Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Planning for preeminence: perceptions of prestige in Catholic universities of the western United States
(USC Thesis Other)
Planning for preeminence: perceptions of prestige in Catholic universities of the western United States
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 1
PLANNING FOR PREEMINENCE: PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE IN CATHOLIC
UNIVERSITIES OF THE WESTERN UNITED STATES
by
Rocco John Cifone
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2013
Copyright 2013 Rocco John Cifone
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 2
Table of Contents
List of Tables 4
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Introduction 8
Background of the Problem 8
Statement of the Problem 8
Purpose of the Study 16
Theoretical perspective. 16
Research Questions 18
Significance of the Study 19
Summary of Methodology 21
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions of the Study 23
Defining Reputation and Prestige 25
Conclusion 27
Organization of the Dissertation 28
Chapter Two: Literature Review 29
Review Methodology 30
Background 34
Market Differentiation 36
The Challenge for Institutions 41
Strategic Issues in Higher Education 44
The Mission Statement 45
Quality of Student Life 48
Academics 50
Pursuing Prestige 55
Resources 58
The Challenge for Catholic Higher Education 59
The Mission of Catholic Higher Education 71
Case Studies in Mission Fulfillment 74
Strategic Planning and Marketing 79
Loyola Marymount University 84
Conclusion 88
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 3
Chapter Three: Research Methodology 90
Research Questions 90
Theoretical Framework 91
Overall Comparison of P, PS, and R Institutions 94
Research Design and Instrumentation 97
Procedures and Sample 99
Subjects/Participants 100
Document review 102
Data Collection and Analysis 103
U.S. News and World Report Ranking Methodology, In Brief 105
Summary 107
Chapter Four: Results and Analysis 108
Research Questions 108
Overall Scores and Change Measures: U.S. News And World Report America’s
Best Colleges 109
Overall Scores and Institutional Groupings 111
Research Questions 113
Research Question #2 119
Research Question #3 134
Other Findings 148
Conclusion 152
Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions And Recommendations 153
Summary 153
Research Conclusions 164
Case Study: Georgetown University 169
Recommendations 172
Figure 1. Recasting of Strategic Planning Goals 174
Conclusion 185
References 187
Appendix Western Catholic Universities Survey 198
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 4
List of Tables
Table 1: Identifying Investments and Measuring Prestige in the Prestige Generators
(Brewer et al., 2002) 93
Table 2: Chart of Sample Institutions and Common Characteristics 100
Table 3: Survey and Response Rates Overall and by Institution 101
Table 4: Respondents’ Roles within the University 102
Table 5: Weighting of Measures 105
Table 6: USNWR Overall Score by University over Time from 2001 to 2012 110
Table 7: USNWR Overall Ranking by University over Time from 2001 to 2012 110
Table 8: USNWR Peer Assessment (Undergraduate Academic Reputation) Score
Rated From 1 to 5 by University over Time from 2001 to 2012 111
Table 9: Three Groups of Schools Included in Survey, Alignment with Brewer,
Gates & Goldman Model 113
Table 10: Student Selectivity Level by University over Time from 2001 to 2012 114
Table 11: Percentage of Faculty Who Are Full-Time by University over Time
from 2001 to 2012 115
Table 12: Student: Faculty Ratio (X:1) by University over Time from 2001 to 2012 115
Table 13: Alumni Giving Rates by University over Time from 2001 to 2012 116
Table 14: Endowment Levels ($MM) by University over Time from 2001 to 2012 117
Table 15: NCAA I Status by University over Time from 2001 to 2012 118
Table 16: Number of Men’s NCAA/NAIA Scholarship Sports by University
over Time from 2001 to 2012 119
Table 17: Number of Women’s NCAA/NAIA Scholarship Sports by University
over Time from 2001 to 2012 119
Table 18: Existence of a Strategic Plan 121
Table 19: Existence of A Strategic Plan by Tier 121
Table 20: Top Strategic Goals of Sample Universities by Group 123
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 5
Table 21: Strategic Directions that Should be Implemented to Improve
Perceptions as a”Preeminent Catholic University” 124
Table 22: Top Three Challenges Facing the Institution, Top Group versus
Middle/Lower Tier Schools 127
Table 23: Challenges Facing Your Institution by Group 128
Table 24: Most Recent Capital Construction Projects On Campus by Group 129
Table 25: Change in Number of Majors over Past 5 to 7 Years 130
Table 26 :Change in Number of Endowed Chairs over Past 5 to 7 Years by Group 131
Table 27 :Reported Financial Health of the Institution by Group 132
Table 28: Factors Influencing Financial Health of the Institutio by Group 133
Table 29: Change In Intercollegiate Sports Reputation over Past 5 to 7 Years by
Group 134
Table 30: Influence of Various Intercollegiate Sports on Institutional Factors 134
Table 31: USNWR Student Selectivity Rank (Masters – West) by University
over Time from 2001 to 2012 138
Table 32: USNWR Enrollment Yield (Number Enrolled/Number Accepted) by
University over Time from 2001 to 2012 139
Table 33: USNWR Graduation and Retention Rank by University over Time
from 2001 to 2012 140
Table 34: USNWR Faculty Resources Rank (Masters-West) by University
over Time from 2001 to 2012 141
Table 35: USNWR Financial Resources Rank (Masters-West) by University
over Time from 2001 to 2012 142
Table 36: USNWR Alumni Giving Rank (Master-West) by University
over Time from 2001 to 2012 143
Table 37: USNWR Percent of Student Body that is Catholic by University
over Time from 2001 to 2012 145
Table 38: Key Dependent Measures by Religious Order by Year
U.S. News & World Report Data (Masters-West) 147
Table 39: Collegiate Athletic Program Proxy Prestige Evaluation 148
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 6
Table 40: Identification of Top Catholic Universities Nationally, Top Three
Mentions (n=33) 150
Table 41: Identification of Top Catholic Universities In the West Top Three
Mentions (n=33) 150
Table 42: Comparison of Own University to Top Catholic Universities in the West 151
Table 43: Key U.S. News and World Report Measures Comparison Part I, 2012
Undergraduate Academic Reputation and Graduation & Retention Measures 175
Table 44: Key U.S. News and World Report Measures Comparison Part II, 2012
Faculty Resources Measures 176
Table 45: Key U.S. News and World Report Measures Comparison Part III, 2012
Student Selectivity Measures 177
Table 46: Key U.S. News and World Report Measures Comparison Part IV, 2012
Financial Resources and Alumni Giving Measures 178
Table 47: University Alumni Giving Rates 179
Table 48: University Alumni Giving Rates Indices Indexed against Number
One School – Notre Dame 180
Table 49: Collegiate Athletic Program Proxy Prestige Evaluation 181
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 7
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine what effect the perception of an
institution’s prestige has on strategic planning undertaken by American Catholic colleges
and universities and whether these schools engage in purposeful and effective positioning
of themselves in the market. The study considered efforts to achieve preeminence
amongst comparable Catholic higher education institutions situated in the Western U.S.
Nine Catholic colleges and universities situated in California, Oregon and Washington
met the research design criteria. Administrators and faculty from these nine institutions
were contacted via survey and were represented in the subject respondent population.
Cross-tabulation and analysis of the survey responses correlated with the institutions’
quality dimensions as rated by U.S. News & World Report Annual College Rankings in
2001, 2008, and 2012, were reviewed in light of the identified prestige indicators
advanced by Brewer, Gates and Goldman (2006). Subjects’ responses revealed prestige
perception and awareness of preeminence that strongly correlated with their institutions’
U.S. News and World Report rankings as well as their groupings according to the prestige
indicator rubric outlined by Brewer et al. Top Level institutions in this study also
reflected accurate self-awareness in identifying themselves in the top tier of Catholic
higher education institutions in their region, consistent with the U.S. News & World
Report Masters-West ranking, but recognized that they did not belong to the elite national
group of the most prestigious Catholic schools in the U.S. Responses to questions
exploring aspects of strategic planning supported Brewer et al.’s identification of
distinctions between different categories of institutions as to the types of challenges
identified and how priorities are shaped for investing for the school’s future.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 8
Chapter One: Introduction
Background of the Problem
Higher education is a vital part of the U.S. economy and society subject to the
same market forces of supply, demand, competition, and a changing environment as
business and industry. With institutions of higher education available to serve almost
every American demographic niche, the task of standing out in terms of reputation and
prestige is daunting. Institutions of eminence struggle to remain eminent, with frequent
drives for more money, applications for grants, aggressive faculty recruiting, better
architecture and the latest equipment, and shrewd, energetic solicitation of exceptional
and highly talented students (Keller, 2004). Consumers and providers of higher
education are paying attention to measures of reputation and prestige when choosing
between institutions of higher education.
This economic sector faces challenges from more “customer-oriented,” for-profit
institutions as well as its own competition for students and financial resources (Holley &
Harris, 2010). Forced to survive or succumb, traditional institutions of higher education
are required to make strategic choices in order to stand out in prestige among their peers
(Mause, 2009). A significant measure of institutional prestige is the annual ranking of
colleges and universities as determined by U.S. News and World Report (Brewer, Gates
& Goldman, 2002; Kimball, 2011; Morphew & Swanson, 2011).
Statement of the Problem
American Catholic higher education in a new century. Catholic colleges and
universities in the United States are dealing with critical challenges to their market
positions in the contemporary consumer economy in addition to questions about what
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 9
constitutes Catholic collegiate identity, mission, and values (Morey & Piderit, 2006).
There are approximately 220 Catholic colleges and universities in the U.S. and, as Heft
(2009) observed, one must be wary of generalizing about them. While all of these
schools are identified as Catholic institutions, they are led and staffed by different types
of people with different backgrounds. While a handful of these schools offer doctoral
programs in Catholic theology the vast majority do not offer such programming. Student
bodies across these Catholic colleges and universities vary greatly in terms of size,
background and level of Catholic representation, ranging from a high of about 90%
Catholic students ranging to a low of less than 40% Catholic students.
For many of these schools, there exist increasing competition and market
pressures to remain relevant and survive in the contemporary collegiate marketplace.
Given the premise of increased competition and market pressures among institutions of
higher education merely to survive in today’s consumer economy (Bok, 2003; Keller,
2004), parochial colleges and universities are further challenged to increase enrollments,
endowments, rankings, and prestige in order to compete in the larger universe of the
higher education marketplace while remaining authentic to the religious and spiritual
purpose of their founders (Supiano, 2008). While the number of Catholic colleges and
universities is not overwhelming, it is hardly insignificant, and many of these schools,
particularly those below the first tier of highly prestigious Catholic schools, must contend
with distinguishing themselves from their Catholic peer institutions in an effort to
compete for desirable students and to justify continued alumnae interest and donor
contributions.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 10
American Catholic colleges and universities exist within the cultural context of
the United States (secular) and the American Catholic Church (spiritual). Catholic
colleges and universities, thus, operate in an atmosphere of cultural as well as capitalistic
antagonism and must compete successfully with all other higher education institutions in
the United States in order to survive. Many of these institutions feel they are trying to do
business while under a siege of competing demands: for example, operating on
escalating financial margins; engaging in the ongoing quest for funding and development
dollars; addressing the increasing educational consumerism of parents and potential
students; satisfying boosters who insist on winning athletic programs; balancing the need
to stay intellectually competitive and current with secular counterparts; contending with
the disappearance of members of religious communities on campus and the advance of
lay leadership in administration, the faculty, and boards of trustees; and answering to the
bishops and a Roman Magisterium who have their own ideas about how Catholic
colleges and universities should conduct themselves (Morey & Piderit, 2006; Tripole,
2000; Wilcox, 2000).
Perception and positioning in the marketplace. Since the 1980s, U.S. News
and World Report has published annual rankings of colleges and universities across the
United States. The criteria used over the years have varied, from a simple survey of
presidents based solely on perceived reputation to the present-day methodology that
includes such factors as peer assessment, retention rates, financial resources, and student
selectivity. These “measures of excellence,” statistics intended to define quality in the
magazine’s opinion, have in fact become the benchmarks for enrollment management and
capital campaign initiatives across higher education. In some ways, U.S. News “has
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 11
become the tail that wags the dog” (Farrell & Van der Werf, 2007). The magazine’s
annual college guide does not merely compile data on what colleges are doing. It has
changed the way many college officials determine their institutional priorities.
U.S. News and World Report’s Annual Rankings of America’s Best Colleges and
Universities have become indicators of excellence across higher education and play a
major role in perceived reputation and prestige (Morphew & Swanson, 2011). “Like it or
not, it’s an indicator of what’s going on, or at least the perception of what’s going on,”
said Daniel J. Curran, president of the University of Dayton, a Catholic institution that is
Ohio’s largest private college. Catching other colleges’ attention is important, he
observed. Reputation matters to alumni, to donors, and to prospective students (Ashburn,
2008).
It is apparent that consumers are paying attention to the U.S. News and World
Report rankings. According to Fiske (2008) the rankings have become a “gold mine” for
the publication. Recently the U.S. News annual “America’s Best Colleges” issue was
among 17 perennial "moneymakers," according to a list compiled by Media Industry
Newsletter. Only one other U.S. News issue ("America's Best Hospitals") made that
perennials list, which also included the likes of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue,
People's "Sexiest Man Alive," and Forbes's "400 Richest Americans." Neither Time nor
Newsweek had a cover on the perennials list (Selingo, 2007).
The Role of Strategic Planning. Moore and Diamond (2000) argue that a
strategic plan is critical to communicating an organization’s identity, values, direction,
and aspirations to both internal and external constituencies. Borrowed from the universe
of business and industry as a tool for systemic change, strategic planning processes are
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 12
becoming ubiquitous in contemporary higher education institutions (Kimball, 2011).
Successful strategic management requires positioning, competitive advantage in areas
relevant to the marketplace, and superior execution.
The quest for these critical elements requires leadership—vision, clarity of
mission, and the ability to engage the people who are necessary to bring the vision
to life in the marketplace. We believe that the planning process itself is critical,
both to the formulation of mission and distinctive capabilities that are relevant to
the marketplace, and to developing the strategies and building the commitment to
superior execution (Moore & Diamond, p. 74).
Bryson (1996) defined strategic planning as a disciplined effort to produce
fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization is, what it
does, and why it does it (pp. 4-5). Rowley, Luhan and Dolence (1997) stated that
strategic planning is change that is purposefully induced to shape the diffracted elements
of an unknown future into a sequence of elements that lead to a preferred future (p. 10).
Furthermore they defined strategic planning as a formal process designed to help an
organization identify and maintain optimal alignment with the most important elements
of its environment (Rowley, Luhan & Dolence, 1997, p. 15). For an institution of higher
education, successful strategic planning necessarily integrates fundraising and donor
outreach with market differentiation while maintaining an eye toward supporting, or at
least not contradicting, the school’s commitment to mission, values and academic
achievement (Stevick, 2010). Some research has indicated that donors to colleges and
universities are less motivated to support institutional goals and more highly motivated to
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 13
fund institutional programs that directly and positively impact the community, however
that may be defined (Weerts & Hudson, 2009).
Bryson (1996) contended that organizations engage in strategic planning for many
diverse reasons and while reaping many similar benefits. A more traditional view sees
strategic planning as essential to the long-range growth, prioritization, and management
of resources in achieving and measuring outcomes of excellence. An obvious potential
benefit of this approach is the promotion of strategic thought and action. A second
benefit is improved decision making. Strategic planning focuses attention on the crucial
issues and challenges an organization faces, and it helps key decision makers figure out
what they should do about them. The third benefit, enhanced organizational
responsiveness and improved performance, flows from the first two. Finally, strategic
planning can directly benefit the organization’s people. Policy makers and key decision
makers can better fulfill their roles and meet their responsibilities. Teamwork and
expertise are likely to be strengthened among organization members.
Rowley, Luhan and Dolence (1997) quoted Clark Kerr, the venerable former
president of the University of California, as having once observed that the major test of a
modern U.S. university is how wisely and how quickly it is able to adjust to new
possibilities: “It is risk, not replication, that drives this active stance” (p.25). In justifying
why colleges and universities need strategic planning, Rowley, et al. claimed that:
The combination of sectarian origins, medieval traditions, dedication to free
speech, and job security derived from tenure has preserved the academy from
unwanted or injurious intrusion. At the same time, these important protections
have also helped insulate the academy from external forces (p.17)…
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 14
The academy must adapt to what is taking place in a world where global
competition holds the key to success. If college and university graduates are not
able to converse in the languages or the cultures of the marketplace or if they lack
the skills to trade effectively in it, the U.S. economy and society will find other
sources for this talent (p.19).
Thus, it appears that value is the very essence of strategy, that is, if an institution of
higher education cannot deliver products or outcomes that are of value to the greater
society, the market will find other outlets for them.
Alfred (2006) defined strategy as “a systematic way of positioning an institution
with stakeholders in its environment to create value that differentiates it from competitors
and leads to a sustainable advantage” (p.6). Therefore, it appears that strategy and
strategic thinking become important tools for achieving reputation and prestige in the
marketplace (Morphew & Swanson, 2011). Underlying this perspective are four
important strategic questions about the future of any institution of higher education and
its position in the market:
1. Who are the stakeholders?
2. What kind of value is created?
3. Does the value created lead to advantage by differentiating the institution
from its competitors?
4. Is the advantage sustainable?
Strategy seeks to establish advantage. Leaders interested in strategy try to create value
for stakeholders in ways that cannot be easily duplicated by competitors. According to
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 15
Alfred, strategic planning occurs when the focus shifts from the achievement of short-
term goals to long-term differentiation.
Points of departure. Loyola Marymount University has completed seven years
of a strategic plan implementation process that provides the impetus for this study.
LMU’s strategic plan “takes as its premise the conviction that LMU is positioned to
become the preeminent Catholic university in the western United States.” LMU’s
strategic plan “explicates five interconnected initiatives that, introduced methodically and
carefully within the existing University community, will allow Loyola Marymount to
become the preeminent Catholic University of the West.” Furthermore, as the strategic
plan’s introduction states, the culture, managerial ethos, and ideology LMU used in
guiding it toward this bold goal are reflected in the strategic plan’s and university’s
mission statement:
Loyola Marymount University is dedicated to the education and development of
the whole person, the pursuit of academic excellence, advancement of
scholarship, the service of faith, and the promotion of justice. As a Catholic
institution, the University takes its fundamental inspiration from the Jesuit and
Marymount traditions of its founding religious orders. Loyola Marymount
University seeks to foster in each member of its community respect for the dignity
of the individual, a devotion to intellectual and spiritual life, an appreciation for
diversity, and a thirst for justice in all endeavors. Loyola Marymount University
strives to send forth ‘men and women for others,’ to lead and to serve.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 16
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine what linkages exist between the
implementation of a strategic plan and the perception of an institution’s prestige in the
context of American Catholic higher education. The study measured and compared
progress in achieving preeminence amongst comparable Catholic university and college
peers in the western United States that have implemented a strategic plan since 2001. In
effect, this study will produce a market analysis of Roman Catholic institutions of higher
education in the western United States and their perceived positions of prestige. The
study culminated in an examination of the subject institutions’ overall positions
according to U.S. News and World Report Annual Rankings of America’s Best Colleges
and Universities in 2001, 2008, and 2011.
Theoretical perspective.
Brewer, Gates and Goldman (2002) introduced what they termed “an industry
study” of higher education focusing on the nature of competition among institutions and
the strategies they pursue in order to achieve prestige in the marketplace. Among the
variables analyzed in their study were student enrollment profiles, private giving to the
institution, financial health, resource allocation, and marketing behaviors.
Brewer et al. (2002) defined reputation and prestige as “assets that allow
institutions of higher education to convey non-price information to customers” (p. 27).
Reputation can be good or bad, and it is directly related to an institution’s ability to
consistently meet some set of relatively specific customer demands. The other non-price
asset, prestige, is always positive, and its source is more intangible. The authors wrote:
"Institutions do not build prestige in the student market by being innovative or by
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 17
identifying and meeting new types of student demands. Rather, they build prestige by
essentially mimicking the institutions that already have prestige" (Brewer et al., 2002, p.
66). As a result, innovation is not particularly valued or rewarded, either in pedagogy or
program development (Morphew & Swanson, 2011). Those are more clearly strategies
aimed at reputation.
Institutions possessing a high level of prestige often cannot demonstrate that they
have met identifiable customer needs (Barron, 2012). What they can demonstrate is the
acquisition of things that tend to be associated with exceptionally high-quality service.
Morphew and Swanson (2011) stated that, increasingly, prestigious higher education
institutions reference their rankings in order to secure their reputation while less
prestigious ones seek to improve their reputation by internally using their rankings to
design strategic plans that address any perceived deficiencies revealed by the rankings.
Brewer et al. contended that "higher education is an industry in which consumers
are often under informed in the sense that they cannot objectively evaluate the quality of
the service before they actually purchase it" (p. 19). This is a common circumstance in
service industries, but particularly true in higher education, where the emergence of
benefits may not be apparent for years and decades. In such circumstances, the regard of
the institution held by customers, other funders, or peers becomes paramount. Thus,
identification of the “best” providers may be based purely on the opinion of customers, or
may also include the insights of the producers themselves or industry experts (also,
Kimball, 2011). On the basis of this information on the “best” providers, customers
develop images of the features of good service providers (Brewer et al., pp. 28-29). As
mentioned above, one significant tool used by consumers and institutions alike in
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 18
assessing the “best” providers in higher education, or their prestige, is U.S. News and
World Report’s annual college rankings.
In proclaiming a strategic plan to promote its preeminence among Catholic
institutions of higher education, as does LMU for example, one can expect such an
institution to aspire to be the “best provider” of Catholic education amongst its peers.
Specifically, it becomes incumbent for the institution’s leaders to sustain such an
aspiration in the context of strategic planning and the resulting resource management in
their pursuit of such prestige.
Research Questions
The present study seeks to answer the following research questions:
1. How do similar Catholic institutions of higher education in the western
United States compare in achieving the goal of perceived market
preeminence as evidenced by accepted measures of prestige, according to
Brewer, Gates & Goldman?
2. How have institutional leaders implemented elements of their strategic plans
over the past decade in order to encourage systemic change that promotes
prestige amongst their peers?
3. How are Catholic institutions of higher education faring, generally, in
competing against each other in the western United States for prestige and
increased market share?
These research questions were the basis for the data collection, analysis and subsequent
discussion of the data. For each research question, detailed information and analysis is
presented in the conclusions and recommendations of the study.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 19
Significance of the Study
The first important and most basic contribution of this study is to identify the
general characteristics of “preeminence” in the American Catholic higher education
marketplace and correlate them with the research of Brewer et al. (2002) on prestige and
reputation. Brewer et al.’s approach was guided by the “industry study” perspective.
Industry study is a generic term used to describe a variety of research approaches in
which the unit of analysis is the set of economic entities serving an identifiable market (p.
4). Within the general industry study framework, Brewer et al. focused their attention on
conduct, especially strategic choices and competitive behavior, of providers in the higher
education industry. Their examination of conduct was organized around four key
markets that generate revenues (student enrollments, research funding, public fiscal
support/private giving, and athletics) for institutions.
