservice to individual colleges by undermining confidence that the association offers good value.

Other lessons emerge when contemplating the alternatives. In some countries, the associations of colleges are themselves government agencies or nongovernmental organizations that are supported largely by government funds. In addition to serving as common ground for similar institutions to confer, these associations are expected to implement government policies. In the United States, we have usually respected the autonomy of voluntary associations because they encourage a range of approaches and are more likely to foster innovation than are government entities.

We have come a long way since the 1960s when Franklin Patterson, the founding president of Hampshire College (MA), forged the first consortium among five very different colleges and universities in western Massachusetts. Its members—Smith, Hampshire, Mount Holyoke, Amherst, and University of Massachusetts—represented large and small, public and private, and varying degrees of admissions selectivity and affluence. And yet, the consortium has worked well. Patterson frequently argued as the consortium matured that a consortium offers a good way to enrich programming—every consortium member in effect is offering the courses of all the consortium members, for example—but, he said, a consortium will never save money. In the 1990s, however, consortia began to find ways to save money as well as enrich programs.

We have also come a long way in our expectations of national associations of colleges and universities. They now offer a wider array of services that address more varied needs of their members. We should sustain the current system of voluntary consortia and associations of colleges and universities, recognizing our commonalities whenever possible, even as the pressure to emphasize institutional differences grows stronger.