In contextualizing the Brewer et al. research to Catholic higher education, the
present study focused on institutional decisions such as whether to pursue prestige
through any or all of the four prestige-generators: student quality, faculty and research
funding, fiscal support/private giving, or sports. Institutions are also shaped by decisions
about the level and breadth of their offerings in each of these markets as well as other
markets. Institutional decisions about how much to invest in reputation shape the
institution as well. The conclusion of Brewer, et al. is that institutional variation in the
industry is due in large part to the strategic choices made within each institution along
these dimensions. Hence, this study served to extend the Brewer et al. model to an
examination of a particular category of the higher education marketplace.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 20
Another significant reason for conducting the present study is to identify the
characteristics of a best-quality, selective Catholic university or college. Morey and
Piderit (2006) have researched what currently defines Catholic identity, culture, and
mission at American Catholic colleges and universities. They have uncovered a
connection between these definitions and strategic decisions affecting the manner in
which these particular institutions have positioned themselves to potential “customers.”
According to Morey and Piderit, many liberal arts institutions and practically all Catholic
institutions claim the education they offer will impact a student for a lifetime. Using
economic terminology, education, or more specifically Catholic education, can therefore
be classified as a capital good or an investment good that produces benefits years after
the good has been purchased. Thus, this dissertation should demonstrate how effectively
Catholic institutions of higher education in the West are competing against each other for
prestige and increased market share.
As explained previously, American Catholic colleges and universities operate in
an atmosphere of what Melanie Morey described as “cultural antagonism,” as well as
educational consumerism, and must compete successfully with all other higher education
institutions in the United States in order to survive. Many of these Catholic institutions
feel they are trying to do business while under a siege of competing demands. A major
strategic planning pitfall for some of these universities is that the need to engage in an in-
depth analysis of their religious culture in the context of the marketplace often is not seen
by their constituencies as a strategic necessity, but merely as a “baroque exercise”
(Morey & Piderit, p. 11).
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 21
Knowing how a Catholic college or university is faring in terms of planning,
communicating and shaping its religious mission is critical if it hopes to survive as a
distinctive institution of higher education within an increasingly consumer-driven
context. The findings derived from this research may be of use to other institutions of
higher education implementing a strategic planning process. Most other Catholic or
religious institutions of higher education who want to make consolidating their own
mission and religious identity within a strategic plan an essential part of their legacy and
prestige may find this research helpful, especially given the institutional trend of casting
mission and identity into purely humanistic and secular categories (Tripole, 2000) of
growth (i.e. market share).
Summary of Methodology
Design and instrumentation. The research will used a descriptive, statistical
data analysis research design. The data collection method was a closed-ended survey
instrument designed to measure the variables that are being examined in this study as
well as several open-ended questions on topics related to perception of institutional
prestige. The survey instrument was created expressly for this dissertation, based on the
study’s conceptual framework, in order to identify key elements of strategic plan
implementation and perceptions of prestige identified in answering the study’s research
questions.
The sampling approach for this study was a purposeful stratified sample. The
survey of strategic management and perceived prestige generators will encompass nine
western United States Roman Catholic universities of comparable size, background, and
classification. The questionnaire will be administered through the Internet service
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 22
SurveyMonkey to the following subjects relevant to the strategic planning process at the
sample institutions:
• President,
• Provost/Vice President/Chief Academic Officer,
• Vice President of Student Affairs,
• Chief Development Officer,
• Administrator for Mission and Identity,
• Faculty Senate Chair or President.
While their formal job titles may vary across institutions, the review of literature will
demonstrate the pivotal roles these individuals play at shaping the strategic direction,
acquisition, and management of critical resources necessary to promote prestige in their
particular market niche.
The research will include a document review, specifically of primary marketing
media available to the average consumer. In addition to the U.S. News and World Report
Annual Rankings of America’s Best Colleges and Universities and the U.S. News and
World Report Ultimate College Guide, the study will examine institutional websites,
catalogs, foundation and development media, and transcripts of relevant public
communication by institutional leaders.
Data analysis. The data analysis for this research was conducted by using the
Statistical Package for Social Science research, or SPSS. Statistical procedures used to
analyze the data will include descriptive cross-tabulation and analysis. Cross-tabulation
and analysis will occur between the results of the questionnaire administered through
SurveyMonkey to the subjects at the sample institutions and the U.S. News and World
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 23
Report Annual Rankings of America’s Best Colleges and Universities quality dimensions
published in 2001, 2008 and 2012 as they relate to the Brewer et al.’s (2002) prestige
indicators.
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions of the Study
Limitations of this study are the possible biases of the institutional leaders of the
subject universities surveyed. How the current administrations at any of the sample
institutions define such example concepts as “Catholic identity and mission,” “Catholic
intellectual tradition”, and “prestige” may differ from leaders of other institutions due to
life experiences and opinions. Although several key administrators were surveyed as part
of the data collection, their perceptions of academic leadership and institutional purpose
could be affected by their training, education and backgrounds.
The present study is delimited by a comparison of similar Roman Catholic
institutions of higher education in the Western United States. The dissertation will
examine their status in the U.S. News and World Report rankings of colleges and
universities. The survey of strategic management and prestige generators will encompass
nine western Roman Catholic universities of comparable size, background, and
classification.
The selection of sample institutions will be based on the following peer criteria:
• Ranking in the U.S. News and World Report classification “Masters – West”;
• Roman Catholic affiliation;
• Geographic location in California, Oregon, and Washington;
• Tier One ranking defined by the U.S. News and World Report scoring rubric
within the classification “Masters – West”;
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 24
• Identifiable founding Catholic congregation with distinct educational
traditions: e.g., Society of Jesus (Jesuit), Congregation of the Holy Cross,
Brothers of the Christian Schools (Lasallian), Religious of the Sacred Heart of
Mary (Marymount).
An assumption guiding this study was that the traditions of the founding religious
congregations and their perspectives on higher education make their respective
institutions unique among the over 200 Catholic colleges and universities in the United
States. For example, the Loyola Marymount University website underscores this idea:
LMU has a special way of approaching education. For more than 400 years, the
Catholic Jesuits have been known for founding great universities, founded on
rigorous academics and the pursuit for justice. Central to our philosophy is the
idea of cura personalis, Latin for "care of the person." The Catholic Marymount
Sisters tradition contributes a history of educating women and teaching through
the arts, with a deliberately international perspective that fosters respect for "the
other."
St. Mary’s College of California’s website boasts of a Lasallian Heritage in higher
education:
(That) supports education that is truly transformative, both for the individual and
the society around them…. Together we strive to understand and live by the five
Lasallian Core Principles: “Faith in the Presence of God, Concern for the Poor
and Social Justice, Quality Education, Inclusive Community, and Respect for All
Persons.”
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 25
The present study also assumed that all of the subject institutions aspire to a similar level
of market preeminence and prestige among their peers.
Defining Reputation and Prestige
In reviewing the framework of Brewer et al.’s (2002) research in preparation for
the present study, two concepts emerged as crucial to understanding the subject
institutions’ market positions and their strategy: reputation and prestige. Reputation and
prestige are assets that allow institutions of higher education to convey non-price
information to customers. Higher education institutions can invest in building both
reputation and prestige, although some institutions choose to invest primarily in one or
the other. The information conveyed by reputation and prestige allows customers to
better evaluate the extent to which the institution will be able to satisfy their demands.
Such information assets play a role in a number of industries, particularly in markets
where the quality of the good or service is difficult for a customer to assess beforehand.
Reputation can be good or bad, and it is directly related to an institution’s ability
to consistently meet some set of relatively specific customer demands. Although
customers cannot evaluate the quality of the goods and services before they purchase
and/or consume them, they can evaluate the quality quickly thereafter. As Morphew and
Swanson (2011) observed, a good reputation can enable a school to raise tuition while
still enjoying high rates of student application, thereby providing increased opportunity to
select the best students while also realizing higher revenue.
In these situations, reputation can be built through word of mouth based on
information from people who have used the product or experienced the service, or
on evidence from the provider on the quality of the service provided. For
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 26
example, some students pursue higher education for the purpose of obtaining a
certain type of job. Although prospective students cannot tell whether they will
actually get a job if they attend that institution, they can consider the institution’s
job placement rate, or talk to former students about their job search experiences
vis-à-vis the institution…. An institution’s reputation is based on its ability to
respond to the demands of customers and demonstrate that it is meeting those
demands (Brewer et al., pp. 27 – 28).
Prestige, the other non-price asset, is always positive, and its source is more
intangible (Barron, 2012). Institutions possessing a high level of prestige often cannot
demonstrate that they have met identifiable customer needs:
What they can demonstrate is the acquisition of things that tend to be associated
with exceptionally high-quality service. If the quality of the service cannot be
fully assessed for a long time after the service is performed, or if that quality
cannot be easily demonstrated, consumers often develop alternative mechanisms
for determining from which provider they should purchase the good or service.
Essentially, customers do this by developing a general sense of the institutions
that have done a good job over some period of time and then identifying their key
characteristics. These might include the range of activities supported by the
institution, aspects of its physical infrastructure, the nature of their production
process, or the type of customers they serve. Identification of the “best” providers
may be based purely on the opinion of customers, or may also include the insights
of the producers themselves or industry experts (Brewer et al., pp. 28 - 29).
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 27
Brewer et al. claim that in the higher education industry, prestige appears to be
enduring. One reason is that outcomes are only observed after a long period of time.
Moreover, an institution’s prestige today often influences its prestige tomorrow. This is,
in part, due to the nature of many existing measures of prestige:
For example, the U.S. News and World Report rankings of colleges and
universities allocates a full 25 percent of the total score used to rank institutions to
the results of a survey of school presidents, deans, and admissions directors that
asks them to rank institutions roughly similar to their own. As a result, there are
positive feedbacks in the creation of prestige whereby institutions that are
prestigious today are more likely to have a high level of prestige tomorrow. The
rankings or ratings of the top schools by Barron’s, U.S. News, Peterson’s, and
others, reflect a substantial amount of inertia (Brewer et al., 2002, pp. 29 – 30).
Conclusion
This dissertation examined what linkages exist between the implementation of a
strategic plan and the perception of an institution’s prestige in the context of American
Catholic higher education. Utilizing a survey questionnaire and cross-tabulation analysis
of variables contained in the U.S. News and World Report Annual Rankings of America’s
Best Colleges and Universities, the study measured and compared the progress of several
Catholic institutions of higher education in achieving preeminence against comparable
Catholic university and college peers in the Western United States since the
implementations of their current strategic plans. The study correlated those variables
with the research of Brewer et al. (2006) on prestige and reputation.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 28
In contextualizing the research to Catholic higher education, the present study
focused on institutional decisions such as whether to pursue prestige through any or all of
the prestige-generators identified by Brewer et al.: student quality, faculty and research
funding, private giving, and sports. This study produced a market analysis of Roman
Catholic institutions of higher education along the West Coast and their perceived
positions of prestige, and culminated in an examination of the subject institutions’ overall
positions according to U.S. News and World Report Annual Rankings of America’s Best
Colleges and Universities in 2001, 2008, and 2012.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is divided into five chapters. Chapter One provides a summary
of the relevance of the current study of strategic plan implementation and perceptions of
prestige in the context of contemporary Catholic institutions of higher education. Chapter
Two discusses the literature pertaining to perspectives on prestige and reputation studies
of institutions of higher education, a brief historical review of the traditions of Catholic
higher education, and strategic planning and implementation at the college and university
level, particularly in regards to the challenges to Catholic institutions in the American
marketplace. Chapter Three delineates the study design, including the instrumentation,
data collection and an analysis of the data. Chapter Four presents findings and an
analysis of the data for each research question. Chapter Five, the final chapter,
summarizes the study and present conclusions and implications for administrators, policy
makers and researchers.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 29
Chapter Two: Literature Review
The evolution of the higher education system in the United States has charted a
course consistent with America’s capitalist economic perspective and, as Keller (2004)
and Fiske (2008) contended, this distinguishes it from the systems seen in most other
countries. Today, the almost 4,000 public and private colleges and universities across the
nation must compete with each other, and with a growing array of proprietary and profit-
making colleges. At its basest level the competition is one of survival of the fittest
(LeFrere, 2007; Mause, 2009). Those schools that are unable to attract and retain good
faculty and students, that have difficulty fundraising, or cannot find their “niche” in the
higher education market, will likely fail or be absorbed into a more successful institution.
Keller appears to largely regard the competition as a good thing, culling the weaker
institutions from the pack and assuring that the limited resources (faculty, finances,
talented students) are concentrated most effectively.
While there is a strong argument to be made in favor of the benefits of
competition, the flip side of the argument is that an obsessive focus on the bottom line
can derail academic programs or cause an institution to lose sight of its particular mission
(Baldwin & James, 2000; Barron, 2012; Lerner, 2008;). The competition is, however,
inevitable given present conditions and these are unlikely to change in the foreseeable
future. Thus the burden falls on colleges and universities to find a way to successfully
negotiate market demands and strategy considerations with their fundamental purpose of
providing meaningful educational opportunities to students (Considine, 2006). The
challenge is a significant one, as the literature discussed in this chapter will indicate. This
is especially true for Catholic colleges and universities in the U.S. as they must balance
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 30
beliefs of church and faith with considerations of academic freedom and expression – at
least as such freedom is perceived in America – while engaging in practices of market
competitiveness that may not seem entirely in keeping with the Catholic ethos. But this
juggling act is necessary for them to master in order to compete with each other for
preeminence, and to remain competitive with secular institutions that are not bound to
honor a religious code.
This study considered the question of market competitiveness and the push to
distinguish a Catholic institution as a top-flight destination for the nation’s best and
brightest. What considerations are in play? What tensions exist between institutional
mission and marketing strategy and implementation, and how can these be negotiated?
Review Methodology
The literature reviewed in this chapter was retrieved using the search engines
Google and Google Scholar, as well as thorough a search of the following databases:
Academic Search Premier; Business Source Premier; EconLit; Educational Resource
Information Center (ERIC); MasterFILE Premier; MasterFILE Select; Professional
Development Collection; PsycARTICLES; Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
Collection; Religion and Philosophy Collection; and TOPICsearch as well as websites
for assorted Catholic colleges and universities including the University of Portland, Santa
Clara University, Boston College and Loyola Marymount University. Keywords used
either singly or in combination to perform the content search included: achievement,
administration, advantage, Catholic, challenge, college, competitive, donation,
education, enrollment, funding, marketing, market share, preeminence, prestige, quality,
ranking, reputation, research, and strategic plan.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 31
The review begins with a discussion on the background of the relatively recent
development of market competition in higher education in the United States (Anctil,
2008; Barron, 2012; Kezar, 2008; Khoon, Shukor & Hassan, 2005; Lynch & Baines,
2004). What this has entailed in terms of school administrators and officials rethinking
how their schools are positioned and represented is considered in terms of market
differentiation (Anctil, 2008; Durking & McKenna, 2011; Fiske, 2008; Mause, 2009;
Necessary infrastructure. . ., 2006; Stevick, 2010) and branding (Anctil, 2008; Durkin &
McKenna, 2011; Moore, 2004). A number of researchers have explored the challenges
that face higher education institutions across the board when it comes to balancing
market considerations against academic purpose -- the potential tension between
honoring a sense of institutional identity and the need to remain competitive in an
increasingly crowded and noisy marketplace (Baldwin & James, 2000; Barron, 2012;
Bergerson, 2009; Considine, 2006; Holley & Harris, 2010; Kezar & Eckel, 2004;
Kimball, 2011; LeFrere, 2007; Lerner, 2008).
The next section of the review explores some of the strategic issues with which
higher education institutions must contend. Fullan (2001) observed that coherent
leadership is critical to any successful strategic marketing effort. Many of the authors
reviewed on this subject assert that the foundation on which coherent leadership should
rest is a focused, specific and realistic institutional mission statement (Brewer, 1999;
Fairhurst, Jordan & Neuwirth, 1997; Khoon, et al., 2005; Kimball, 2011; Moore &
Diamond, 2000; Puzo, Tierney, Bitel, Gross, Head, Kann, McCurdy, et al., n.d.). Some
schools have realized success by shaping their marketing strategies around improving the
quality of student life (Keller, 2004) and investing in infrastructure (Anctil, 2008;
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 32
McHugh & Meister, 2004; Necessary infrastructure. . ., 2006). Strengthening school
academics is, of course, another strategy that can help raise a school’s profile and in this
regard, the impact of college rankings (such as that performed annually by U.S. News &
World Report) on institutional approaches to marketing is discussed (Barron, 2012;
Farrell & Van der Werf, 2007; Fiske, 2008; Mannion, 2007; Morphew & Swanson, 2011;
Schor, Hope, Castells, Heikkila, Kumar, Levine, Nikias, et al., n.d.). Often these efforts
reflect a desire to maintain or increase prestige as a critical element of competitiveness
(Brewer, Gates & Goldman, 2006; Khoon, et al., 2005; Love, Lawler, Aoun, Davison,
Greiner, Henderson, Mataric, et al., n.d.) and this may shape how resources are targeted
by schools (Cooper, 2009; Keller, 2004; Kimball, 2011; Morphew & Swanson, 2011).
The literature review then proceeds to a consideration of the particular challenges
facing Catholic higher education institutions in terms of defining themselves within a
market economy and establishing preeminence in the field. A brief review of the history
of Catholic higher colleges and universities in America is provided for context, since the
evolution of these schools relationship with the Church (as represented by the Vatican)
and with each other is critical to understanding the current situation and how these
schools must balance a variety of potentially competing concerns (Bollag, 2004; Byrne,
2008a, 2008b; Currie, 2011; Ferrari, Bottom, & Gutierrez, 2010; Gambescia & Paolucci,
2011; Gleason, 2008; Hatch, 2005; Heft, 2003a, 2003b; Henking, 2004; Lowry, 2004;
McMurtrie, 1999, 2003; Supiano, 2008; Symposium, 2010; Trainor, 2003; Zagano,
1990).
The advantages of a Catholic higher education are reviewed (Byrne, 2008a; Day,
2007; Gambescia & Paolucci, 2011; Lowry, 2004; McMurtrie, 1999; Morey & Piderit,
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 33
2006; Sullins, 2004; Trainor, 2003; Wolfe, 2002;). Some of the literature discussing the
overall mission of Catholic higher education, and particularly as it is realized in America,
is discussed (Chabotar, 2010; Day, 2007; Heft, 1999; Henking, 2004; Mause, 2009;
McMurtrie, 1999; Mission of Catholic higher education. . ., n.d.; Morris, Haseltine &
Williams, 2007; Musgrove, 2008; Sullins, 2004; Thivierge, 2003; Wolfe, 2002; Wuerl,
2008). This is followed by several case studies of schools attempting to incorporate their
Catholic mission and identity in their strategic marketing plans (Ashburn, 2008;
Beauchamp, 2006, 2007; Currie, 2011; Danner, 1997; Ferrari et al., 2010; Ferrari,
McCarthy & Milner, 2009; Heft, 2009; Hufton, 2008; McHugh & Meister, 2004;
Morphew & Swanson, 2011; Stevick, 2010; The Catholic tradition. . ., 2004; Weerts &
Hudson, 2009).
There is limited research on the marketing strategies of Catholic higher education
institutions but what little is available suggests some direction for schools embarking on
an effort to raise their profile and establish their reputation as a preeminent academic
institution (Excellence, distinction, leadership. . ., n.d. ; Ferrari et al., 2009; Future
directions. . . , 2005; Gambescia & Paolucci, 2011; Hufton, 2008; Peck & Stick, 2008;
Strategic plan, 2008; Supiano, 2008; Thivierge, 2003; Viacava, 2008; Weerts & Hudson,
2009). Finally, as Loyola Marymount University serves as the impetus of this research
study, the school’s mission statement and recent strategic planning efforts are reviewed
(Five year strategic plan, n.d.; Lawton, 2003, 2005; Loyola Marymount University
Mission. . ., n.d; Strategic plan for Loyola. . ., 2001.).
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 34
Background
The emergence of the perception that higher education institutions are market
driven and that the efforts to remain competitive are an inherent aspect of institutional
vision and work is still quite recent. Anctil (2008) described a shift occurring sometime
in the mid-1990s from the long-held view that higher education was predominantly
charged with “advancing the public trust” by “delivering sound academic programs,
conducting and promoting research, and engaging with the community, regardless of size,
type, or mission,” (p. 3). Thus the emphasis was on the delivery of education to students.
There is a pervasive belief that higher education should serve the public trust. Exactly
what constitutes the public interest is a matter of some debate (Barron, 2012). Kezar
(2008) noted that a variety of definitions, singly or in combination, have accrued and she
identified several of these as the belief that colleges and universities should educate the
populace for “democratic engagement,” become directly involved in devising
programming to serve their local and regional communities, serve as repositories of
knowledge and disseminators of this same knowledge, support and pursue research
opportunities to advance learning, partner with public institutions to improve well-being
for all citizens, ensure the continuation of cultural forms (art, ethnography, language,
etcetera), stimulate student learning and shape leaders for service in government, industry
and social institutions (pp. 473-474).
Desirable as these goals appear, the efforts of most higher education institutions
are somewhat otherwise directed. Today, colleges and universities must, by necessity,
consider themselves both educational and business institutions in order to survive. The
tension created in the potential conflict between these commitments may contribute to
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 35
what Barron (2008) termed a type of “cultural drift” in higher education. What is
interesting about this shift, as Anctil (2008) observed, is that students are both the
customers and the “product” of the business of higher education. Higher education
institutions are selling academic degrees but this means they are selling the entire higher
education “experience.”
This development is significant because it creates a tenuous situation for schools
that must find a way to effectively balance the marketing of education, the original
purpose of higher education institutions, against the marketing of the business. Striking
this balance has implications for a school’s sense of purpose and directly impacts the
mission of the institution. It must, by needs, pursue a business strategy of building
reputation, branding, attracting and retaining customers, and building on success, while
still finding a way to devote resources to improving the educational delivery and the
whole college experience. As Lynch and Baines (2004) deduced based on their research
with higher education institutions competing for market share in the U.K., some college
“resources” are more sustainable than others. They found that “reputation” tended to be a
powerful persuader in the marketplace for a long period of time, while other resources,
such as teaching quality, are less sustainable as a matter of clear differentiation from
other similarly situated institutions. Researchers writing on the topic of higher education
marketing over the last decade or so argue that educational mission and business
marketing of the institution are not mutually exclusive (Anctil, 2008; Khoon, Shukor &
Hassan, 2005).
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 36
Market Differentiation
In order to compete against other institutions essentially offering a common
product, colleges and universities must find a way to distinguish themselves so that
consumers can make an informed decision about what they’re buying. Beyond this, the
purpose of market differentiation is to make your “product,” among similar products, the
most appealing to your target demographic. Anctil (2008) stated that in terms of higher
education, this is generally achieved by disseminating promotional information on a
wide-scale to a variety of populations about the “quality of the academic offerings” while
touting special offerings (such as study abroad programming) and features such as a
state-of-the-art science building with professionally outfitted laboratories (also,
Necessary infrastructure. . . , 2006). Anctil also noted that high profile athletic programs
can be a boon for recruitment of customers as well, while having the ancillary benefit of
increasing alumni financial support. The goal of market differentiation is to persuade the
target market that one’s product is superior in some way(s) to that of the competition
(Mause, 2009; Stevick, 2010).
Some higher education administrators (and researchers) express some difficulty
with the concept of a marketing strategy specifically designed to get a leg up over fellow
academic institutions (Durkin & McKenna, 2011). The notion of embarking on a
structured effort to persuade potential customers of a school’s superiority may seem
“manipulative and deceitful,” (Anctil, 2008, p. 50). Indeed, Fiske (2008) powerfully
argued against the corporatization of higher education, describing it as a “catastrophic”
development:
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 37
When all is said and done, the aggressive marketing of higher education that
began a quarter-century ago has degenerated into a gigantic price war. Millions
and millions of dollars are spent not to bring more young people into higher
education, but to influence the way those already in the system distribute
themselves among the various colleges and universities. Need-based aid -- once a
tool for opening access to higher education -- has given way to merit aid, which in
turn has degenerated into a weapon in the admissions wars. Needless to say, the
defining interests are those of the institutions themselves -- not the students and
certainly not the welfare of the society as a whole. (p. A-112).
But Anctil (2008) has challenged such reservations, stating that an honest and
well-articulated advocacy for a given institution serves both it and the entire
customer/product pool. Customers can make an informed decision about whether a
higher education institution is right for them based on a clear market differentiation. No
single institution can, or should be, all things to all people. Specialization in certain
disciplines or commitment to supporting particular curricular and extracurricular
activities potentially strengthens the delivery of higher educational service across the
boards as institutions are better able to concentrate their resources on those areas which
they have identified -- through mission and marketing articulation -- as most notable to
their particular customers. For schools looking to change or expand their customer base,
a clearly articulated market differentiation can support the institutions developing sense
of mission.
Based on a review of the relevant marketing literature, Anctil (2008) identified
seven key areas in which higher education institutions might seek to differentiate their
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 38
business advantages. The first of these is the most elusive for colleges and universities
and that is to offer an “exclusive” product. This can happen in rare cases, such as with a
military academy like West Point, noted for graduating officer candidates. The
remaining six areas of differentiation constitute likelier possibilities. “Providing a better
product” is linked strongly to academic or athletic program offerings; for instance,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is renowned worldwide for its math,
science and technology programs, despite having numerous competitors for this
recognition in large part because it continues to attract high rates of talented students and
faculty, while the University of Connecticut has developed a reputation for a top-flight
basketball program with both women’s and men’s teams regularly competing in national
championships. Schools can also offer “better service” than their competitors in terms of
scholarships, financial aid packages and other supports to improve student life. Offering
“better value” for the dollar by linking cost to quality or providing a “better price” --
simply put, having the advantage of offering the lowest price -- can also be utilized by
schools to differentiate themselves.
Anctil noted that “offering convenient access” tends to be more of a consideration
in other service delivery areas such as grocery stores or newspaper stands, but
increasingly, some higher education institutions are distinguishing themselves employing
this strategy. The University of Phoenix has established a national profile by offering
graduate degree programs that cater to professionals across the country, offering the ease
of online (“distance”) academic programs that can be worked in around busy schedules.
Finally, schools can distinguish themselves by offering personal service or “solutions to
customers’ needs,” (pp. 51-52). Recruitment efforts that achieve a high level of
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 39
personalized outreach can realize substantial success in attracting sought-after students
and faculty.
Branding. A key concept in market differentiation, regardless of industry, is
branding. Moore (2004) stated that branding is fundamentally the “promise of an
experience,” (p. 57). American Express promises the experience of status and recognition
-- the credit card that is wielded by the world’s most successful people -- while VISA
promises the experience of convenience and ease of use by being accepted “everywhere.”
These companies are cases in point of establishing and conveying a consistent and
straightforward message that conveys a relationship to consumers. Anctil (2008) noted
that successful branding serves to create customer loyalty to the company or the product
by reinforcing this distinct experience of relationship.
How this is achieved in higher education is a somewhat trickier prospect (Durkin
& McKenna, 2011). One researcher recently noted that “institutional branding is meant
to help propel an institutionfrom its mission to its vision by creatively conveying the
powerful strategy that will take it from where it is to where it wants to go,” (University
Business, 2008, p. 45, as cited by Cooper, 2009, p. 15). This quote underscores how a
school’s mission statement and institutional branding should correspond with and support
each other in order to be effective. Anctil (2008) stated that the product in higher
education is a largely intangible one, thus institutions are left with having to articulate a
simple and strong statement that makes “the intangible, tangible” while identifying a
strategy of market differentiation that remains consistent with the branding effort (Anctil,
p. 98).
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 40
Moore (2004) described how Duke University managed to launch itself from its
position as a mediocre, regional university to a preeminent institution widely recognized
across the country as a higher education “powerhouse,” (p. 58). The author cited three
keys to the reformulation of the “Duke brand” -- the leadership of President Nannerl
Keohane, the English department chairmanship tenure of the cultural critic and academic
Stanley Fish, and the national dominance of the Duke men’s basketball team, attributed
to Coach Mike Krzyzewksi. This perfect storm of leaders -- and the changes they
initiated at their respective levels of the institution -- had the effect of conveying and
reinforcing the image of Duke students as bright, ambitious, and “good citizens.” A brand
was born and it quickly propelled Duke to the forefront of higher education rankings and
made it a highly sought-after school for talented high school seniors.
Effective strategic planning identifies an institution’s specific brand and then
devises ways to reinforce this brand through differentiation from other “brands” within
the same category. Thus, a small liberal arts college with a notable visual arts department
would do well to devise a brand that incorporates that singular strength, to differentiate it
from other similarly sized liberal arts colleges. Focusing brand in this fashion permits
institutions to effectively concentrate resources in targeting students. If a strong visual
arts department is the differentiation, the school will know to identify and target the best
and the brightest high school students who demonstrate an affinity for visual arts, rather
than wasting time trying to recruit students with an affinity for ice hockey, unless of
course, the visual arts school also has a strong ice hockey program, in which case the
brand should encompass both strengths through unique messaging.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 41
The Challenge for Institutions
In part because market competitiveness for higher education institutions is a
relatively recent concern and in part because higher education institutions have
characteristically been long on traditional and consistent service delivery and short on
adaptability to changing circumstances, most institutions are plagued by shortsightedness
in marketing vision. On the flip side, because higher education institutions are multi-
faceted organizations with a variety of potentially competing concerns (as discussed in
the next section) they should not be expected to turn on a dime in response to fluctuating
market changes. To attempt to do so would portend a degree of institutional chaos that
would likely damage academic delivery (Baldwin & James, 2000; Considine, 2006;
LeFrere, 2007; Lerner, 2008). Some institutions, struggling to meet the challenges of the
market, have clamped down on faculty and students, adopting more bureaucratic systems
that confer more centralized oversight of all programming. Kezar and Eckel (2004) noted
that such efforts often backfire as the focus falls on speed of decision-making, rather than
an informed consideration of what might improve institutional outcomes. This can lead to
distressed morale among stakeholders and cause a school to abandon its central mission
identity.
Confounding the situation is what Baldwin and James (2000) regard as a potential
lack of understanding among potential students as to what they should be looking for in
an institution. In other words, high school students (and their involved parents) may not
always be the most informed consumers, making the work of higher education
institutions that much more complicated (Barron, 2012). In addition to branding,
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 42
differentiating and marketing they may also need to consider how they can “educate”
student-consumers to become good shoppers of the educational marketplace.
The matter of student selection of higher education institution has long been a
subject of research interest for as Kimball (2011) observed, college admission remains a
“contested good” by pitting institutions against one another in pursuit of a limited
resource – excellent students. Bergerson (2009) synthesized research from the 1970s and
1980s and stated that the matter of college choice was traditionally considered through
psychological, sociological, and economic lenses. These perspectives tended to yield
readings of the data that emphasized school selection as largely a matter of choice
reflecting students’ orientation and preferences. Holley and Harris (2010) and Bergerson
reported that a refocusing of this perception of student preference as fundamentally
guiding selection process has emerged since the 1990s, reflecting the growing awareness
that issues of access may be one of the most significant factors in influencing college
selection. Kimball drew on admission data to arrive at the conclusion that “strategic
enrollment management practices” have come “to dominate higher education” since the
1980s (Kimball, 2011, p. 27). This researcher traces the emergence of the enormous
influence of college rankings on the selection process to this development, arguing that
rankings offer students and families some seemingly objective system for assessing and
negotiating the college application process.
Baldwin and James (2000) conducted their study of consumer knowledge of
higher education in the Australian marketplace where, they noted, the belief is prevalent
that “only the free market can ensure both quality and efficiency,” (p. 139). Arguably,
this same perspective guides American market philosophy (and governmental policy) as
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 43
well. Hence, the argument is that consumers will act rationally to obtain the best product
for themselves (based on cost, comparison, personal applications, etc.) and will thereby
reinforce a meritocracy of performance among institutions: the best (in their particular
areas of specialization or differentiation) will presumably rise to the top. However,
Baldwin and James posited that image and quality do not necessarily go hand-in-hand but
that this might not make much difference to a consumer who values the image as more
significant than actual quality, or who refuses to accept that high quality does not
automatically attend a powerful image. Their research with a population of Australian
high school students engaged in the higher education application process revealed that a
substantial number of the student-consumers made assessments as to which school to
apply to based on considerations of which, they admitted, to having very little concrete
knowledge. They based their choices on reputation and image, without going any deeper
into investigating the substance of these claims.
In the face of these findings, Baldwin and James (2000) argued that the most
useful type of marketing colleges and universities can engage in is to clearly identify their
target audience, and then focus on making the case that their school is the best fit for the
sought-after students:
What is needed is for all universities to conduct an honest analysis of their
strengths and the populations they wish to serve, and use this to define a
genuinely distinctive mission, rather than the bland pieties now found in most
mission statements that are indistinguishable from each other. Their
competitiveness would then be focused on getting through to those prospective
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 44
students who have been defined as the target market, and convincing them that
this is the kind of university they should attend. (Baldwin & James, 2000, p. 147).
This type of focused statement reinforces institutional purpose and may serve to
strengthen a school’s offerings by providing clarity and direction for faculty and staff.
The emphasis then, is not on charting a course of marketing action based strictly on
“climbing a league table of prestige,” but on recognizing the institution’s particular
strengths, and devising a clear-sighted strategy for selling that advantage to the likeliest
responsive market.
Strategic Issues in Higher Education
The type of change wrought by market considerations facing higher education
institutions is not necessarily to be feared. Progress and expansion are forces set in play
by change efforts (so too, of course are the opposites: reactionary rejection or
withdrawal), the trick is to effectively negotiate how the change occurs. Fullan (2001)
identified the key component of positive change as being coherent leadership. The
researcher observed that in “dynamic, complex systems” -- a description that certainly
fits colleges and universities -- there is constant movement toward “fragmentation” and
“overload” (p. 108). As higher education administrators and other stakeholders seek to
balance the need to compete with their school’s mission to educate, the goal is to harness
the change components by connecting them directly to purpose and goals. Fullan
suggested the prospect for higher education is more complicated than it is for traditional
business concerns since schools are subject to many more outside bureaucracies and are
subject to the collision of “multiple innovations,” (p. 109). In other words, everyone has a
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 45
potential solution to offer when it comes to strategizing for the institution’s successful
future.
The Mission Statement
In their consideration of the role of the organizational mission statement,
Fairhurst, Jordan and Neuwirth (1997) observed that despite the popular embrace of the
mission statement as a critical component of growth and progress, it is striking how
frequently mission statements are ignored when it comes to actual organizational
planning. The researchers stated that mission statements serve as a sort of “ego ideal” for
the institution – setting out the standards which the organization strives to emulate,
though not necessarily fulfill, which can sometimes render them “an empty set of
platitudes,” (p. 244).
Typically, values and mission are featured in an academic institution’s
recruitment, orientation, fundraising, alumni and public relations media, i.e. the public
“faces” of the institution. Ideally, the mission statement should be in line with that
described by Moore and Diamond (2000): a description of “the desired future state for the
enterprise, a picture of the enterprise achieving its highest service aspirations” and
disseminating “feelings of satisfaction and value-added [sic] enjoyed by the enterprise’s
customers, its members and other stakeholders,” (p. 32). The mission consists of two
interrelated parts: shared purpose and shared values. “If mission were an iceberg, we
would suggest that the 10% you can readily see is the purpose. Shared values comprise
the 90% that lies below the surface that energizes and guides the direction of day-to-day
activities.” (p. 33).
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 46
In an effort to understand when and how mission statements serve to
meaningfully guide organizational practice, Fairhurst et al. (1997) surveyed employees of
a large government agency. Based on their findings they concluded that a mission
statement that is clearly communicated to “local” stakeholders (working at levels of
organization below management) has a likelier chance of being realized in practice than
one that remains an elusive or unstated concept. Also, when stakeholders participate in
discussing the meaning of the mission statement in practice, there is a greater chance for
the mission statement to be married to “local” conditions. They advocated that an
organization mission statement can only be improved by inviting all stakeholders into a
debate over its merits – this both creates buy-in and allows administrators to see where
the mission statement can be improved to specifically address conditions on the ground.
The importance of involving the stakeholders in the mission statement
conversation was the focus of Brewer’s (1999) study of American community colleges, a
segment of the higher education field that is in a continual struggle for market share and,
ultimately, economic survival. In an effort to increase range of service and reach a
number of students who may not be clear on what they want from their higher education
studies, or what course of career they would like to pursue, many community colleges
have expanded their programs to include a range of non-academic programs including
work internships and community service projects. His survey of over 1,700 faculty
working in 92 community colleges nationwide revealed a significant disconnect between
school faculty beliefs and attitudes about institutional purpose and programming, and
administrative beliefs and efforts directed at appealing to potential students. Many of the
faculty felt their institution had strayed far from their original purpose, which they
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 47
identified as providing academic programming, and had expanded too fast to properly
integrate the “extracurricular” programming and the academic offerings. However,
Brewer’s study did not encompass an analysis of whether this disconnect corresponded at
all with institutional effectiveness. In fact, the researcher observed that there were no
studies he could find that attempted to assess whether a higher education institution could
be, as he put it, “successful across multiple missions,” (p. 24).
In fact, the literature strongly supports Moore and Diamond’s (2000) statement
that higher education institutions tend to “lack clearly articulated missions that lead to
distinctive foci in their activities,” (p. 33). This becomes an issue in terms of strategic
planning, and particularly planning with an eye toward distinguishing a given institution
from all other institutions serving similar populations of students. Without a clearly
articulated and communicated mission, the various departments within a college or
university may be working at cross-purposes in pursuing their own discipline-specific
goals. The dearth of a commonly accepted vision of the institution’s “shared purpose and
values” will contribute to fracturing of organizational focus and a frittering away of
often-limited resources. It can also lead to confusion for prospective students who are
urged to select an institution on the basis of what will be “a uniquely good fit for them”
(Kimball, 2011, p. 29). If a mission statement does not clearly articulate the institution’s
vision it makes it more difficult for prospective students to determine whether the school
is right for them and whether they are likely to be productive and successful members of
the college community should they attend the school.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 48
Quality of Student Life
In his analysis of Elon College’s transformation from a small, poorly rated and
unknown college to a nationally competitive and well-ranked school, Keller (2004)
observed that improving student life was a centerpiece of the school’s three-decade
reform. The president responsible for embarking on the school’s transformation, J. Fred
Young, noted in 1974 that the “future” of liberal arts schools lay in the quality of student
life on campus (Keller, p. 7). One of the first reform efforts was to vastly improve the
appearance of the shabby little campus with an investment in new property, new
architecture and landscaping and beautification efforts. A commitment was also made to
attract students through improved admission materials and recruitment. The college
opened its radio station (student managed and operated) and formed student honor
societies as part of the effort to improve student life in the mid-1970s in that first flush of
the transformation. Amidst numerous other changes, the school built a state-of-the-art
fitness facility in the mid-1990s in recognition of students’ expressed desire for more
athletic offerings. Today, Elon is a frequent winner of the South Athletic Conference
Excellence Award for its overall athletic program (p. 20).
Investing in infrastructure is one of the more popular strategies for improving an
institution’s appeal to students (McHugh & Meister, 2004). As J. Douglas Toma, a
professor and researcher working on status issues in higher education has observed,
committing resources to improving facilities and the physical appearance of a campus is
something administrators can control much more directly and quickly than attempting to
impact something as intangible as general perceptions of reputation: “It is not new for
institutions to be obsessed with prestige and to use facilities to pursue it” (Necessary
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 49
infrastructure. . ., 2006, p. B-10). New or improved infrastructure provides a visible
example of a school’s viability, that is, its appearance of being successful (Anctil, 2008).
Toma noted that it is much easier to fund and construct a fabulous new building than it is
to overhaul an academic department. Recognition for academic improvement also occurs
over time while infrastructure can serve as a sort of quick fix on perception. It is also a
cycle that feeds on itself, as schools are required to invest in infrastructure in order to
remain competitive with other institutions that have done so.
In the case of Elon, some novel approaches for reaching out to students and
shaping an environment that would appeal to them were implemented. Keller (2004)
described how one of the faculty members who also served as the director of advising
and career services, used the results from the Myers-Briggs personality test that she gave
to each entering student to compellingly demonstrate that the school was consistently
attracting a particular type of student. In the world of Myers-Briggs, these students were
ENFP or ESTJ – meaning they were extroverts who relied heavily on a combination of
intuition with feeling or thinking with sensing. Either way, they were students who were
very engaged in their relationships, activities, and real-life experiences – very outwardly
directed. Conversely, most of Elon’s faculty was composed of INTJ’s or INTP’s –
introverted personalities who tended to prefer study and discussion to external
engagement. The students and faculty were therefore quite mismatched. But the school,
with the faculty’s eventual support, initiated a curriculum that sought to provide
experiential learning experiences for students – through study abroad programs,
internships, combining courses of study to create a more holistic experience in the
classroom – which the faculty could embrace. The commitment to discovering and
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 50
addressing what its particular student demographic sought from the institution, allowed
Elon to launch itself onto the national scene. The college is now regularly included in
annual “best colleges” compilations and its applications have swelled almost 50% in just
the last decade with an overall rise of 119-points in the average SAT score of entering
freshmen (Keller, p. 3).
Academics
The business of college rankings is, in itself, big business (Anctil, 2008; Farrell &
Van der Werf, 2007). The U.S. News & World Report annual edition of college rankings
has become a “gold mine” for the publication (Fiske, 2008) and an entire industry of
college ranking books has sprung up and is eagerly consumed by students and parents
attempting to navigate the complicated waters of college applications and admissions. So
influential has the U.S. News & World Report ranking guide become, that it is now the
“tail that wags the dog” in Farrell and Van der Werf’s (2007) estimation. They stated
that the rankings have begun to change how administrators identify their institutional
goals. What is particularly disturbing about the sway these rankings hold over higher
education institutional determinations is that a number of researchers assert that many of
the rankings are suspect in terms of truly capturing an institution’s quality, service and
viability in the marketplace (Barron, 2012).
Morphew and Swanson (2011) stated that the influence of college rankings has
become so pervasive that prestigious colleges around the world have taken to
prominently advertising their rankings while lesser known schools increasingly use their
rankings to inform strategic planning. One example noted by the researchers was
Benedictine College in Kansas which “proudly displays the U.S. News ‘Best Colleges’
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 51
emblem on its homepage and notes its top 20 ranking in the Newman Guide to Choosing
a Catholic College on its ‘About Benedictine’ website,” (Morphew & Swanson, 2011, p.
185).
Mannion (2007) noted that in recent years, a number of highly ranked small,
liberal arts institutions have been forced to close their doors due to financial problems.
Among these schools was Marymount College in New York that was ranked 19
th
in its
category in 2005, the very year it closed. As Mannion observed, what use is a high
ranking to students if the school is to close within a year or two of its advantageous
ranking? Other researchers and school administrators have noted that it is possible for
school administrators to “game” the system by manipulating fundraising figures or
appearing to drive up the pool of applicants, some of the indicators used to determine the
rankings and which educators identify as being of dubious merit in assessing the quality
of a school’s programming (Anctil, 2008; Fiske, 2008; Farrell & Van der Werf, 2007).
The rankings have also been found to heavily favor private institutions over public ones
(Mannion, 2007)
Despite the concerns, the U.S. News & World Report rankings remain highly
influential with many administrators touting high rankings for their institutions in
promotional materials to potential students and in fundraising letters to alumni and
foundations (Farrell & Van der Werf, 2007; Morphew & Swanson, 2011). Even given the
compellingly supported contention that the rankings do not adequately capture or
represent a school’s academic quality or the depth of its services, consumers themselves
largely accept the rankings as representative. Regardless of whether or not the rankings
are dismissed as flawed, institutions are currently left having to address the issue since
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 52
consumers value the rankings and, they are “the only available indicator of academic
quality” to date (Anctil, 2008, p. 54). One school official quoted by Farrell and Van der
Werf observed that while he has problems with the methodology employed in
establishing the rankings, he nevertheless relied on them to provide “objective data” to
determine whether his institution is achieving its goals.
As noted earlier in the discussion of branding, making the intangible tangible is a
central tenet of higher education marketing strategy. Anctil (2008) stated that academics
constitute the most intangible offering that schools must simply and strongly convey.
Regardless of what one may think of the U.S. World & News Report rankings, they are
commonly perceived as providing substantive evidence of the intangible academics.
Schools have become quite adept at using the rankings to effectively market their
strengths just as U.S. News & World Report has become savvy in making its own product
more acceptable to higher education administrators by breaking down rankings into
various categories that allows for the showcasing of specific strengths or programming.
Thus, a school that may not be particularly well ranked for its academics overall, may
achieve a high ranking for an area of differentiation such as low-cost tuition or a highly
ranked music program. A high-ranking in a specific area of differentiation will make its
way into the school’s promotional materials and may ultimately shape both branding and
school mission.
Keller’s (2004) discussion of Elon College’s rise up through the college rankings
captures how the school adapted to changing circumstances by evolving the focus of its
curriculum and academic vision. During this time, it made the transition from a college
to a university. While the student-centered, experiential curriculum that had been
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 53
implemented by the mid-1990s proved a boon in terms of student recruitment and
retention, the school had not yet reached the position of higher education preeminence
that it was seeking. A new president, Leo Michael Lambert, hired in 1999, began to
refocus the school’s academic mission, encouraging greater scholarship in its faculty.
Keller observed that as by the mid-1990s, “not a single Elon faculty member had a
sponsored research grant,” (p. 57).
The school had received excellent reports and increased admissions and all the
other goodies that attend such gains (higher quality faculty, improved revenues, better
qualified freshmen), but it did not have the imprimatur of scholarship that suggests a truly
rigorous academic commitment (Khoon et al., 2005). This has now become the thrust of
Elon’s academic mission – to create a student body that pursues excellence in academia
by providing them with the resources and opportunities to practice their learning, while
encouraging and supporting faculty in obtaining research grants, publishing, and
presentations at scholarly conferences. As simple as this sounds, the effort has entailed a
full overhaul of the programming in order to achieve accreditation for several of the
university’s schools, the establishment (and funding) of many student academic
scholarships, and the pursuit of Phi Beta Kappa status for students. It also required a
substantial infusion of money as new facilities were constructed, new technology
introduced, and faculty salaries were increased.
Other institutions have embarked on efforts to engage interdisciplinary
approaches to both research and curriculum delivery as a way of defining and
distinguishing themselves within a crowded market (Loeb, Lawler, Aoun, Davison,
Greiner, Henderson, Mataric, et al., n.d., p. 2). Feller (2007) cited the examples of MIT,
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 54
Duke, Carnegie-Mellon and the University of Michigan as major institutions that have
recently embraced strategies to strike collaboration in programming across departments.
In this way, and by establishing special programs across specialized disciplines, the
higher education institutions can effectively market themselves as providing an unusual
service within the whole field (Schor, Hope, Castells, Heikkila, Kumar, Levine, Nikias,
n.d., p. 3). The field of institutions is greatly winnowed for prospective students who
have an idea of what type of cross-disciplinary programming might intrigue them.
The centrality of the rankings to institutional marketing strategy is clear: “College
rankings help to establish or propel academic reputation for many universities,” (Anctil,
2008, p. 57). Academics and researchers may bemoan the influence of the U.S. News &
World Report (and similarly produced) rankings, but their influence cannot be denied.
Higher education institutions with an eye toward improving market share through
reputation enhancement thus tend to closely watch their ranking and shape strategic
planning to address the perceived and identified deficits (according to the rankings). One
example of this was cited by Morphew and Swanson (2011) who noted that in its 2009
strategic plan, Loyola University in Louisiana was very direct in acknowledging the
impact of the institution’s ranking. The plan stated:
To enhance our reputation and stature, as reflected in the rankings of US News
and World Report, we are committed to a university-wide rethinking of our
programs in a way that builds upon our strengths and utilizes new initiatives that
respond to national needs and student demands. Such an approach seeks to
increase demand and attract more and better students, which will decrease the
need to discount tuition, while allowing Loyola to attract students from deserving
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 55
communities and shape our incoming classes. An increase in ranking will directly
affect an increase in revenue. (Louisiana 2009, as cited by Morphew & Swanson,
2011, p. 188).
As the researchers observed, this particular strategic plan starkly illustrates the potent
market effect of these rankings and how this market impact has serious implications for
academic programming, campus environment, and the delineation of institutional
objectives.
Pursuing Prestige
Khoonet al. (2005) noted that one of the hallmarks of a prestigious higher
education institution is its ambition -- its “aspiration” to become even greater. These
researchers stated that the mission statement, the vision for the school’s future, is the
vessel for delineating aspiration. Closely linked to this is the strategy for pursuing the
aspiration (Puzo, Tierney, Bitel, Gross, Head, Kann, McCurdy, et al., n.d., p. 2). This
involves not only targeting the most desirable students likely to benefit from the school’s
identified strengths in programming, but to also locate and recruit the most talented
faculty to support the aspiration as specified through the mission statement.
Brewer, Gates and Goldman (2006), in their comprehensive discussion of higher
education institutions’ efforts to pursue prestige noted that prestige for one institution
invariably comes at cost to another, whereas reputation does not. In other words, an
unlimited number of schools may have a good reputation based on the various factors
considered to arrive at that determination. However, prestige for one institution
necessarily means that another school is perceived as having less prestige. Prestige is a
comparative asset and achieved through relative relationship to others in one’s peer
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 56
group. Reputation, conversely, is not contingent on another’s position, relative to one’s
own.
In terms of higher education institutions, Brewer et al. (2006) stated that the
primary “prestige generators” are student quality, research, and school athletic programs.
Schools that attract highly sought after students are generally regarded as prestigious for
attracting them and the presence of these best” students on campus then contributes
further to a school’s prestige. A number of factors go into attracting desirable students,
including the financial resources necessary to confer grants or scholarships.
Consequently, prestigious schools also tend to be those with sufficient endowments or
financial capital to offer these incentives.
Well-regarded research programs bring their own prestige for being positioned at
the cutting edge of academia and market development across a range of industries.
Research programs often generate revenue for schools through the receipt of government
and industry grants, donor contributions and funding through other private interests.
Well-established research programs also serve as an attractive lure for talented faculty
and students. Similarly, successful and competitive sports programs (football and
basketball chiefly, but other competitive sports programs as well) serve a similar function
in generating revenue, attracting talented administrators, staffs, and students and
engaging donor dollars (even through the sale of game tickets). Brewer et al. explained
that while quality of faculty is often perceived as an indicator of prestige, it tends to be a
function of school expenditure and therefore reflects the school’s resources and strategic
planning rather than serving as a revenue driver. Alternatively, they characterized
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 57
student quality, research funding, and sports teams as revenue-based prestige generators,
reflecting the school’s relationship to “external customers,” (Brewer et al., p. 45).
Their own research conducted with 26 institutions of higher education led Brewer
et al. to delineate four types of prestige-level and prestige-pursuing schools. P (prestige)
schools proceeded from an attitude of having and maintaining their prestige. Their focus
is typified by an internal, rather than external, orientation in identifying their prestige-
conferring strengths. Given the relative nature of prestige and its competitive
undergirding, P institutions are often engaged in attempting to hold on to their prestige
against all comers for whom they constitute the standard to be beat (in order for a less
prestigious school to achieve greater prestige). These strivers are identified as PS
(prestige-seeking) institutions in Brewer et al.’s model – schools that do not currently
have the highest level of prestige but are in pursuit of it. They tend to orient themselves
in relation to similar-type P institutions and their goal focus is often less on “customers”
and more on modeling themselves on the P institution, with an eye to surpassing them.
R (reputation) institutions do not have much prestige nor are they identifiably
focused on achieving prestige. Rather, these schools focus almost entirely on the
identification of customer needs. Often these schools offer specialized programing and
services, designed to appeal to students who are pursuing specific job-related skills or
seek a specific type of institutional community. Brewer et al. identified the fourth-type of
school as the PS-R (prestige-seeking, reputation) hybrid. An example of the PS-R was
characterized by an institution that operated a PS undergraduate program and an R
graduate program. The graduate program was successful enough to generate the revenue
driving the PS undergraduate program’s efforts in pursuit of greater prestige. The Brewer
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 58
et al. model was employed in this current study to identify how Catholic higher education
institutions in the Western U.S. perceive and pursue prestige in their relations with their
targeted audiences – specifically, students and donors.
Resources
The old adage that success begets success might well be the rule for realizing
financial support in higher education. Colleges and universities that are successful tend
to draw greater sums of money from alumni and other private contributors while also
proving more attractive to government funding sources who require some measure of
accountability and achievement to underpin their grant decisions (Cooper, 2009; Kimball,
2011; Morphew & Swanson, 2011). In the early 1970s, Elon College faced a potential
funding crisis as virtually 80% of its revenue came from student enrollment (Keller,
2004). Significant decline in enrollment was something the college could not weather as
it had very little support from alumni or other funding sources. However, as the
transformation effort discussed earlier in this chapter began to take hold, Elon was able to
win a substantial two million dollar grant through the federal government which it sank
into revising the curriculum and strengthening the academic program overall. Over the
same period, the school’s football team made it to national finals and within the next few
years managed to win the title twice. The benefits of the academic improvement and the
football team’s success snowballed. Very quickly the school began to see a rise in
financial support from alumni and trustees. This was followed by additional government
grants and major contributions made by private foundations.
As Elon’s prospects continued to improve, the vision for funding the school
(which had transitioned from a college to a university) had to be adapted to the new
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 59
challenges. As higher quality students were sought and scholarships provided, the
school’s long-standing commitment to contain tuition discounting to 12%, quickly
blossomed to 17%. Meanwhile, faculty salaries were on the rise, the population of
students had grown substantially and some were concerned that the university was
pressing the limits of its potential. Keller (2004) observed that in its pursuit of excellence
and a position of preeminence in higher education, Elon has strained its financial
resources requiring it to “keep scrambling, scrounging, and strategizing” for revenue (p.
86). Despite the growth in donors and early successes with government grants, Keller
noted that fundraising has never been Elon’s strong suit. Administrators remain
committed to enhancing the school’s national standing however there may be some
question as to whether such an effort can be financially sustained over time.
The Challenge for Catholic Higher Education
It may appear anathema to the mission of Catholic higher education in particular
to focus on market competitiveness, reputation, branding, rankings and “product
differentiation,” just as it is jarring to think of medical doctors who have taken the
Hippocratic oath finding their practices increasingly dominated by the economic dictates
of insurance coverage. The idea of balancing market considerations alongside religious
identity and tenets of faith may strike some as unseemly or even entirely irreconcilable.
After all, one of the key Catholic parables tells of a young Jesus Christ castigating the
moneychangers for practicing usury within the walls of the temple and then driving them
out. Thivierge (2003) captured this dichotomy when he observed that the higher
education trend toward corporatization and globalization has the effect of decreasing
diversity of service and can “dislocate” or “exclude” segments of the population that do
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 60
not possess the resources to render them visible and that this may be incompatible with
the Catholic “view of justice,” (p. 80).
But the Catholic Church must operate within real world dictates. The discussion
has to then shift from “why” to “how”: how can the Church, or in this particular case,
how can Catholic higher education institutions adapt to market concerns so as to ensure
their survival, while remaining true to the very principles that distinguish the faith and
make it meaningful and relevant to followers? The following section reviews literature
about the uniqueness of the Catholic mission of colleges and universities in the United
States, focusing on managing institutional identity and purpose in changing times. The
traditional and contemporary influence of founding religious orders in general on
Catholic higher education also is discussed.
Catholic higher education in America.. America has a long history of higher
education institutions affiliated with religious communities. The first colleges
established by the European settlers (in the 1600s) were schools representing distinct
religious groups. Protestant churches dominated the range of established schools
however a contingent of Catholics -- very much in the minority of the settlers and early
colonists -- established Georgetown College in 1789 (Gleason, 2008). Heft (2003a)
noted that another century would pass before the Catholic Church in America would
found the Catholic University. The various Catholic orders (Jesuits, Sulpicians,
Dominicans and Vincentians) operating in the country began to establish their own
seminaries with the mission of providing “moral” education to their students provided by
clergy and religious faculty.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 61
In one of the first market acknowledgments demonstrated by Catholic higher
education institutions, a number of these colleges embarked on efforts to achieve
university status. Heft (2003a) tracked this effort to the school administrators’
recognition that their students were disadvantaged when it came time to apply to secular
graduate schools as the Catholic higher education system (at the turn of the 20
th
century)
was still largely operating on a European model of education that was incompatible with
the higher education system that had evolved in America. These shifts were occurring
just as America’s immigration boom was underway and many of these new citizens were
Catholics who sought out the church and other faith-based institutions as their touchstone
in the new world. In a 40-year period (1920 to 1960) enrollment in Catholic colleges
jumped from 34,000 to over 300,000 students -- a mammoth growth spurt. Catholic
higher education institutions responded by adding over 100 new colleges during this
same period. This rapid growth required schools to professionalize rapidly -- offering a
range of academic programs and graduate degrees. It was in the graduate programs in
particular, that the shift from clergy and religious faculty to lay faculty was most
pronounced.
While Catholic colleges and universities initially emerged to provide instruction
to Catholic students as conducted by faculty who were members of the religious order, by
the mid-1960s a shift was occurring and increasing numbers of lay people were moving
into the ranks of faculty and administration. Some of this can be traced to the far-
reaching implications of the Second Vatican Council, or as it’s commonly known,
Vatican II (Currie, 2011; Heft, 2003a). Additionally, as Currie (2011) noted, in the mid-
20
th
century there was a push by Jesuit and other Catholic educational leaders to
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 62
strengthen the intellectual reputation of Catholic higher education. This focus reflected
an awareness on the part of these leaders that Catholic colleges and universities in
America were known more for their religious affiliation than for their academic offerings.
A number of traditionally Catholic institutions, such as Boston College,
Georgetown University, Fordham University, and the University of Notre Dame began to
compete against large public and non-secular private institutions in their establishment of
doctoral programs and other research efforts. The 1967 “Land O’Lakes statement” in
which the nation’s Catholic higher education institutions declared their independence
from direct church oversight had a profound effect on the direction of these schools
(Hatch, 2005). Lowry (2004) noted that by 1977 a “majority” of Catholic higher
education institutions had established governance structures (boards) that were
independent from the church itself.
As this expansion of service and identity was occurring, some Catholics expressed
concern that the Catholic higher education institutions were losing their way, diluting the
tenets of Catholic teaching in a move toward pluralism and, others feared, secularization.
During this same period, Currie (2011) reported that the academic reputation of many
Catholic institutions of higher education greatly improved among the general public, as a
result of the commitment to “academic and institutional quality, professionalism, and lay
leadership that have led to new respect among their peer institutions,” (p. 349). However
Currie also noted that the concerns of Church leaders and other Catholics that schools
were sacrificing their Catholic identity in pursuit of secular acceptance and to maintain a
competitive edge.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 63
Acknowledging these concerns, in 1990 the Vatican released its document Ex
Corde Ecclesiae (ECE) that outlined expectations for how Catholic higher education
institutions were to conduct their “mission of service,” (Heft, 2003a, p. 42). The ECE
emphasized the importance of integrating Catholic theology and philosophy throughout
the entire academic curriculum and not just isolating religious teaching to specific
theology course offerings. The implications of the this directive are substantial as the
level of debate over what ECE means to Catholic higher education is high, and touches
on issues such as academic freedom, the role of lay faculty, the goal of academic
instruction to graduates, and the question of what constitutes secularization within a
Catholic college or university (Gambescia & Paolucci, 2011; Heft, 2003b). Among other
significant outcomes of the ECE, in 1999 American bishops ratified a directive that every
Catholic college and university was to be led by a president who was a practicing
Catholic and who, upon appointment to the presidency of the institution, made a
profession of faith. They also required that at least 50% of the faculty and as many
members of the board of trustees as possible, be practicing Catholics as well.
Melanie Morey of the Catholic Education Institute stated that the great crisis
facing Catholic higher education in America is the dearth of qualified religious faculty
(Byrne, 2008a). Morey contended that while Catholic colleges and universities remain
committed to engaging “the Catholic intellectual tradition” their ability to do so is
drastically hampered by the limited number of faculty or administrators who have the
religious training and orientation to integrate the ECE objectives (also, Ferrari, Bottom,
& Gutierrez, 2010; McMurtrie, 2003; Supiano, 2008). While Morey contended that the
reputation of Catholic higher education institutions nationwide keeps improving,
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 64
generating significant donations and garnering solid levels of high quality student
admissions, there nevertheless exists for these schools “a serious content problem,”
(Byrne, p. A12). Yet it is also worth noting, as Zagano (1990) observed that few Catholic
colleges or universities garnered a national reputation for excellence in scholarship and
research in the first part of the 20
th
century. It was not until the mid-1960s that schools
like Georgetown University and University of Notre Dame began to achieve some
prominence and, Zagano suggested, this might have had something to do with greater
numbers of professionalized and well trained lay faculty entering the teaching ranks at
these schools.
In recent years, the question over how the Catholic faith is to be represented and
carried forward through the mission of Catholic higher education institutions has become
even more pronounced. There is a distinct tension, not necessarily a negative one, but a
tension in the classic sense of the word, between American Catholic colleges and
universities and the Church leadership based in Rome (Hatch, 2005). Byrne (2008b)
summed the situation up neatly when noting:
The numbers of priests and other religious vocations have declined, with dire
implications for institutions that relied upon those men and women as faculty
members and administrators. Watchdog groups have created headaches by
ranking institutions by their adherence to conservative norms. Liberal critics
insist that recent changes threaten academic freedom and autonomy. (p. A1).
The concern became how to preserve the congregational “charism” of the college
or university in addition to its Catholic identity (Rebore, 2003). The Catholic religious
orders of men and women were founded upon a unique spirituality that gave meaning and
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 65
vitality to the educational institutions they established. Now with few or no religious
order men and women in many, if not most, colleges and universities, the issue of
tradition transference to lay men and women has become a major aspect of the mission
development process as well as the hiring process. If the process of “transference” is not
successful, the outcome may be a glut of generic Catholic institutions of higher
education.
Morey and Piderit (2006) discovered that many senior administrators were
ambivalent about exactly which cultural emphasis should dominate their institutions –
Catholic or congregational. Some administrators thought it strategically best for faculty,
staff, and administration to emphasize and be well-informed about the sponsoring
religious congregation. A second group of administrators stressed in their interviews the
importance of focusing on Catholic culture directly and becoming more knowledgeable
and familiar with the Catholic faith. Without being ungrateful for the powerful
contributions of the sponsoring congregations, they see that phase of their institution’s
history coming to an end.
Provost (2000) stated that, no matter how the relationship between Catholic
universities and the hierarchy are structured, the challenge remains to put Catholic
identity into practice. This, he claims, requires attention to persons and procedures.
First, presumably, a Catholic institution has some Catholic members. For an institution
of higher education to be “Catholic” implies a critical mass of people who are Catholic in
full communion. In addition to attention to the individuals who make up the community,
a Catholic institution will also be marked by its careful implementation of Catholic social
teaching about persons.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 66
Originally the term “catholic” was used to express that the Church embraces
all…. Catholic still means to embrace all persons, with no distinction on the basis
of age, race, national origin, or gender. It also implies service to all, so that
practical concerns go beyond one’s immediate circle and address the needs and
concerns of all human persons and of creation itself. For an institution of higher
education to be Catholic implies no discrimination, no “glass ceiling,” and service
to all precisely because the institution is Catholic (Provost, 2000, p. 23).
Second, in terms of procedures, Provost (2000) posed the question, “Given the
central importance of personnel to identity, is attention to the institution’s Catholic
identity significant in procedures for hiring, orienting new personnel, and continuing
attention of all personnel” (p.24). The procedural issue is not whether there can be a
religious test on the part of applicants, but where the authority to hire new personnel is
located.
Although the department or school can exercise this function, to place the entire
burden of it there tends to Balkanize the institution precisely in regard to its
central identity as a Catholic university. Higher-level academic authorities may
well wish to address this procedure if they desire to have an effective voice in the
Catholic identity of the institution (Provost, 2000, p. 24).
Orientation of new personnel and continuing attention to Catholic identity by existing
personnel has proven crucial to sustaining Catholic identity in the health care field.
Institutions of higher education are faced with similar challenges, and could learn
something from the in-service programs in health care.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 67
Finally, Provost (2000) advised that specific to a college or university is the
expression of Catholic identity in its curriculum. This should not be limited to the
importance of courses in philosophy and theology. It is expressed in the fields an
institution chooses to emphasize, the kind of research it promotes, and the funding it
provides for specialized academic efforts. “If there is no difference between the
curriculum of any other school and a Catholic institution, where is the Catholic identity?
Both the procedures for developing curriculum and the criteria applied to making these
decisions are important opportunities for the Catholic identity to express itself” (Provost,
2000, p. 24).
Many practitioners interested in and involved in Catholic higher education believe
a vibrant Catholic culture is an organizational asset for Catholic institutions (Morey &
Piderit, p. 33). Morey and Piderit argue that in terms of Catholic colleges and
universities, the concept of cultural boundary points is useful. If the boundary points are
clearly marked, then institutions that have a Catholic identity and operate as recognizably
American institutions of higher education can occupy any part of the line inside those
points.
Bollag (2004) reported on the recent rise of very conservative, small Catholic
colleges that have been established largely as a rebuke to their larger, more established
Catholic college brethren which they regard as having “strayed from the path,” (p. A26).
The administrators and faculty of these schools tow a specific cultural and moral line --
no tolerance for homosexuality, premarital sex, abortion, and stem cell research, and a
commitment to faith practice such as required daily mass attendance and professions of
faith by students and faculty and the weaving of liturgy throughout the academic
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 68
curriculum. These Catholic institutions serve a distinct niche market of American
Catholics who decry the “liberal” bent they perceive in more mainstream Catholic higher
education institutions and arguably, represent a strong branding and differentiation
strategy simply by virtue of their existence.
Such concerns are not limited to small Catholic colleges however but also inform
some of the tension reflected in debates happening on large and renowned Catholic
college campuses pitting a progressive, arguably secular, approach to inclusiveness
against a commitment to Church doctrine and Catholic identity. An example of this was
provided by Mary K. Daly, a 2010 graduate of the University of Notre Dame, who
challenged the university’s decision, in one instance, to allow a student production of the
Vagina Monologues to go forward and, in another example, to extend an invitation to the
pro-choice President Obama to give the 2010 commencement address. Daly argued that
both decisions reflected a dangerous and creeping secular relativism that belied Notre
Dame’s purported mission as an “authentically Catholic” institution (Symposium, 2010).
That Daly’s piece was solicited by a self-defined conservative publication suggests the
politicization of some of these concerns. However, the arguments set out by Daly are
characteristic of the struggle to consider the role of an authentically Catholic college or
university in America’s highly diverse culture. And her claim that “our nation is better
served by having a distinctive Catholic voice in the education of its future leaders than by
having just another prestigious university with a thin Catholic veneer” would
undoubtedly ring true to a number of Catholics who fear that American Catholic higher
education has lost its way (Symposium, 2010, p. 162).
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 69
In some ways, mainstream Catholic colleges and universities are walking a
tightrope, trying to balance the imperatives of Catholic Church beliefs against the need to
remain a viable and attractive educational choice for gifted students in America who,
admittedly, have a wide-range of attractive educational choices available to them. Many
of the best known Catholic schools – the University of Notre Dame, Georgetown
University, Boston College, , Villanova University, Santa Clara University, Seattle
University, University of Portland and Loyola Marymount University -- have pursued
efforts to broaden their offerings and distinguish themselves as academic institutions with
a large percentage of talented lay faculty and high achieving students who are not
necessarily observant or, perhaps, even Catholic in their faith. Hatch (2005) stated that
the success of these schools has engendered some mistrust among officials at the Vatican
who consider these schools (and similar Catholic higher education institutions) as not
being “sufficiently ‘juridical’” (p. B16) in ascribing to the objectives set forth in the ECE
(also, McMurtrie, 1999; Sullins, 2004). Hatch argued that, in fact, these schools have
been highly imaginative and successful, in engaging their Catholic identity, despite what
he called the “powerful secular undertow” of American academia (also, Henking, 2004).
The advantages of Catholic higher education. One of the most compelling
arguments for an engaged practice of Catholic higher education in America was proffered
by Morey who noted that if the only choices available in higher education to American
students were an Ivy League school or a state university, something wonderful about
America’s intellectual exploration and diversity would be compromised. As she put it,
“there’s not going to be something distinctive in the intellectual life and the content of
these institutions,” that broaden the possibilities for academic inquiry (Byrne, 2008a, p.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 70
A12). Catholic higher education institutions that proudly assert their religious identity
and meaningfully incorporate it in student life and curriculum delivery provide a genuine
alternative and thus enrich the intellectual life of the nation (Gambescia & Paolucci,
2011; McMurtrie, 1999; Trainor, 2006). Wolfe (2002) picked up on this point when he
noted that the Catholic “natural-law” tradition that certain truths exists, regardless of
circumstance or the evolution of social, cultural and political mores, and that these truths
provide a powerful basis for intellectual inquiry.
Lowry (2004) reported that Catholic universities have higher graduation rates than
do other private universities, despite generally having larger classroom sizes. These are
indicators generally associated with quality of undergraduate education and in this
scenario, Catholic higher education institutions fare better than their public university
counterparts that spend more money on recruitments toward enrollment, and investment
in research. Lowry implied that there was the potential for this last (i.e. research) to
constitute less a scholarly commitment than an awareness of what might hold sway in
terms of prestige and reputation. A recent market analysis performed for Moody’s
Investors Services revealed that approximately 22% of the students enrolled in four-year
private colleges attend Catholic higher education institutions (Viacava, 2008). Further,
the Moody’s report revealed that Catholic colleges and universities, on average tend to
have larger enrollments and a lower net tuition per student than their secular school peers,
reflecting their commitment to providing “access and affordability for Catholic higher
education,” (Viacava, 2008, p. 1).
Day (2007) reported on a study of college alumni that compared graduates of
colleges and universities across the country –- public, private, secular and religious. He
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 71
reported a dramatic difference in outcomes for alumni of Catholic higher education
institutions with nearly twice as many of them reporting they had graduated within four
years than for non-Catholic college alumni. Almost 80% of the graduates reported being
members of their church and credited their schools with helping them learn to write,
develop leadership ability, identify a sense of purpose in their life, teach them tolerance
and respect for others, and provided them with the bedrock for their moral development.
Interestingly, Day reported that the higher integration of faith or spirituality in daily life
reported by Catholic college graduates was essentially the same for Catholics as it was
for students of other religions who attended the Catholic school. This led Day to
conclude that Catholic higher education institutions are successful in their evangelical
role, regardless of whether a student is Catholic or not.
The Mission of Catholic Higher Education
One must make a distinction between an individual school’s particular mission
statement and the general mission of Catholic higher education. Certainly, an engaged
mission statement for a Catholic college or university will reflect the mission of Catholic
education overall, but it should do so in a way specific to its identity and practice. Ford,
Risteau and Haney (1997) reported on the National Catholic Educational Association’s
statement regarding the “Catholic Identity of the Catholic School”. They underscored the
role of the Catholic educational institution (primary, secondary and tertiary) as
“evangelizing” and in preparing students to practice their faith throughout all elements of
their life, and always with an eye to intellectual growth. The need for a clear mission
statement that reflects the school’s Christian heritage and the intellectual orientation is
especially important in times of financial hardship when schools experience declining
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 72
donations or endowment earnings (Morris, Haseltine & Williams, 2007). The U.S.
banking crisis in 2008 coupled with international economic turmoil in the several years
since then have impacted the endowments of hundreds of colleges and universities
(Chabotar, 2010; Mause, 2009). Inevitably, a number of Catholic institutions have
experienced serious economic hardship, along with their secular peers, as a result of these
worldwide financial tremors. In such a scenario, the commitment to the Christian, or
Catholic, mission of academic inquiry and service will help guide budgeting
determinations and allow the school to properly identify and focus on the most vital
aspects of its programming.
Wolfe (2002) came at the question of Catholic identity and mission in higher
education somewhat differently, focusing on the community service and social justice
aspect of the faith’s teachings and how these can be, and are often, realized by Catholic
colleges and universities (also, Mission of Catholic higher education. . . , n.d). The
author observed that many Catholic higher education institutions have a history of
supporting internships and providing credit for volunteer work performed by students.
Further, he argued that Catholic institutions have to large degree resisted the trend toward
rational-choice theory that has become pervasive in mainstream academia, Wolfe
contended, and which reduces human activity to a single dimension or value (generally a
monetary one). Because the Catholic intellectual tradition regards human activity as
complex and potentially contradictory, such reductionism is not as present in these
schools’ academic delivery. Wuerl (2008) similarly reflected this perspective, referring
to it as a Catholic higher education institution’s “unique capacity to deal with and
emphasize the spiritual dimension of human life,” (p. 3). Wolfe suggested this distinction
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 73
is one reason that Catholic institutions continue to rise in the U.S. News & World Report
rankings.
The literature reveals that different Catholic writers arrive at somewhat different
(though philosophically consistent and often overlapping) views about what constitutes
the Catholic higher education mission. Thivierge (2003) identified 10 principles as
central to the mission of a Catholic higher education:
1. To serve as a force for peace and love in the world;
2. To employ the advances of technology to reach and serve at-risk
populations;
3. To develop meaningful and spiritually-informed relationships within and
outside the academic community;
4. To cultivate respect for cultural pluralism;
5. To foster and nurture alliances and relationships with other academic
institutions, as well as non-academic institutions and individuals;
6. To encourage intellectual inquiry that challenges static thinking and
continually informs reconsideration of Catholic tenets of faith;
7. To commit to transformational change through education;
8. To support scholarly research and to take risks in intellectual pursuits;
9. To provide hope to others;
10. To serve as a voice for the disenfranchised.
(Thivierge, 2003, pp. 80-82)
Wuerl (2008) and Musgrove (2008) and others (Day, 2007; Heft, 1999; Henking,
2004; McMurtrie, 1999) have noted the special relationship that Catholic colleges and
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 74
universities have with the Church. While some of the literature discussed here suggests
that the relationship can at times be strained, Wuerl stated that the important aspect of the
relationship is the recognition that the Catholic school should reflect the “lived tradition
of the Church” (p. 5) so that students understand the school’s commitment to Catholic
beliefs, values and intellectual inquiry (Sullins, 2004).
On the one hand, in the judgment of Morey & Piderit (2006), students do not
receive a Catholic education if they never take a course from a Catholic faculty member
who links some course material to the Catholic faith. On balance, from an economic
standpoint, there is also a necessity to make non-Catholic students feel welcome at the
school, and not require them to disavow or minimize their own faith (or lack thereof) but
doing so while not compromising the school’s Catholic identity. The university must
decide its cultural focus, and then, in the free market of higher education, students will
make their decisions.
Case Studies in Mission Fulfillment
Currie (2011) suggested that making a distinction between mission and identity is
a critical factor for Catholic institutions to consider (also Ferrari et al., 2010). Speaking
from a Jesuit perspective on service and education (also Peck & Stick, 2008), Currie
stated that “identity is who we are; our mission is what we do,” (Currie, 2011, p. 351).
From this vantage point, identity may be proscribed, fixed, narrow and specific while
mission should be inherently responsive to changing conditions. It is interesting to note
that a growing number of Catholic institutions have implemented Catholic Studies
Programs (CSPs) in an effort to connect mission and identity. As Heft (2009) observed,
schools have publicized these programs in order to promote their Catholic authenticity
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 75
and noted they’ve met with “varying success” in their efforts “to make them vehicles for
the transmission of the mission and identity” of the schools (Heft, 2009, p. 369).
DePaul University, the largest Catholic university in the U.S., blended its mission
of service to the community of Chicago where it’s based, with its strategic plan to
improve programs and offerings to students. McHugh and Meister (2004) noted that the
school’s academic and facility planning was predicated on the expectation that public
partnerships could be fostered to provide funding and other needed support. This
expectation was well founded as the school had a century-old history of following
through on its’ mission of urban service and the founding Vincentian order’s commitment
to social justice. In other words, reaching out to the community to assist the school in its
strategic planning was consistent with the university’s mission as well as its tradition.
Wuerl (2008), Beauchamp (2007, 2006), Day (2007) and Danner (1997) have also stated
that this type of relationship with the community is essential to any Catholic higher
education institution’s mission.
Ferrari et al. (2010) and McHugh and Meister (2004) described how DePaul had
fallen on hard-times in the 1980s thanks to declining numbers of applicants to Catholic
higher education institutions, and decades-old facilities much in need of repair or
replacement just as the school’s financial resources were the most depleted. In fact,
McHugh and Meister noted that one national magazine identified one of DePaul’s several
campuses as one of the nation’s ugliest. The school embarked on a far-reaching 10-year
strategic plan that prioritized strategic enrollment growth, and identified the need for new
satellite and residential campuses and investment in well-outfitted classrooms. It was
able to draw on its long-standing reputation for good works in the Chicago area and to
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 76
obtain concessions and building assistance from the city as well as from local real estate
developers and foundation heads. The authors observed that while strategically planning
and implementing partnerships can be a lengthy process, the benefits accrued through the
commitment are substantial: “they create better living/working environments for both the
university community and its neighbors,” (McHugh & Meister, 2004, p. 30).
For Catholic institutions, which have a long-held commitment to community
service and urban renewal, strategic partnering can be viewed as a vector for fulfilling
part of this mission to build connections in the community that will benefit not just the
school but those around the school -- making them stakeholders in the institution’s
success. Ferrari et al. (2010) reported that DePaul’s 2006 strategic plan, called Vision
Twenty12, outlined six broad goals: “1) enrich academic quality; 2) prepare students to
be socially responsible leaders and engaged alumni; 3) be a model of diversity; 4)
selectively increase enrollment; 5) strengthen financial position; and, 6) further
institutionalize DePaul’s Vincentian and Catholic identity,” (Ferrari et al., 2010, p. 66).
As the authors observed, three of these goals specifically reflect the Catholic mission and
values of the school (goals 2, 3 and 6), while goals 1, 4 and 5 represent concerns relevant
to all higher education institutions.
A recent study reported by Ferrari, McCarthy and Milner (2009) surveyed almost
1,700 undergraduates at DePaul (1,070 women, 616 men) out of a total population of
approximately 23,000 students to determine their perceptions of institutional identity and
whether these appeared to be influenced by their degree of campus engagement and their
individual goal orientation. One of the most compelling findings was that for all
students, no matter what their level of campus engagement, there appeared to be greater
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 77
interest in activities that reflected the spiritual aspect of the school’s Catholic mission
rather those that emphasized traditional religious practices. The researchers suggested
that DePaul was most successful in conveying mission relevance through “opportunities
to understand [students’] purpose in life, provide service to others, and explore personal
values and meaning, over traditional workshop programs,” (Ferrari et al., 2009, p. 894).
This finding is intriguingly bookended by Weerts and Hudson’s (2009) contention that
evidence indicates that donors are more inclined to fund specific college and university
programming that produce positive community outcomes than they are to give on the
basis of general institutional goals. Hufton (2008) echoed this noting that donors to
Jesuit education and programming have a centuries-old tradition of supporting humanist
training and enterprises out in the community.
University of Dayton, a Marianist school, had an impressive pedigree of
accomplishments as the third largest Catholic research institution (after Notre Dame and
Georgetown), and the largest private college in Ohio, but little national recognition or
reputation. And because its name did not convey its Catholic identity, it was not on the
radar for a number of students outside the greater Dayton area who might be seeking the
advantages of Catholic higher education. A new school president determined that the
school would benefit from an effective branding campaign that would highlight what the
school knew to be its strengths (“research, service and student leadership,” Ashburn,
2008, p. A26), while positioning it within the pantheon of the most respected universities,
secular and religious alike. The branding effort also went a step further in tying the core
Marianist values of dialogue, discovery, and transformative education to real-world
applications through a visually compelling advertising that some critics accused of being
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 78
too flashy and culturally-hip for a Catholic school to embrace. However, these criticisms
aside, the branding effort was rated a great success. Other universities and colleges
responded to the “branded” president’s report, which was distributed to them in an effort
to gain the university some exposure. This, Ashburn observed, is significant since
“catching other colleges’ attention -- even for a moment” enhances a school’s reputation
(Ashburn, 2008, p. A26), and the enhanced reputation yields numerous benefits with
prospective students, donors and alumni (Morphew & Swanson, 2011; Stevick, 2010).
While Ashburn (2008) noted that it was still too early to fully assess the benefits
or distractions of University of Dayton’s branding effort, one clear indicator has been the
dramatic increase in freshman application rates for the 2008 - 2009 school year. The
university realized a 33% jump, far greater than the national average of an 8% increase in
school admissions that year. The larger applicant pool allowed the school to be more
selective in its admissions thereby increasing the quality of its student enrollment.
However, the real key to the school’s branding effort achievement, Ashburn stated, was
the fact that the institution had a clear idea as to its specific strengths and how it needed
to delineate itself from its most likely competitors, and then it devised a strategy for
speaking to potential students in an engaging way that highlighted the school’s Marianist
tradition and how this was realized in the university’s excellent research, student service
and leadership programming.
The strategic plan outlined for Boston College (Excellence, Distinction,
Leadership..,n.d.) provided for seven strategic directions for the 21
st
century that the
university made a commitment to pursuing. These included establishing the school as a
leading liberal arts education provider in the nation, developing a “student formation
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 79
program,” pursuing and conducting scholarly research efforts focusing on solutions to
urgent societal problems, improving its natural science academic program, strengthening
and improving the reputation of its professional school programs, partnering with Jesuit
and Catholic networks to reinforce the spiritual and cultural traditions of faith, and
establishing the university as one of the leading Catholic universities and “theological
centers” in the world.
The document clearly seeks to link Catholic values and beliefs to the school’s
mission, and particularly in regard to the implementation of the “student formation
program.” The plan states that theology, philosophy, personal responsibility and social
justice cannot simply be taught as sterile subjects in individual classrooms, but must be
integrated throughout and across the curriculum. This entails a university-wide
commitment to a shared vision, and the respect and collaboration between faculty and
students across departments.
Strategic Planning and Marketing
Viacava (2008) made the interesting observation that many Catholic higher
education institutions are located in or near urban locations and that this has provided a
significant opportunity that some schools have taken advantage of, to perform strategic
repositioning that allows the school to raise its profile and add luster to the reputation.
She cited Boston College as a case in point for having transitioned from a commuter
college targeting locals to a nationally-recognized university offering a range of
professional degree programs such as medicine and law. Remarkably, Boston College
finessed this transition within just two decades. By providing a largely affordable
alternative (lower tuition, a range of scholarship offerings) to students from middle- and
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 80
lower-income families, Boston College has retained its Catholic commitment to serving
less advantaged populations, while at the same time developing a reputation for attracting
and retaining good students who cannot afford other institutions (Excellence, Distinction,
Leadership. . ., n.d).
The paper Future Directions. . . (2005) produced by Santa Clara University
provides an interesting glimpse inside the discussions that surround Catholic university
mission and the push to compete in a global market for school preeminence. Such topics
as “solidarity” with others, the uses of technology, agreed upon standards for academic
excellence, engagement with local, national and global communities were covered and
the statement was even-handed in noting that all areas of discussion between the school’s
trustees, regents, and alumni association board members engendered some healthy
disagreement. However, the stakeholders largely agreed that the mission of the school
must incorporate the “teaching” to students of what a Catholic, Jesuit education
represents (also Peck & Stick, 2008). Noting that the Santa Clara University student
body continued to grow and was increasingly diversified, there was an awareness to
ensure that the faith-based discussions which characterize a Catholic education and make
it unique, should not be “centered solely around one faith, but encompass a variety of
faiths,” (p. 4).
Both Viacava (2008) and Supiano (2008) noted that one of the primary challenges
for Catholic higher education institutions remains a notable dependence on student
charges for revenue. In part, because the majority of Catholic colleges and universities
are less than a century old, they have had less time than many of their secular school
peers to build endowments and develop fundraising to a self-sustaining level. Supiano
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 81
also cited the shrinking pool of clergy available to serve as unpaid faculty members --
something Catholic institutions have historically relied on for both financial health and
for maintaining and deepening the connection to the faith and to church doctrine and
practice -- as creating a growing financial strain for Catholic institutions. The reliance on
student revenue, coupled with the commitment to provide affordable tuition and financial
support to needy students, makes it essential that Catholic colleges and universities
“maintain a strong market presence to attract net tuition paying students and for
continued sound operating performance,” (Viacava, p. 9). And even with this
commitment to affordability, Catholic higher education institutions have raised tuition
costs in the last five years at a rate of 6% compound growth versus the 4.7% compound
growth average for other private colleges and universities. But Supiano observed that
despite the tuition increases, Catholic schools continue to appeal on the basis of their
Catholic identity and she cited research indicating this appeal extended to non-Catholic
student applicants as well. The implication is that religious identity, in and of itself, is a
strong selling point for these schools to draw on when positioning themselves within the
competitive market.
Gambescia and Paolucci (2011) examined the ways in which Catholic colleges
and universities represented their Catholic identity on their websites. The researchers
explained their interest lay in considering how schools’ were observing the dictates of Ex
corde Ecclesia in expressing their Catholicism and defining how it was operational in
campus education, activities, and daily life. The researchers noted that empirical analysis
of higher education websites – across the range of public and private, secular and
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 82
religious schools – was extremely limited and there was little research available as to the
accuracy of these websites in conveying academic programming or school mission.
For their study, Gambescia and Paolucci (2011) identified 206 Catholic colleges
and universities offering two- and four-year undergraduate programs; some offered
graduate degrees as well. They listed seven markers they used to assess Catholic identity.
These covered stating the school was (currently) Catholic on the home page and, second,
whether it was affiliated with a particular Catholic order or sponsored by a diocese. The
researchers also looked at the academic statement of the school and whether the academic
tradition was reported to be guided by any or all of the following Catholic educational
features: “Catholic Intellectual Tradition, Catholic theology, Catholic Church doctrine
and teachings, Catholic spirituality, and Catholic social justice,” (Gambescia & Paolucci,
2011, p. 10). They further looked at the human resources page of each school’s website
to see if the school’s Catholicism was noted as an identifying feature so that prospective
members of faculty, staff or administration were aware of the school’s identity and would
understand the need to respect the Catholic mission and values guiding the school’s
operation.
Another feature of the website the researchers considered for Catholic identity
assessment was whether the homepage outlined Catholic worship opportunities –
services, prayer groups, Holy Day observances, places of worship, etcetera – and
provided links to pages demonstrating or supporting those activities. The provision of
Catholic social services and the identification of this function on the website was also
viewed as a meaningful marker as was, finally, evidence on the website of symbols and
images (e.g. a cross, a photo of a cathedral) that are immediately recognizable as iconic
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 83
of a Catholic heritage. Gambescia and Paolucci (2011) stated that not fulfilling all seven
of these categories of establishing a strong Catholic identity did not mean that schools’
were insufficiently committed to their Catholic mission of faith and service. However,
they did state that “given the reach and frequency at which a website communicates a
college’s mission, purpose, and goals to prospective students and constituents, it stands to
reason that Catholic colleges would want to be using more rather than fewer of these
attributes,” (Gambescia & Paolucci, 2011, p. 13).
The findings were rather striking in that only 16 of the 206 schools had all seven
identity markers apparent on their websites. Seven of the schools had none of these
markers and another 15 had only one marker; an additional 30 schools had two markers.
The majority of the institutions had either three or four markers on their websites.
Another 33 schools had fiver markers, while the remaining 19 schools had six markers.
The most common marker (89%) was the noting of the school’s affiliation with a
Catholic order or diocese or other sponsoring Catholic entity. The next most frequent
marker was the identification of Catholic worship spaces and opportunities (77%)
followed by the inclusion of Catholic heritage images or icons on the website (57%) and
commitment to Catholic social service (42%). Interestingly, identifying the school as
Catholic on the homepage was a marker for just 40% of the schools, ranking it fifth
among the seven markers. It was followed only by the identification of a Catholic
intellectual commitment in the lead academic statement (39%) and the assertion of
Catholic identity and commitment on the human resources page (28%).
While Gambescia and Paolucci (2011) found it encouraging that the majority of
the schools expressed their Catholic affiliations and prominently featured their Catholic
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 84
worship opportunities on their websites, they expressed some surprise that almost 60% of
the schools did not highlight their Catholic social service commitment – failing to
identify the social and community service activities available for students. As they and
others have observed, school mission statements frequently express the importance of the
Catholic social service tradition (Hufton, 2008). Hearkening back to Weerts and
Hudson’s (2009) finding that donors to institutions of higher education are most
favorably disposed to make gifts toward programming or other efforts that tangibly and
positively impact the community, this finding that Catholic colleges and universities are
not generally highlighting these efforts is a salient one. Similarly, Ferrari et al.’s (2009)
finding that the majority of DePaul University students tended to value their school’s
Catholic mission as expressed through community and social service engagement
opportunities, while a smaller group of students’ appreciated mission as expressed
through worship and other distinctly religious activities is also significant. Taken
together this cluster of findings suggest that there may be implications in terms of both
fundraising and student recruitment efforts for Catholic institutions that do not clearly
articulate a commitment to social service activity consistent with their Catholic identity
and mission.
Loyola Marymount University
The Loyola Marymount University (LMU) Mission and Catholic Identity
statement (n.d.) posted on the university’s website has served the school for almost two
decades (it was approved in 1990) and provides the foundation for the Strategic Plan for
LMU (2001) as well as the LMU Campus Ministry Five Year Plan (n.d.). The core
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 85
principles undergirding the school’s Catholic identity are stated in terms of its
educational tradition:
• [LMU] views the world as sacramental and seeks to find God in all things.
• [LMU] esteems both imagination and intellect.
• [LMU] takes philosophical and theological thinking seriously.
• [LMU] engages in ethical discourse and pursues the common good.
• [LMU] eschews the supposition that there can be value-free facts.
• [LMU] seeks an integration of knowledge in which “faith and reason bear
harmonious witness to the unity of all truth” (John Paul II, ECE, 1990,
par. 17)
(LMU Mission Statement and Catholic Identity, n.d.)
However, the mission statement narrows this delineation of concerns to a three-
pronged commitment: 1) the encouragement of learning; 2) the education of the whole
person; and 3) the service of faith and the promotion of justice. Each of these objectives
is grounded in spiritual humanism, consistent with LMU’s history of Jesuit and
Marymount order influences. Spiritual life is considered integral to intellectual life and
personal development however LMU expresses a commitment to embracing all views,
particularly as they are directed toward realizing justice for self and others. The mission
statement clearly stipulates that LMU prizes diversity in its students and the
representation of a variety of faiths, which, it promises will be honored through
ecumenical discussions and “free and honest inquiry.”
The 2001 Strategic Plan takes LMU’s mission statement as its guiding template
and asserts the university’s “conviction” that LMU “is positioned to become the
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 86
preeminent Catholic university in the western United States” (p. 1), by educating and
“send[ing] forth ‘men and women for others,’ to lead and to serve,” (p. 5). To this end,
LMU highlighted the importance of outreach efforts distinguishing it as the only Jesuit
university in the southwest U.S. and, accordingly, strengthening its campus ministry
work and commit to new ways to incorporate Jesuit and Marymount teaching and
philosophy across the curriculum. A host of initiatives, many linked to infrastructure
commitment, increasing endowments, improving campus life, and creating more linkages
with the greater community were linked through the strategic plan to LMU’s mission.
In his October 7, 2003 convocation address, LMU President Robert B. Lawton,
S.J. sought to address some concerns that LMU was going “too corporate” and that it was
in danger of compromising its unique character as a Catholic higher education institution.
Lawton referenced the various orders that had, over time, been affiliated with education
at LMU including the Jesuits and the Marianists, as well as the Congregation of the
Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange among others. He observed that these orders tended
toward “active” expressions of faith, rather than monastic, contemplative ones (like the
Benedictines). Both active and contemplative Catholic orders have strong traditions of
intellectual inquiry, they simply differ in how they pursue and practice it. LMU, Lawton
contended, emerged from an active expression of mission and draws its spirituality from
experiential learning through engaged contact with others and with the world at large.
While contemplative practice certainly has its place in the university (quiet study and
reflection), Lawton suggested that too often the contemplative is prioritized over the
active and that schools really do run the risk of becoming “ivory towers, disassociated
from the problems of society.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 87
It was from this position that Lawton defended against charges of corporatization
of the school’s mission and arguments that LMU was increasingly focused on bottom-
line considerations. He identified the tremendous growth spurt LMU had recently
experienced (a jump from 4,251 students in 1999 to 5,460 in 2003, an increase of over
1,200 students) and observed that the expansion that had necessarily accompanied the
growth in order to accommodate it, had somewhat fractured the community with the
development of satellite campuses. But as Lawton stated, “there is no going back” and
thus the challenge was to reconnect to a feeling of community and purpose that would
embrace the school’s growth and continue to support additional growth in pursuit of
national higher education preeminence.
Rather than eschewing corporate practices, Lawton (2003) stated that LMU
should draw on the best of these practices to ensure organizational diversity and effective
practice while providing for the individual stakeholders. Guiding this effort, he noted is
“the tension between knowledge as power and an instrument of service and knowledge as
a treasure in itself,” (p. 6). He added that LMU thus emulates the Catholic Church in its
embrace of both contemplative and active religious orders.
In his 2005 convocation address, Lawton returned to the theme of change and
LMU’s strategic plan to achieve a position of national prominence alongside such
recognized Catholic institutions as Boston College, Notre Dame and Georgetown
University. Changes to tuition structure were helping to fund some of the required
infrastructure changes, but Lawton also noted that fundraising had become a critical
component of LMU’s strategic plan. Most compellingly, Lawton linked the school’s
sense of purpose with the fortuitousness of its location in the city of Los Angeles. He
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 88
noted that the school’s branding statement “Right Place, Right Time” clearly captured the
role a Catholic mission and identity might have in a growing metropolis full of promise,
but also with large swathes of the population suffering from poverty or other forms of
disenfranchisement. LMU was perfectly positioned, Lawton stated, to explore and apply
the most meaningful aspects of its educational and spiritual mission and, in doing so,
establish itself as one of the nation’s premier Catholic higher education institutions.
Conclusion
Higher education institutions in America are engaged in an effort to attract the
best and brightest students, the most esteemed faculty, and to establish a reputation for
being preeminent in their college division (Anctil, 2008; Baldwin & James, 2000; Barron,
2012; Brewer et al., 2006; Considine, 2006; Kezar, 2008; Kezar & Eckel, 2004; Khoon et
al., 2005; LeFrere, 2007; Lerner, 2008; Lynch & Baines, 2004). In this relatively new
realm of market-driven academia, the jockeying for status is a matter of survival and it
entails developing a competitive advantage through branding, differentiation and strategic
marketing (Anctil, 2008; Fiske, 2008; Gambescia & Paolucci, 2011; Morphew &
Swanson, 2011; Necessary infrastructure. . ., 2006; Moore, 2004).
Institutional leadership and the development of a concise (and precise) mission
statement are central to any effective strategic plan with a marketing effort in mind
(Brewer, 1999; Chabotar, 2010; Cooper, 2009; Fairhurst et al., 1997; Fullan, 2001; Heft,
2009; Hufton, 2008; Keller, 2004; Khoon, et al., 2005; Kimball, 2011; Mannion, 2007;
McHugh & Meister, 2004; Moore & Diamond, 2000; Weerts & Hudson, 2009).
The role of the mission statement may be especially critical for Catholic higher
educational institutions which are in the unique position of balancing Church dictates (i.e.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 89
the Vatican, followed by American bishops) alongside the potentially conflicting
demands of the market, while still maintaining a commitment to academic freedom and
prizing intellectual inquiry (Currie, 2011; Day, 2007; Ferrari et al., 2010; Ferrari et al.,
2009; Heft, 1999; Henking, 2004; McMurtrie, 1999; Morris et al., 2007; Musgrove, 2008;
Sullins, 2004; Wuerl, 2008). This presents a challenge however it seems to be a
challenge that Catholic colleges and universities are rising to meet (Ashburn, 2008;
Beauchamp, 2007, 2006; Byrne, 2008a; Day, 2007; Lowry, 2004; McMurtrie, 1999; Peck
& Stick, 2008; Sullins, 2004; Supiano, 2008; Trainor, 2003; Wolfe, 2002). More and
more Catholic schools are making their way into the highest college rankings, and
Catholic college and university enrollments continue to climb. Clearly, there is something
appealing about the marriage of Catholic faith and identity and the conduct of academic
life – to Catholics and non-Catholics alike (Day, 2007).
The way(s) in which Catholic higher education institutions might be able to
capitalize on their unique position by tying a clearly articulated mission and purpose to
marketing efforts and strategic plans that underscore and illustrate these strengths is at the
heart of this research effort (Future directions. . . , 2005; Lawton, 2005, 2003; Supiano,
2008; Thivierge, 2003; Viacava, 2008).
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 90
Chapter Three: Research Methodology
This chapter describes the research design, sample, instrumentation, data collection
and data analysis process of the current study. It will begin by recapitulating the three
primary research questions the dissertation seeks to answer followed by a discussion of
the theoretical framework supporting Brewer, Gates & Goldman’s (2002) model of
prestige indicators in American higher education found in their book In Pursuit of
Prestige: Strategy and Competition in U.S. Higher Education. Finally, the chapter
summarizes and defines the U.S. News and World Report methodology for ranking
America’s Best Colleges.
Research Questions
The present study sought to answer the following research questions:
1. How do similar Catholic institutions of higher education in the western United
States compare in achieving the goal of perceived market preeminence as evinced
by accepted measures of prestige, according to Brewer, Gates & Goldman?
2. How have institutional leaders implemented elements of their strategic plans over
the past decade in order to encourage systemic change that promotes prestige
amongst their peers?
3. How are Catholic institutions of higher education faring, generally, in competing
against each other in the western United States for prestige and increased market
share?
These research questions were the basis for the data collection, analysis and subsequent
discussion of the data. For each research question, detailed information and analysis is
presented in the conclusions and recommendations of the study.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 91
Theoretical Framework
In Pursuit of Prestige (Brewer, Gates & Goldman, 2006) describes the results of a
two-year study of higher education in the United States designed to shed light on higher
education as an industry. It focuses on how institutions serve four identifiable markets
that generate revenues: student enrollment, research funding, public fiscal support, and
private giving. The authors analyzed higher educational institutions’ investment, pricing
and market behaviors, and the nature of competition among schools. They reviewed the
industry’s basic conditions and market structure then defined key dimensions, such as
degree level, scope, and resource allocation, by which institutions map out strategies for
competing for markets. Their methodology was an analysis showing how these strategies
are carried out based on site-visit data from 26 highly diverse colleges and universities.
The authors then considered what strategies are possible in particular markets and how
they affect students and competing institutions. Their conclusions draw out the
implications of strategy and competition for the various customers of the U.S. higher
education industry.
At the core of their analysis is a simple yet powerful taxonomy that classifies
institutions as prestigious, prestige seeking, or reputation building. Institutions that have
acquired prestige -- the industry's medallion colleges and universities -- are inherently
conservative in their marshalling of resources, more concerned with preserving than
extending the advantages that selective admissions, robust endowments, and substantial
sponsored research confer. Prestigious institutions focus on the long term, in no small
part because they are financially secure for the present. Institutions that have acquired
substantial prestige are more likely to be faculty-focused and more likely to use the
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 92
financial resources that accompany prestige to attract and retain key faculty.
Brewer, et al. (2002) operationalize the differences between reputation and prestige,
often confused with one another but fairly unique in scope and dimension. Detailed
operational definitions of reputation and prestige are covered in Chapter One, however
they are recapitulated here.
Reputation, which can be good or bad, rests on the ability to meet fairly specific
consumer demands. It is usually fairly local, word-of-mouth, and updated on an on going
basis.
Prestige, on the other hand, is always positive but more intangible. Prestige
institutions are less likely to demonstrate the delivery of high-quality service and other
elements of reputation, but they do conspicuously acquire and showcase elements that are
indirectly associated with such service. These elements, which the authors call prestige
generators, are said to be student quality, research, and sports.
A further distinction of prestige is that, unlike reputation, it is inherently a zero-sum
game: Advances come at others' loss. A primary example of this zero-sum game is the
U.S. News and World Report Annual Rankings of America’s Best Colleges and
Universities, a focal point of the present study. The point, ultimately, of any strategy is
the capture of additional resources, from enrollments, research funding, public support,
and private giving.
A special category of institution draws the interest of Brewer, et al.: institutions
that have depended on reputation, but that are seeking prestige (PS). Often short of
discretionary funds and frequently forced to compete in markets with high entry costs,
prestige-seeking colleges and universities are the industry's biggest gamblers. Brewer,
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 93
Gates & Goldman write: "Institutions do not build prestige in the student market by being
innovative or by identifying and meeting new types of student demands. Rather, they
build prestige by essentially mimicking the institutions that already have prestige" (p.66).
As a result, innovation is not particularly valued or rewarded, either in pedagogy or
program development. Those are more clearly strategies aimed at reputation.
For simplification and clarification, the table Identifying Investments and
Measuring Prestige in the Prestige Generators (Brewer, et al., p. 35) is reproduced below
in Table 1.
Table 1
Identifying Investments and Measuring Prestige in the Prestige Generators (Brewer et
al., 2002)
Prestige Generator Specific Investments Measures of Prestige
Students Merit scholarships
Faculty
Classroom and dorm
facilities
High SAT/ACT scores
Admissions selectivity
U.S. News rankings
Research Faculty with research
record
Laboratories and
facilities
Volume of Federal
grants
National Research
Council rankings
Sports Player scholarships
Highly-paid coaches
Stadiums/arenas
AP, USA
Today/ESPN, and
other national rankings
and polls
Bowl games,
tournaments, Olympic
medals
Prestige seeking, indeed, is viewed as a risky proposition. Not only does the
institution move from a positive-sum to a zero-sum environment, but also the indicators
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 94
of prestige are expensive, in a less-than-expansive environment for higher education. For
example, some institutions have spent millions of dollars of revenue from the public and
alumni giving to upgrade their athletic programs and related facilities in pursuit of the
kind of halo effect a winning program or, even better, a national championship promises.
These intercollegiate sports strategies face the realities that the upper echelons of
collegiate competition, particularly in football and basketball, are becoming more
restrictive of entrance, with ever-escalating "dues" of cash outlay – with no guarantees of
playing-field success.
Overall Comparison of P, PS, and R Institutions
Integral to the analysis of the data collected in this study will be the understanding
of Brewer, et al.’s overall comparison of Prestigious (P), Prestige-seeking (PS), and
Reputation-based (R) institutions. In the Brewer, Gates, and Goldman model,
investments in prestige are targeted to three major areas, the prestige generators: student
quality, research, and sports; plus financial health. Selectivity in admitting students has
long been associated with prestige in higher education. A prestigious institution is able to
attract many applicants for admission. If it has sufficient income, it can offer generous
financial aid and admit the students that the institution desires most. Institutions with less
financial capability must admit some of their students with a view toward who can pay
the tuition. For institutions that focus on undergraduate education, the primary
opportunity to build and maintain prestige is through selectivity in admissions.
For institutions with research emphasis, sponsorship of research is the major
opportunity to build or maintain prestige. Attracting research funding requires major
investments. An institution must have top-quality faculty and facilities in order to
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 95
compete in national competitions for research sponsorship. Attracting research faculty,
building research facilities, and operating graduate education programs are all expensive
investments. As stated above, competitive sports teams can also bring prestige. Sports
teams generate revenues directly through ticket sales, television contracts, and
merchandising. In addition, successful athletic programs generate name recognition for
the school, which may spill over into other areas such as the market for student
enrollment, public fiscal support, or private giving. Finally sound financial health is a
guarantor of sustained commitment to improvement. Simply, aligning resources to
strategic directions becomes more manageable with a well-endowed foundation and
tightly engaged alumni network.
Thus, P institutions tend to focus on internal values rather than external standards. P
institutions stress the need to maintain excellence or an inward focus to continue to
improve the quality of what they do. Their values have “transcended’ the mundane. P
schools tend to define themselves by the specific set of activities in which they are
engaged, and are confident that customers will be drawn to them because of their
perceived excellence in that area. “Put another way, they are not actively engaged in
building a market for their services or increasing the number of potential customers, but
vying for a growing share of a market that already exists” (p. 41).
PS institutions do not currently have a high level of prestige, but would like to. Their
primary resource allocation strategy is to invest in building prestige. These schools are
working to increase their prominence. They are less likely to define their goals in
relation to what they currently do, or what their customers need, but to what P institutions
currently do. Many of their strategic behaviors are aspirational in nature. Indeed, their
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 96
strategic goal statements might include references to specific P institutions.
Administrators at one institution studied by Brewer, et al. said that their goal was to be
“like CalTech, only more broad” (p. 42).
PS institutions are investing in a set of activities, some of which might propel them to
a position of national or regional prominence, as opposed to the esoteric or transcendent
values focus on by the P institutions who may have already “arrived.” It is worth
stressing that these activities will improve their prestige in the higher education industry
and can be quite different from those that meet the need of their current constituents.
Investments in infrastructure, the development of new programs, and partnerships with
more preeminent institutions might make up some of the activities of a PS institution.
They are choosing this set of activities in order to allow themselves to develop the
highest prestige possible.
P and PS institutions operate in markets with few objective measurement criteria, and
as a result, make heavy use of subjective quality benchmarks. “The most prestigious
institutions form the basis for these yardsticks and act as leaders in market segments
where imitation rather than innovation is the key to a strong position. When asked how
they know whether they are achieving their goals, both P and PS institutions reported that
they focus on comparative measures of performance” (p. 42). They are acutely aware of
U.S. News and World Report rankings and use this as a measure of prestige.
Reputation is often built in narrow market segments, so that investments in reputation
need to be relevant to specific external constituencies. Emphasizing curriculum
development, especially educational programs that have high relevance to employment, is
one option. Fulfilling customer service needs, such as providing education at work sites
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 97
or designing schedules to match the time adult students have available after work or on
weekends, is another option. Because of their fairly specific, limited nature, most
investments in reputation are smaller than investments in prestige.
Hence, R institutions have not accumulated a high level of prestige nor are they
investing in acquiring it. “Instead, these institutions are focused on meeting the
identifiable demands of customers. These schools describe their goals in relation to the
needs of external constituents. The specific identity of the latter constituents depends on
the nature of the institution and its level of specialization, but is most frequently some
identifiable student population or community group. The constituents have relatively
clear demands, the satisfaction of which is fairly easy to measure. For example, students
might want a bachelor’s degree, a job-related skill, or a job (p. 43).”
Research Design and Instrumentation
This study used a descriptive, cross-tabulation, analysis design. The data
collection method was a closed-ended survey instrument designed to measure the
variables that are being examined in this study as well as several open-ended questions on
topics related to the institutional mission, strategic plan, Catholic identity, influence of
the founding religious orders, perceptions of peer institutions, and assessment of any
changes in the respondent’s institution’s perceived prestige since 2001. The open-ended
items on the questionnaire instrument allowed for more in-depth responses. The
instrument was a “de novo” survey questionnaire developed especially for this study.
The survey was employed to help explain and clarify relational patterns in the
U.S. News and World Report data that seem arbitrary and ambiguous as well as help
eliminate spurious relational patterns or elements. This instrument was created expressly
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 98
for this dissertation, based on the study’s conceptual framework, in order to identify key
elements of strategic plan implementation and perceptions of prestige identified in
answering the study’s research questions.
Instrument validation was accomplished by allowing the survey questionnaire to
be reviewed by the dean of the school of education at a local, urban Roman Catholic
university having the same characteristics as the sample institutions. The researcher
forwarded a dissertation prospectus to the dean, along with a draft of the questionnaire,
for his objective feedback regarding his perspective on the validity of the survey
instrument. Basically, with modifications to one question, he found the survey adequate
to the task and the study compelling and interesting.
In order to address the present study’s three main research questions, analysis of the
survey results included, but was not limited to, regression and correlation analysis aimed
at understanding the interrelationships between various quantitative elements, such as:
• How does a university improve upon the key measures used to calculate the U.S.
News and World Report overall score and thus its perception of preeminence?
• How can endowment be improved, to affect the overall perception of prestige and
the financial health of the institution? What is the relationship between number of
undergraduates, 6-year graduation rate, alumni giving rate and other factors with
endowment size?
• How does the percent of the student body that is Catholic affect prestige at these
institutions? What other variables, such as market share, are highly correlated
with this percentage?
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 99
Procedures and Sample
The sampling approach for this study was a purposeful stratified sample or
convenience sample. The survey of strategic management and perceived prestige
generators will encompass nine western United States Roman Catholic universities of
comparable size, background, and classification.
The selection of sample institutions will be based on the following peer criteria:
• Ranking in the U.S. News and World Report classification “Masters – West”;
• Tier One ranking according to the U.S. News and World Report scoring rubric
in the above classification, America’s Best Colleges 2001, 2008, 2012 special
issues;
• Roman Catholic affiliation;
• Geographic location in California, Oregon, and Washington;
• Identifiable founding Catholic congregation with distinct educational
traditions: e.g., Society of Jesus (Jesuit), Congregation of the Holy Cross,
Brothers of the Christian Schools (Lasallian), Religious of the Sacred Heart of
Mary (Marymount).
Overall, a total of nine institutions matched these criteria. They are shown in Table 2.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 100
Table 2
Chart of Sample Institutions and Common Characteristics
Institution Founders and Date Undergraduate
Enrollment
Location
Dominican
University of
California
Dominican Sisters,
1890
1,445 San Rafael, CA
Gonzaga University Society of Jesus,
1887
4,517 Spokane, WA
Loyola Marymount
University
Society of Jesus,
1911; Religious of
the Sacred Heart of
Mary, 1923; merged
1973
5,676 Los Angeles, CA
Mount St. Mary’s
College
Sisters of St. Joseph
of Carondelet, 1925
1,883 Los Angeles, CA
Notre Dame de
Namur University
Sisters of Notre
Dame de Namur,
1851
801 Belmont, CA
Santa Clara
University
Society of Jesus,
1851
5,267 Santa Clara, CA
Seattle University Society of Jesus,
1891
4,206 Seattle, WA
St. Mary’s College
of California
Christian Brothers
(LaSallian), 1863
2,621 Moraga, CA
University of
Portland
Congregation of the
Holy Cross, 1901
3,041 Portland, OR
Subjects/Participants
The questionnaire was administered through the Internet service SurveyMonkey to
the following subjects relevant to the strategic planning process at the sample institutions:
• President,
• Provost/Vice President/Chief Academic Officer,
• Vice President of Student Affairs,
• Chief Development Officer,
• Administrator for Mission and Identity,
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 101
• Chair or president of the Faculty Senate.
While their formal job titles may vary across institutions, these individuals play pivotal
roles at shaping the strategic direction, acquisition, and management of critical resources
necessary to promote prestige in their particular market niche.
In total, 70 individuals from the nine institutions were solicited for their responses
through a combination of direct mail and electronic mail contact. Follow-up was done at
two-week intervals over one month, with a final phone solicitation, to ensure a maximum
response rate. Out of 70 individuals surveyed, 42 responded fully to the questionnaire for
a 60% response rate, according to Table 3.
Table 3
Survey and Response Rates Overall and by Institution
Institution Number of
Surveys Sent
Number of
Responses Received
Response Rate
Santa Clara University 8 6 75.0%
Gonzaga University 8 5 62.5%
Loyola Marymount University 7 6 85.7%
Seattle University 8 2 25.0%
University of Portland 7 5 71.4%
St. Mary’s College of California 8 5 62.5%
Mount St. Mary’s College 9 4 44.4%
Dominican University of California 8 5 62.5%
Notre Dame de Namur University 7 4 57.1%
Survey Totals 70 42 60.0%
All respondents were given the opportunity to receive the results of this study, if they
requested it. Of significant note, of the nine Catholic institutions identified, individual
respondents included: Five presidents or CEOs, four vice presidents of academic affairs
or provosts, and six vice presidents of student affairs/student services. Nearly 90% of
respondents (35/42) indicated they had some direct responsibility for strategic planning.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 102
Table 4 indicates the variety of roles and titles of the individuals responding to the
survey:
Table 4
Respondents’ Roles within the University
Total
Sample
Vice President of Student Affairs/Services 14%
President (Institutional Chief Executive Officer) 12%
Provost/Vice President of Academic Affairs (Chief Academic
Officer)
10%
Chief Development Officer/Foundation Executive 10%
Administrator for Mission and Identity 5%
Chair/Director of Strategic Planning 2%
Other 48%
Other Responses:
Associate Provost for Academic Achievement
AVP for Development
Chief Financial Officer
Dean of Students
Director (several programs)
Director of Campus Ministry (2)
Director of Corporate and Foundation Relations
Executive Assistant to VP of Institutional Advancement
Executive Vice President (2)
Full-Time Faculty, Faculty Leader, Former Department Chair
President of the Faculty Senate, Associate Professor of Political Science
Vice President for College Communications/Enrollment
Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations
Vice President for Enrollment Management
Vice President for Mission and Ministry
Vice President for Finance & CFO
Vice President for Planning
Vice President, Undergraduate Education
Vice Provost
Of these respondents, only 19% identified themselves as clergy members; 81% were
laity.
Document review
The research also included a document review, specifically of primary marketing
and advancement media available to the average consumer. These materials were
gathered and reviewed for the purposes of capturing information germane to this study
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 103
such as vision statements, mission or purpose statements, strategic plans, significant
announcements of and updates on major capital campaigns and alumni engagement
activities. In addition to the U.S. News and World Report Annual Rankings of America’s
Best Colleges and Universities and the U.S. News and World Report Ultimate College
Guide, the study examined institutional websites, catalogs, annual financial reports,
foundation and development media, and transcripts of relevant public communication by
institutional leaders in order to triangulate with the quantitative data gathered in the
analysis phase of this study.
Data Collection and Analysis
Statistical procedures used to analyze the data included descriptive cross-
tabulation analysis. Cross-tabulation and analysis occurred between the results of the
questionnaire administered through SurveyMonkey to the subjects at the sample
institutions and the U.S. News and World Report Annual Rankings of America’s Best
Colleges and Universities quality dimensions published in 2001, 2008 and 2012 as they
relate to the Brewer, Gates and Goldman prestige indicators.
The investigator searched for correlations between the data collected and two
dependent variables, arguably measures of prestige – U.S. News and World Report
rankings produced by overall score, and peer assessment ratings. Overall score is the first
dependent variable. This is an overall measure of prestige directly calculated based on
the following formula:
• Peer assessment rating (25%)
• Retention (25%) – six-year graduation rate; freshman retention rate
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 104
• Faculty resources (20%) – proportion of classes with fewer than 20 students and
50 or more students; faculty salary; proportion of professors with highest degrees
in their field; student-faculty ration; proportion of faculty who are full time
• Student selectivity (15%) – SAT/ACT scores of those enrolled; proportion of
enrolled freshmen in top 10% of high school class; acceptance rate.
• Financial resources (10%) – average spending per student on instruction, research,
student services, and related educational expenditures
• Alumni giving rate (5%) – average percentage of living alumni with bachelor’s
degrees who gave to their school during the year (indirect measure of student
satisfaction)
As will be demonstrated, a great number of the U.S. News criteria reflect directly Brewer,
Goldman, and Gates’ (2002) prestige generators in the major areas of student selectivity,
as well as endowments and financial health, and investment in research and faculty. A
comprehensive document review and descriptive cross-tabulation was utilized to capture
the overall scores, rankings, and change measures of the sample colleges and universities
chosen for analysis. Over the last decade however, U.S. News chose to rebalance several
of the criteria for measuring quality and the following table reflects those changes for the
years investigated by this study. The majority of these data were available through the
U.S. News and World Report website, publications, or other sources. The first step was
to correlate the collected data with the overall scores, using multiple regression.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 105
Table 5
Weighting of Measures
2001 2008 2012
National
Universities
Master’s
Colleges
National
Universities
Master’s
Colleges
National
Universities
Master’s
Colleges
Academic
Reputation*
25% 25% 25% 25% 22.5% 25%
Graduation and
Retention
Rates
20% 25% 20% 25% 20% 25%
Faculty
Resources
20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%
Student
Selectivity
15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
Financial
Resources
10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
Alumni Giving 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Graduation
Rate
Performance**
5% -- 5% -- 7.5% --
The second variable is a more independent measure of prestige identified as the
U.S. News Peer Assessment Rating (also known as Academic Reputation) itself. This is a
measure of prestige as evaluated annually by a sample of approximately 4,300 university
presidents, provosts and deans of admissions. Using the data collected, the researcher ran
a multiple regression analysis against the dependent variable of the Peer Assessment
Rating, to determine what factors are most highly responsible for perceptions of prestige
in the world of higher education.
U.S. News and World Report Ranking Methodology, In Brief
The following section summarizes U.S. News and World Report’s methodology
for categorizing, scoring, and ranking “America’s Best Colleges and Universities.” To
rank colleges and universities, U.S. News first places each school into a category based
on its mission (research university or national liberal arts college) and—for universities
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 106
offering a range of master’s programs and colleges focusing on undergraduate education
at the bachelor’s level without a particular emphasis on the liberal arts—by location
(North, South, Midwest, and West). National Universities, where there is a focus on
research and that offer several doctoral programs, are ranked separately from National
Liberal Arts Colleges, and Regional Universities and Regional Colleges are compared
against other schools in the same group and region.
Second, U.S. News gathers data from and about each school in 16 areas related to
academic excellence. Each indicator is assigned a weight (expressed as a percentage)
based on their judgments about which measures of quality matter most. Third, the
colleges are ranked based on their composite weighted score. U.S. News publishes the
numeric rank of roughly the top three-fourths of schools in each of the 10 categories –
known as Tier One; the remaining lowest ranked schools in each category are placed into
the Second Tier (and labeled Rank Not Published), listed alphabetically, based on their
overall score in their category. U.S. News gathers the data during the academic year
previous to the date of publication: For example, the data for the 2012 Best Colleges
edition were gathered in winter 2010, spring 2011, and summer of 2011.
The goal of incorporating the current study’s survey questionnaire data was to add
further context to the U.S. News and World Report data. The survey allowed for some
perspectives and opinions to be added to the factual U.S. News and World Report data,
and also allowed for open-ended exploration and understanding that cannot be gained
from recording only the U.S. News and World Report data. Various quantitative measures
from the survey were integrated into the regression analysis to see if they strengthen the
relationship with the Peer Assessment Rating.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 107
Summary
This chapter provided the research methods utilized in the present study, inclusive
of a description of the research design, sample, underlying theoretical and conceptual
frameworks, data collection instruments and an explanation of the data collection and
analysis processes. In chapter four, the research findings, and an accompanying analysis,
are presented.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 108
Chapter Four: Results and Analysis
The purpose of this study was to determine what linkages exist between the
implementation of a strategic plan and the perception of an institution’s prestige in the
context of American Catholic higher education. The study measured and compared
progress in achieving preeminence amongst comparable Catholic university and college
peers in the western United States that have implemented a major strategic plan, since
2001. This chapter represents the results of the analysis of the data.
Research Questions
The present study sought to answer the following research questions:
1. How do similar Catholic institutions of higher education in the western United
States compare in achieving the goal of perceived market preeminence as evinced
by accepted measures of prestige, according to Brewer, Gates & Goldman?
2. How have institutional leaders implemented elements of their strategic plans over
the past decade in order to encourage systemic change that promotes prestige
amongst their peers?
3. How are Catholic institutions of higher education faring, generally, in competing
against each other in the western United States for prestige and increased market
share?
These research questions were the basis for the data collection, analysis and subsequent
discussion of the data.
Research results based on a cross tabulation of survey responses with institutional
scoring in the U.S. News and World Report rankings of colleges and universities are
presented in the first section of this chapter. In the next section of this chapter are
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 109
presented the comparison of attitude and behavior responses and factual knowledge
questions in the survey instrument with the taxonomy of institutional prestige advanced
by Brewer, et al. Discussion of the results and implications for the research will be
presented in chapter five.
Overall Scores and Change Measures: U.S. News And World Report America’s Best
Colleges
The rationale for utilizing the U.S. News and World Report America’s Best
Colleges rankings for the present research and their underlying limitations and
delimitations have been described elsewhere in the study. The U.S. News methodology
for categorizing, scoring, and ranking institutions was summarized in chapter three.
This study concentrated on analyzing the measurement over time of nine specific
Master’s-level Catholic institutions in the West. As will be seen, between 2001 and 2012
there were few changes in the overall rankings, ratings, and scoring of the nine subject
institutions in U.S. News. Changes that were noted affected the placement of only a
couple of the smaller institutions in the study, those that were ranked and rated at or near
the bottom of the sample. The following tables summarize the nine colleges’ and
universities’ scores and changes over time along several of the above dimensions in the
U.S. News and World Report America’s Best Colleges Master’s-West, Tier One category.
Overall U.S. News institutional scores and their changes over time are shown in
Table 5. “Snapshots” are taken from the data reported for the “America’s Best Colleges”
in the respective years listed:
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 110
Table 6
USNWR Overall Score by University over Time from 2001 to 2012
2001 2008 2012
Santa Clara University 94 91 95
Gonzaga University 82 82 86
Loyola Marymount University 82 79 85
Seattle University 72 71 76
University of Portland 74 66 73
St. Mary’s College of California 73 63 67
Mount St. Mary’s College 68 47 50
Dominican University of California 35 35 41
Notre Dame de Namur University 60 31 29
Overall institutional rankings of the study’s sample and their changes as reported
over the same period in the U.S. News Master’s-West, Tier One category are shown in
Table 7.
Table 7
USNWR Overall Ranking by University over Time from 2001 to 2012
2001 2008 2012
Santa Clara University 2 2 2
Gonzaga University 3 3 3
Loyola Marymount University 3 4 4
Seattle University 10 7 6
University of Portland 7 10 9
St. Mary’s College of California 9 12 12
Mount St. Mary’s College 14 25 28
Dominican University of California 38 38 37
Notre Dame de Namur University 25 52 69
Finally, USNWR Peer Assessment Scores (now known as Undergraduate Reputation
Scores) for the same time period are reported in Table 8
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 111
Table 8
USNWR Peer Assessment (Undergraduate Academic Reputation) Score Rated From 1 to
5 by University over Time from 2001 to 2012
2001 2008 2012
Santa Clara University 4.0 3.9 4.0
Gonzaga University 3.8 3.8 3.8
Loyola Marymount University 3.7 3.6 3.6
Seattle University 3.5 3.5 3.5
University of Portland 3.5 3.4 3.5
St. Mary’s College of California 3.3 3.1 3.2
Mount St. Mary’s College 3.2 3.0 3.1
Dominican University of California 2.6 2.5 2.7
Notre Dame de Namur University 2.9 2.4 2.4
Overall, Tables #1, 2, and 3 are just giving us the data behind the identification of
the sample schools as top, middle or lower level. How these scores, rankings, and levels
translated to corresponding categories for the purposes of this dissertation are explained
in the next section.
Overall Scores and Institutional Groupings
Data gathered from the U.S. News and World Report Annual Rankings of
America’s Best Colleges and Universities quality dimensions published in 2008 enabled
the respondents’ institutions to be separated into three groups according to overall scores,
as well as peer assessment ratings or the undergraduate academic reputation score
(defined previously in Chapter Three). A significant finding of this research is that data
analysis of the responses to the questionnaire indicated a close correspondence to these
groupings based on U.S. News scores and the categories of P, PS, and R institutions as
they relate to the Brewer, Gates and Goldman prestige indicators.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 112
Group 1 (the Top Level Group) received overall scores in the U.S. News rankings
of Masters-West institutions of 76 and above. The Top Level Group is comprised by
Santa Clara University, Gonzaga University and Loyola Marymount University.
Collectively, as we will see, this group will be known as “Prestigious” Catholic
Universities on the West Coast, corresponding to the “P” category in the taxonomy of
Brewer, Gates and Goldman’s prestige indicators.
Group 2 (the Middle Level Group) received overall scores in the U.S. News
rankings of Western-Masters institutions of between 51 and 75. The Middle Level Group
is comprised by Saint Mary’s College of California, University of Portland, and Seattle
University. Collectively, as will be demonstrated, this group will be referred to as
“Prestige Seeking” Catholic Universities on the West Coast, corresponding to the “PS”
category in the taxonomy of Brewer, Gates and Goldman’s prestige indicators.
Finally, Group 3 (The Lower Level Group) received overall scores in the U.S.
News rankings of Western-Masters institutions of 50 or lower. The Lower Level Group
is composed of Mount St. Mary’s College, Dominican University, and Notre Dame de
Namur University. Collectively, this group will be known as “Reputation Building”
Catholic Universities on the West Coast, corresponding to the “R” category in the
taxonomy of Brewer, Gates and Goldman’s prestige indicators. These groupings will be
referred to throughout the remainder of the study and are illustrated in the table below.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 113
Table 9
Three Groups of Schools Included in Survey, Alignment with Brewer, Gates & Goldman
Model
Top: Prestigious Catholic
Universities in the West
Middle: Prestige Seeking
Universities in the West
Low: Reputation Building
Universities in the West
Santa Clara University Seattle University Mount St. Mary’s College
Gonzaga University University of Portland Dominican University of
California
Loyola Marymount
University
St. Mary’s College of
California
Notre Dame de Namur
University
Research Questions
The investigator in the present study sought to answer the research questions
relating to how similar Catholic institutions of higher education in the western United
States compare in achieving the goal of perceived market preeminence as evinced by
accepted measures of prestige; how have institutional leaders implemented elements of
their strategic plans over the past decade in order to encourage systemic change that
promotes prestige amongst their peers; and how Catholic institutions of higher education
are faring, generally, in competing against each other in the western United States for
prestige and increased market share. In this section of Chapter Four, data is presented
that address each research question.
Research Question #1. How do similar Catholic institutions of higher education
in the western United States compare in achieving the goal of perceived market
preeminence as evidenced by accepted measures of prestige, according to Brewer, Gates
& Goldman?
This study investigated this research question utilizing accepted measures of
prestige advanced by Brewer, Gates & Goldman (2006). Those measures were detailed
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 114
earlier in the study. The following section correlates those measures with U.S. News data
on America’s Best Colleges.
Student selectivity. One of the major generators of prestige, according to Brewer
et al. (2002), is student selectivity. The following table reflects the sample institutions’
student selectivity levels, according to U.S. News:
Table 10
Student Selectivity Level by University over Time from 2001 to 2012
2001 2008 2012
Santa Clara University 3 3 3
Gonzaga University 3 3 3
Loyola Marymount University 3 3 3
Seattle University 2 3 3
University of Portland 2 3 3
St. Mary’s College of California 2 2 3
Mount St. Mary’s College 3 1 2
Dominican University of California 1 2 2
Notre Dame de Namur University 1 1 1
1=less selective
2=selective
3=more selective
4=most selective
Investing in faculty. According to Brewer et al., a significant specific investment
in prestige is the investment an institution makes in its faculty and research capability.
Investment in faculty, whether by incentivizing quality professors to the institution or
through hiring more to balance the existing student – professor ratio, should result in
better quality research and teaching, better quality students, more student success, and
thus, increased prestige. The following data from U.S. News presents how the sample
institutions have invested in faculty over time across a couple of dimensions.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 115
The sample institutions’ investment in full-time facuty over time, according to
U.S. News, is reported in Table 9:
Table 11
Percentage of Faculty Who Are Full-Time by University over Time from 2001 to 2012
2001 2008 2012
Santa Clara University 86% 67% 78%
Gonzaga University 82% 52% 78%
Loyola Marymount University 74% 53% 75%
Seattle University 88% 67% 84%
University of Portland 81% 67% 84%
St. Mary’s College of California 64% 46% 68%
Mount St. Mary’s College 57% 26% 51%
Dominican University of California 47% 23% 51%
Notre Dame de Namur University 56% 31% 57%
Another prestige generator among top colleges and universities, according to Brewer, et
al., is the ratio between professors (faculty) and undergraduate students. The USNWR
report of student:faculty ratio is shown in Table 10.
Table 12
Student: Faculty Ratio (X:1) by University over Time from 2001 to 2012
2001 2008 2012
Santa Clara University 12 12 13
Gonzaga University 11 11 11
Loyola Marymount University 13 11 11
Seattle University 12 13 13
University of Portland 13 12 13
St. Mary’s College of California 13 12 12
Mount St. Mary’s College 14 14 12
Dominican University of California 12 11 12
Notre Dame de Namur University 12 10 12
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 116
Private giving and overall financial health. A major criterion for prestige and
prestige generation advanced by Brewer et al. is the overall financial health of an
institution. In this study a significant amount of attention was devoted to financial health,
specifically the variables of private giving to these sectarian Catholic institutions, alumni
engagement, and resource allocation. These variables are reflected in data such as alumni
giving, endowment size, and whether an institution regularly engages in capital
campaigns. Later, discussion will concentrate on the comparison between the sample
institutions and what universities were universally considered the “gold standard” of
nationally-ranked Catholic institutions. For now, the following figures present U.S. News
data on the various dimensions of the financial health of the study’s sample institutions
and their corresponding prestige generators.
In Table 13, U.S. News reports the sample institutions’ overall alumni giving
rates. It is clearly evident that the top group has been able to maintain a steady,
consistent alumni giving rate over the time period studied in this dissertation:
Table 13
Alumni Giving Rates by University over Time from 2001 to 2012
2001 2008 2012
Santa Clara University 27% 18% 16%
Gonzaga University 23% 23% 20%
Loyola Marymount University 13% 15% 19%
Seattle University 17% 12% 11%
University of Portland 25% 14% 15%
St. Mary’s College of California 18% 16% 12%
Mount St. Mary’s College 16% 16% 17%
Dominican University of California 31% 14% 11%
Notre Dame de Namur University 22% 10% 9%
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 117
Additionally, according to Brewer, et al., size does matter, at least in the overall
endowment amounts over which the respective institutions have stewardship. It is
notable in Table 14 the somewhat significant endowment amounts dropping off as
perceived presige levels of the sample institutions decrease in categorical levels:
Table 14
Endowment Levels ($MM) by University over Time from 2001 to 2012
2001 2008 2012
Santa Clara University NA $676 $604
Gonzaga University NA $152 $120
Loyola Marymount University NA $396 $330
Seattle University NA $151 $153
University of Portland NA $95 $80
St. Mary’s College of California NA $150 $111
Mount St. Mary’s College NA $79 $80
Dominican University of California NA $17 $19
Notre Dame de Namur University NA $11 $10
Sports/Intercollegiate Athletics. According to Brewer et al., competitive sports
teams can also bring prestige. Intercollegiate athletics generate revenues directly through
ticket sales, television contracts, and merchandising. Again, lying within the variables
presented above, for sports there are level and breadth considerations, such as at what
NCAA division level to participate, in which leagues to participate, in which sports to
field teams, and how much financial resources can be devoted to athletic scholarships.
The following figures illustrate data pertaining to sports as prestige generators across
these variables at this study’s sample institutions. The data were derived from the
websites of the respective sample institutions as well as www.ncaa.com.
NCAA Division I status is considered universally as the most elite level of
intercollegiate athletic competition, thus the most prestigious, according to Brewer et al.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 118
In Table 13, the sample institutions with the majority of their sports competing in NCAA
Division I are presented versus the schools that are not:
Table 15
NCAA I Status by University over Time from 2001 to 2012
2001 2008 2012
Santa Clara University NA Yes Yes
Gonzaga University NA Yes Yes
Loyola Marymount University NA Yes Yes
Seattle University NA Yes Yes
University of Portland NA Yes Yes
St. Mary’s College of California NA Yes Yes
Mount St. Mary’s College NA No No
Dominican University of California NA No No
Notre Dame de Namur University NA No No
Equally, an institution’s ability to offer scholarships to students eligible to
participate in top-tier sports demonstrates much about the school’s commitment to
presige generation, as well as its financial health. That is, the institution’s financial
balance sheet must be robust enough to sustain meaningful numbers of student/atheletes
on full or partial athletic scholarships. In the following two tables, Tables #10 and #11,
the numbers of men’s and women’s scholarship sports at each institution are reported. It
is interesting to note some of the changes over time, especially with respect to the balance
of the number of men’s and women scholarship sports.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 119
Table 16
Number of Men’s NCAA/NAIA Scholarship Sports by University over Time from 2001 to
2012
2001 2008 2012
Santa Clara University NA 8 8
Gonzaga University NA 6 6
Loyola Marymount University NA 8 8
Seattle University NA 8 9
University of Portland NA 8 7
St. Mary’s College of California NA 6 6
Mount St. Mary’s College NA 0 0
Dominican University of California NA 4 5
Notre Dame de Namur University NA 5 5
Table 17
Number of Women’s NCAA/NAIA Scholarship Sports by University over Time from 2001
to 2012
2001 2008 2012
Santa Clara University NA 9 9
Gonzaga University NA 8 8
Loyola Marymount University NA 10 10
Seattle University NA 9 10
University of Portland NA 8 7
St. Mary’s College of California NA 8 8
Mount St. Mary’s College NA 0 0
Dominican University of California NA 6 7
Notre Dame de Namur University NA 6 6
Research Question #2
The purpose for undetaking this study was to determine what linkages exist
between implementation of a strategic plan and the perception of institutional prestige in
the context of American Catholic higher education. The investigator’s study of the
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 120
second research question utilized the Western Catholic Universities Survey questionnaire
to investigate this correlation directly:
How have institutional leaders implemented elements of their strategic plans over
the past decade in order to encourage systemic change that promotes prestige
amongst their peers?
Data gathered from the overall scores in U.S. News & World Report (Tables #1 and #2,
Chapter Two) support demarcation along the line described by Brewer et al. as internal,
values-oriented focus versus, external, service-oriented focus. The table illustrating the
study’s sample institutions grouped by P, PS, and R categories is reproduced below.
Table 9
Three Groups of Schools Included in Survey, Alignment with Brewer, Gates & Goldman
Model
Top: Prestigious Catholic
Universities in the West
Middle: Prestige Seeking
Universities in the West
Low: Reputation Building
Universities in the West
Santa Clara University Seattle University Mount St. Mary’s College
Gonzaga University University of Portland Dominican University of
California
Loyola Marymount
University
St. Mary’s College of
California
Notre Dame de Namur
University
This section presents data gathered from the Western Catholic Universities
Survey questionnaire in support of this study’s conclusions related to the second research
question.
Strategic planning. As mentioned previously, 82% of individual respondents
indicated they are involved in strategic planning at their college or university. Data in
Table 18 show that respondents to survey question #10 across the board recognized that
having a Strategic Plan is important and all stated that they have one: 69% of Top Level
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 121
Group schools reported they have a strategic plan in place with 31% claiming they are in
the process of developing a new one. In contrast, 91% of Middle Level Group
respondents and 100% of the Lower Level Group respondents said a strategic plan is in
place, with no plans for revising it or for development of a new one.
Table 18
Existence of a Strategic Plan
Total Sample
Yes, a strategic plan is in place 68%
Yes, but it is under revision 18%
We are in the process of developing a plan 15%
Interestingly, where these institutions are in executing their strategic plan is where
the data begin to differ. The researcher “drilled down” through data gathered by Q10 and
discovered the following:
The “prestigious” group of Catholic universities in the West cites a pattern of
refinement of strategic directions since 2001 through 2009, whereas the other middle and
lower groups are static. This indicated that continuous improvement through strategic
planning is a hallmark of Top Level Group or P schools, always working to improve or to
have a strategic system in place for continuous improvement, as opposed to remaining
complacent. Those findings are reflected in Table 19.
Table 19
Existence of A Strategic Plan by Tier
Top Tier Middle Tier Lower Tier
Yes, a strategic plan is in place 44% 83% 83%
Yes, but it is under revision 25% 8% 17%
We are in the process of developing a
plan
31% 8% --
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 122
In terms of the top three strategic goals identified by respondents at their
institutions (Q11), the Top Level Group, or “P” Catholic institutions in the West, appear
to have loftier and more transcendent goals. An overwhelmingly majority of individuals
at these Top Level Group schools are concerned with “Improving the institution’s
academic standing both locally and nationally’” and “Generating, managing, and
conserving financial resources to advance the institutional mission and strategic
initiatives” followed by a statistical split between “Reinforcing (their) identity by
building on the heritage of the founding religious congregation,” and “Becoming
recognized as one of the most academically distinguished Catholic universities in the
United States.” This final goal, which implies improvement of their academic standing,
reinforces several points that Brewer, et al. state about the performance of “prestigious”
institutions: P colleges and universities are defined via their ability to:
a) Recruit students more selectively,
b) Manage their financial resources well, and,
c) Improve their financial condition, including increasing their endowments
(Table 19).
These strategic behaviors are significantly more likely to help the Top Level Group
institutions like Gonzaga University, Loyola Marymount University, and Santa Clara
University maintain this market-level of “Prestige” among categorical peers – Western-
Masters and Catholic -- and likely to help them achieve prestige-seeking status on a
national stage. This pathway to national prominence will be discussed later, in Chapter
Five. Interestingly, nothing was highlighted in the responses about being Catholic/having
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 123
a Catholic heritage/providing a religious environment/etc. in Top Level Group
institutions’ definition of “improving their academic standing.”
Table 20
Top Strategic Goals of Sample Universities by Group
Top Group
“Prestigious”
Universities
Middle and Lower Groups
“Prestige Seeking” and
“Reputation Building”
Universities
Loftier Prestige-Solidifying
Goals
Generating, managing and
conserving financial resources
to advance the institutional
mission and strategic initiatives
56%
24%
Deepening the engagement of
the entire university in the
development of the whole
person
38%
20%
Becoming one of the most
academically distinguished
Catholic comprehensive
universities in the United
States
25%
4%
Fundamental, Building Goals
Improving the institutions
standing both locally and
nationally
31%
44%
Recruiting, developing and
promoting an excellent and
diverse faculty and staff
committed to our mission
19%
32%
Bold Italics = significantly stronger than other column
Strategic directions and identity, When asked their opinions on which top three
strategic directions have been and should be implemented in order to improve their
institution’s perception as a “preeminent Catholic university,” (Questions 12, 13, 14) as a
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 124
result of their comprehensive strategic plan, respondents across all three groups of
institutions cited answers that did not speak merely to being a better Catholic university,
but to becoming a better institution of higher education (see below Figure 5). Note that Q
12, 13, and 14 in the survey were actually one question separated into three sections
(giving each respondednt potentially a “top three” reply) for ease of response. In their
responses, respondents from the P schools in the sample are focused on loftier, prestige-
building goals and initiatives, such as financial generation and management, or becoming
a top academically distinguished university. Lower and middle group schools do not have
the same level of prestige and need to focus on goals such as building up a stronger
faculty base or simply improving their standing to acceptable levels.
Table 21
Strategic Directions that Should be Implemented to Improve Perceptions as
a”Preeminent Catholic University”
Strategic Direction
Should Be
Implemented
Does Not
Need To Be
Implemented
Has Already
Been
Implemented
Recruit faculty, staff and administrators
who can contribute out of their diversity to
the further development of academic
interest in the Catholic intellectual and
cultural heritage
52%
15%
32%
Support research on the ways in which
academic discipline areas, spiritual
concerns and our Catholic identity intersect
51%
33%
15%
Ensure that all academic units periodically
assess and improve their contributions to
the university's Catholic ideas and values
41%
44%
15%
Have all student educational support
services assist students to experience the
connection between the university identity
and their lives
38%
23%
38%
Promote ways in which the religious
traditions of the university can interact
intellectually with our culture
35%
15%
50%
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 125
Table 21, Continued
Strategic Direction
Should Be
Implemented
Does Not
Need To Be
Implemented
Has Already
Been
Implemented
Establish comprehensive in-service
programs for staff, faculty, administrators,
trustees, and regents promoting the
university's identity and mission, its
intellectual and spiritual tradition, and the
history of Catholic education
35%
12%
52%
Recruit faculty, staff and administrators
who are in support of the mission and
philosophy of the university
35%
5%
60%
Support programmatic research consistent
with the traditions of the founding
religious order, in fields such as science,
teacher training, allied health, law, the arts,
and environmental conservation
34%
40%
26%
Promote regular significant interactions of
students with Catholic intellectuals on the
faculty
32%
32%
37%
Establish and maintain a core group of lay
faculty and administrators committed to
sustaining the school's Catholic identity, as
well as the spiritual traditions of the founding
religious order, by assuming leadership and
planning roles now vacated by a diminished
number of clergy on campus
32%
29%
40%
Give particular attention to issues of equity and
justice concerning women and minorities at the
university
28%
15%
58%
Establish voluntary programs that target
student athletes who choose to make a
commitment to their religious growth
26%
68%
5%
Promote ways in which our heritage can
regularly be made obvious in art, ritual, symbol
and public events
25%
22%
52%
Clarify and strengthen the institution's
relationship with the local, national, and
international Catholic church and other
organized religions
23%
31%
46%
Provide student athletes opportunities to grow
their own knowledge and understanding of the
Catholic faith
21%
55%
24%
Ensure that all governance decisions will
contribute to maintaining and enhancing the
Catholic identity, ideals, and values of the
university
21%
33%
46%
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 126
Table 21, Continued
Strategic Direction
Should Be
Implemented
Does Not
Need To Be
Implemented
Has Already
Been
Implemented
Support a vital campus ministry committed to
inclusion while grounded in the fundamentals
of Catholic teachings and the traditions of the
founding order
21%
5%
74%
Advance a complementary of the religious,
intellectual and social lives of all students,
faculty, staff and administrators
18%
45%
38%
Establish core courses in Theology for all
undergraduates that focus on the fundamentals
of Catholic teachings and the traditions of the
founding order
15%
49%
36%
Establish and support mandatory service
learning experiences unique to the university
that are consistent with the traditions of the
founding order and the Catholic belief in
human dignity
10%
50%
40%
Establish required courses in each major
academic discipline that focus on the
intersection or reconciliation of core
disciplinary knowledge and the Catholic faith
8%
79%
13%
Thus, overall the strategic directions that the sample institutions from the USNWR
Master’s -West schools see as priorities speak to their need to be a better, stronger, more
prestigious institute of higher education, but less so towards being a better Catholic
university.
Institutional Challenges and Investment. This study’s survey questionnaire (Q7)
asked, “What are the three biggest challenges at your institution?” The data found in
Table 22 from the responses to Q7 support the Brewer, et al. model of investments in
prestige (outlined in Chapter Three): Top schools (P) focused on things such as students,
heritage, accessibility, identity; The P Theme: delivering a solid education built on
quality principles. Middle/lower groups focused more on infrastructure, financial
stability, raising more money, and increasing community engagement.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 127
Table 22
Top Three Challenges Facing the Institution, Top Group versus Middle/Lower Tier
Schools
Top Group/Prestigious
Schools
Middle and Lower
Groups/Prestige
Seeking and Reputation
Building Schools
Schools: Santa Clara University
Gonzaga University
Loyola Marymount University
Seattle University
University of Portland
St. Mary’s College of California
Mount St. Mary’s College
Dominican University of
California
Notre Dame de Namur
Univeersity
Top Challenges Top Challenges
Improved student
accessibility through
financial assistance,
scholarships, etc.
81% 32%
Academic excellence 44% 28%
Increased diversity 31% --
Enhanced endowments 25% 36%
Capital campaign or other
strategic fundraising
initiatives
19% 44%
State-of-the-art facilities
(new or renovated)
-- 28%
Strengthening or sustaining
our Catholic identity
19% 8%
Increased alumni
engagement
6% 12%
Bold Italics = significant differences
As seen in the data in the previous table, as well as in in Table 17, the more
prestigious universities are concerned with higher-level, strategic challenges such as
improved student accessibility in order to attract the strongest candidates, and continued
academic excellence. Table 17 separates responses more specifically by P, PS, and R
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 128
schools. As seen in Table 17, the middle and lower group schools still need to focus on
more functional challenges such as facilities, financial stability and increased fundraising.
Table 23
Challenges Facing Your Institution by Group
Top P Middle PS Lower R
Increased student accessibility through
financial assistance, scholarships, etc.
81%
42%
25%
Academic excellence 44% 33% 25%
Capital campaign or other strategic
fundraising initiative
19%
50%
42%
Enhanced endowments 25% 25% 50%
Financial sustainability 25% 85% 33%
State-of-the-art facilities (new or
renovated)
-- 8% 33%
Strengthening or sustaining our Catholic
identity
19% 17% --
Increased diversity 31% -- --
School of first choice 6% 8% 17%
Increased alumni engagement 6% -- 25%
Strengthening or sustaining the mission
heritage of the founding religious order
19%
8%
--
Investing in/improving technology -- 33% --
Investing in/improving resources for
specific academic or research areas
6%
--
17%
Building campaign (campus master plan) -- 17% --
Fostering social justice/responsibility 6% -- 8%
Investing in/improving athletic facilities -- 8% 8%
Preeminence among Catholic universities 6% -- --
More innovative academic programs or
student experiences
--
--
8%
Environmental stability 6% -- --
Enriched student life -- -- 8%
Improved athletics and/or recreational
sports programs
--
--
8%
Bold Italics = significantly stronger than one or both of the other groups
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 129
Further complementing the Brewer, et al. taxonomy on investing in prestige,
“student facilities and the institutions’ corresponding spending on them” was far and
away the most important attribute cited in responses (Q9) to the questionnaire, reflected
in Table 24. Referring to the capital construction projects that contribute to prestige, the
questionnaire described “student resource development” as comprised by responses that
included: housing, classroom buildings recreation facilities, and library facilities and their
development. Library development is construed to also include a broader definition in
these technologically heavy times, such as a “learning commons” or “learning resource
center.”
Table 24
Most Recent Capital Construction Projects On Campus by Group
Top P Middle PS Lower R
Student housing 69% 83% 50%
General use classrooms 38% 50% 67%
Student recreational facilities 13% 58% 25%
Dedicated teaching laboratories 19% 17% 25%
Stadiums/arenas 31% -- 17%
Green/environmentally sustainable
projects
44% -- --
Research laboratories 13% 8% 25%
Physical plant (infrastructure/operations) 13% 8% 17%
Campus environment/grounds 6% -- 33%
Faculty housing -- -- 8%
Other (specified) 56% 75% 33%
Other Responses
(Among 55% total citing “other”):
Library/learning commons - 57%
Dining/commons area - 24%
Bold = Top mentions within each group
Thus, it appears that all groups of sample schools are focused on building
additional student housing and general use classrooms. Only the top and middle groups,
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 130
the P and PS schools, have the financial resources and bandwidth to focus on green or
environmentally sustainable projects as well. Lower group R schools are still trying to
develop essentials such as the campus environment and grounds.
Academic investment: Majors offered to students. Data in Figure 7 represent the
respondents’ perceived institutional investment in academics, as reflected by the change
in the number of majors over time. Here the results are mixed: Perhaps the P schools
wish to maintain prestige or the image of preeminence by expanding their aademic
majors. Also, it could be that the R institutions are branching out into more career-
focused and workforce development types of majors (such as health sciences, business,
and human services) to enhance their regional reputation.
Table 25
Change in Number of Majors over Past 5 to 7 Years
Total
Sample
Top P
Schools
Middle PS
Schools
Low R Schools
Both undergraduate and
graduate majors have increased
notably
42% 53% 17% 55%
Only graduate majors have
increased, not undergraduate
8% -- 8% 18%
Neither has increased notably 50% 47% 75% 27%
Only undergraduate majors
have increased, not graduate
-- -- -- --
Investing in faculty. Not coincidentally, the survey data (Table 8) indicate that
the number of endowed chairs at the sample institutions is seen as increasing, primarily at
the Top Level or P institutions and the Middle Level or PS institutions. Investment in
high quality faculty – while not a revenue generator -- generally is seen as a prestige
factor (Brewer, et al.) as well as being a factor in calculating the U.S. News and World
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 131
Report rank of colleges and universities in each category. “Investment in faculty” is one
more corollary to the “business-related” strategic directions identified previously as goals
of these Top and Middle Level institutions in the study, as well as in the Brewer, Gates
and Goldman model, such as capital campaigns, endowment building and the
development of infrastructure.
Table 26
Change in Number of Endowed Chairs over Past 5 to 7 Years by Group
Total
Sample
Top P
Schools
Middle PS
Schools
Low R
Schools
Increased significantly 3% 7% -- --
Increased somewhat 61% 64% 67% 50%
Remained unchanged 36% 29% 33% 50%
Decreased somewhat -- -- -- -
Decreased significantly -- -- -- --
Investing in the institutions’ financial health and endowments. Financial health
of the institutions sampled, defined by Brewer, et al. as “enough revenues to cover
operating costs and a strategy consistent with investment,” was seen by the majority of
the survey’s respondents (Q31) as “very good” or “good” at the Top and Middle Level
schools; more “fair” than “good” at the Lower Level institutions. In other words, Top and
Middle Level institutions (P or PS) were more likely to say they were in good financial
health. This data is shown in Table 20 below.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 132
Table 27
Reported Financial Health of the Institution by Group
Total Sample Top P Schools Middle PS
Schools
Low R
Schools
Excellent 6% 7% 8% --
Very Good 42% 50% 50% 20%
Good 42% 43% 42% 40%
Fair 11% -- -- 40%
Poor -- -- -- --
Furthermore, in Q32 the survey offered multiple choices of factors that might
have had a positive or negative effect on financial health in recent years. These included
alumni giving, the current economic climate, enrollment fluctuations, changes in tuition
rates, grants, investments, and changes in endowments. (See Table 21 below.)
Overwhelming majorities of the respondents from Top and Middle Level institutions (P =
93% and PS = 75%) identified “alumni giving” as the foremost positive effect on their
schools’ financial health.
Members of the Lower Level colleges were split, indicating that alumni giving
had no effect at all (R = 50%), some negative effect or little positive effect on financial
health. The following figures summarize the data gathered relative to the respondents’
perception of financial health, sustainability, and the importance of focus capital
campaigning as engines of prestige at the sample institutions.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 133
Table 28
Factors Influencing Financial Health of the Institutio by Group
Total
Sample
Top P
Schools
Middle PS
Schools
Low R
Schools
Positive Effect:
Alumni Giving 72% 93% 75% 40%
Current Economic Climate 6% -- 17% --
Fluctuations In Enrollment 58% 57% 67% 50%
Tuition Rates 58% 50% 75% 50%
Grants 69% 71% 50% 90%
Investments 42% 50% 33% 40%
Changes In Endowment 28% 21% 25% 40%
Negative Effect:
Alumni Giving 6% -- 8% 10%
Current Economic Climate 92% 100% 75% 100%
Fluctuations In Enrollment 19% 14% 17% 30%
Tuition Rates 22% 29% 8% 30%
Grants 3% 7% -- --
Investments 42% 36% 67% 20%
Changes In Endowment 53% 29% 8% 20%
Sports/Intercollegiate Athletics. The survey investigated respondents’
perceptions on the effect sports, or intercollegiate athletics, had on the overall prestige of
their institutions. The sample institutions spanned the gamut of involvement in NCAA-
sanctioned athletics: From highly-competitive Division I participation to no investment in
competitive sports whatsoever. Those details are presented relative to each college and
university in an earlier section of this chapter. The following figures present findings on
the respondents’ perception of the effect their sports programs have on the overall image
of their institution, across several dimensions.
Data in Table 29 shows responses to survey Q18: “How would you evaluate the
way in which your institution’s reputation in intercollegiate sports has changed compared
to 5 to 7 years ago?”
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 134
Table 29
Change In Intercollegiate Sports Reputation over Past 5 to 7 Years by Group
Total
Sample
Top P
Schools
Middle PS
Schools
Low R Schools
Much better reputation 49% 36% 83% 27%
Somewhat better reputation 30% 29% 17% 45%
Unchanged reputation 14% 36% -- --
Irrelevant at our institution 8% -- -- 27%
Intercollegiate sports reputation and performance is also an indicator of prestige
(Brewer, et al.). Survey respondents agreed in Q19 that intercollegiate sports help
influence the public perception of the university, fundraising, and even selectivity. See
Table 30 below.
Table 30
Influence of Various Intercollegiate Sports on Institutional Factors
Positive Effect No Effect Negative Effect
Fundraising 67% 24% 8%
Selectivity 54% 35% 11%
Overall public perception
of school
73% 19% 8%
Research Question #3
The remainder of this chapter focuses on presenting data leading to conclusions
related to this study’s third research question:
How are Catholic institutions of higher education faring, generally, in
competing against each other in the western United States for prestige and
increased market share?
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 135
Brewer, Gates and Goldman, originally economists at the RAND Corporation,
applied an “industry study” framework to their ongoing research resulting in In Pursuit of
Prestige: Strategy and Competition in U.S. Higher Education (2006). The authors held
that higher education is an industry in which consumers are often underinformed in the
sense that they cannot evaluate objectively the quality of the service before they actually
purchase it. What influenced the present study’s third research question were the
questions Brewer et al. asked about market share:
1. How does a school’s current position, especially its current stock
reputation and prestige affect its opportunities in the higher education
industry market?
2. How does a school’s overall strategy, and in particular, its investments in
reputation and prestige, shape its conduct in the market?
Institutions build prestige in the market for students by bringing in students with
high test scores and grades, by lowering acceptance rates, and by improving admissions
yield rates. The importance of these elements is heavily reinforced by the prominence of
college ranking systems (Brewer, et al.; Morphew and Swanson, 2011), such as U.S.
News and World Report, that incorporate these very elements. Institutions that are trying
to improve prestige in the student market also work to improve the aesthetic features of
their campus or provide students with more consumption benefits, in the form of smaller
classes, computer or athletic facilities, nicer living spaces, or campus social events.
Another way that colleges and universities can potentially increase the number of
applications, improve quality, and increase yield is by expanding their scope in a way that
expands their potential customer base: a regionally focused institution begins recruiting
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 136
nationally; an all-male college begins admitting women. In the context of this study,
traditionally Catholic institutions attempted to broaden their base beyond professed
Roman Catholics with the promise of a superior, well-rounded education focused on the
development of the whole student. As discussed in Chapter Two, this is accomplished
largely by the respective institutions citing their education “in the tradition of” the
particular religious order – Jesuit, LaSallian, Holy Cross, Dominican – or in the
“Catholic” tradition itself. Prestige can be defined in the context of a specific market
segment, and an institution can benefit from such prestige. As will be demonstrated
presently, the most prestigious Catholic universities are viewed widely as successful.
Fundraising appears to be a key element of the strategy of PS (prestige-seeking)
institutions for moving into the P (prestigious) category and for Ps to remail in that
position. Market viability, thus, also takes the form of private giving and endowment
increase. All schools surveyed in this study were interested in increasing their private
giving rates. The religious organizations to which they were affiliated provided only a
small fraction of total voluntary support to these institutions.
Private giving to institutions of higher education takes many forms and comes
from a variety of sources. It includes restricted and unrestricted gifts and grants, cash
payments returned as contributions from salaried staff and insurance premiums paid by
donors. A premium is placed on funds raised from alumni. Endowment earnings, while a
small fraction of the sector’s revenue, are an extremely important revenue source for a
small group of institutions. Endowment income is extremely concentrated, with the top
10 institutions nationally accounting for almost 30 percent of all endowment income,
according to Brewer, et al.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 137
The pursuit of prestige thus drives institutions to improve their public image and
the perceived desirability of their institutions. In this section, data gathered from U.S.
News and World Report will be used to focus on attributes of prestige relative to several
marketplace variables such as: student selectivity ranking, the comparative enrollment
yields, retention and graduation ranking, faculty resources rankings, financial resource
rankings, such as alumni giving, and the percentage of Catholic students that were
enrolled. Later, a comparison of sample institutions along the dependent characteristic of
founding religious orders will be presented in order to provide a glance at the market
share and performance of the dominant congregation identified in the study – the Jesuits.
A proxy calculation of prestige indicators relating to intercollegiate sports at the sample
institutions will follow. Finally, using responses to the survey questionnaire, data
relating to peer impressions and aspirational tendencies will be presented.
Sample institutions and competing marketplace variables: Student selectivity.
The following tables show data related to the student selectivity market drivers among
the institutions sampled for this study. The first, Table 31 , recaps the U.S News student
selectivity rankings of the nine sample colleges and universities amongst all institutions
in the Masters – West category.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 138
Table 31
USNWR Student Selectivity Rank (Masters – West) by University over Time from 2001 to
2012
2001 2008 2012
Santa Clara University 2 4 4
Gonzaga University 6 9 7
Loyola Marymount University 11 6 7
Seattle University 25 13 15
University of Portland 21 7 5
St. Mary’s College of California 51 25 17
Mount St. Mary’s College 26 69 59
Dominican University of California NA 37 37
Notre Dame de Namur University 117 92 112
The USNWR student selectivity rank is determined by a combination of
admissions tests scores, the proportion of enrolled freshmen who graduated in the top
10% or 25% of their high school class, and the overall institutional acceptance rate. This
study’s P schools clearly are ranked by U.S. News as more selective than their sectarian
and non-sectarian peers in the Masters-West market. We see evident improvement over
time in University of Portland’s selectivity ranking, making this PS school appear more
like a P in this context more recently. The next table, Table 32, reveals the institutions’
enrollment yields rate, that is, the rate at which freshmen accepted for admittance to the
university actually enroll. Once again, Univesity of Portland appears to be the exception,
more recently, in the PS group, indicating a trend to more selectivity, similar to its P
peers.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 139
Table 32
USNWR Enrollment Yield (Number Enrolled/Number Accepted) by University over Time
from 2001 to 2012
2001 2008 2012
Santa Clara University 17% 21% 19%
Gonzaga University 29% 28% 28%
Loyola Marymount University 19% 28% 25%
Seattle University 26% 27% 24%
University of Portland 30% 16% 17%
St. Mary’s College of California 20% 23% 24%
Mount St. Mary’s College 29% 47% 40%
Dominican University of California 35% 18% 23%
Notre Dame de Namur University 34% 18% 16%
Sample institutions and competing marketplace variables: Graduation and Retention
Next, Table 33, shows the sample institutions’ overall graduation and retention
rank amongst all of U.S. News’ Master-West category institutions. The graduation and
retention rank is a student success indicator determined by a proportion of freshmen who
return to campus year-over-year and eventually graduate (6-year graduation rate). Note
the schools in the PS grouping moving in the opposite directions: Seattle and Portland are
improving or steady over time, while St. Mary’s College’s ranking has declined
significantly.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 140
Table 33
USNWR Graduation and Retention Rank by University over Time from 2001 to 2012
2001 2008 2012
Santa Clara University 1 1 1
Gonzaga University 5 2 2
Loyola Marymount University 3 4 4
Seattle University 16 8 7
University of Portland 7 7 7
St. Mary’s College of California 4 14 17
Mount St. Mary’s College 11 18 24
Dominican University of California NA 37 42
Notre Dame de Namur University 7 36 39
Sample institutions and competing marketplace variables: Faculty resources
While Brewer, et al. argue that investment in faculty is not a prestige generator,
that is, it is more of a cost, the larger marketplace perception is that, at the very least,
investment in faculty is an advantage to an institution’s reputation in its niche. U.S. News
and World Report sees this category as important enough to designate a ranking of
“Faculty Resources.” U.S. News calculates institutional “faculty resources” as: An
assessment of the largest proportion of class sizes less than 20 students; average faculty
salary; proportion of professors with terminal degrees; the overall student-faculty ratio;
and the proportion of full-time faculty. The USNWR Faculty Resources ranks of our nine
sample institutions amongst all Master-West colleges and universities are shown in Table
34. Here, the distinctions between this study’s P and PS schools become somewhat
blurred, especially concerning Santa Clara University, Loyola-Marymount, Seattle, and
St. May’s of California – all in the top ten amongst their Masters-West competitiors.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 141
Table 34
USNWR Faculty Resources Rank (Masters-West) by University over Time from 2001 to
2012
2001 2008 2012
Santa Clara University 24 8 10
Gonzaga University 13 25 18
Loyola Marymount University 7 8 5
Seattle University 15 11 10
University of Portland 43 38 40
St. Mary’s College of California 18 6 8
Mount St. Mary’s College 92 82 82
Dominican University of California NA 77 87
Notre Dame de Namur University 59 66 87
Sample institutions and competing marketplace variables: Financial resources .
Direct investments in the student experience can be interpreted as a glimpse into what
was discussed previously in this chapter as “an industry in which consumers are often
underinformed in the sense that they cannot evaluate objectively the quality of the service
before they actually purchase it.” U.S. News and World Report has given the potential
higher education consumer a measure by which to determine institutional investments in
the student experience by virtue of the “Financial Resources Rank.” U.S. News
determines the financial resources rankings of institutions by examining the schools’
average spending per student on instruction, research, student services, and related
educational expenditures. In Table 35, the nine sample Catholic institutions are shown
ranked amongst all Masters-West category schools in terms of Financial Resources. Note
again University of Portland’s ranking is inconsistent with its peers in this study’s PS
group – only in this category trending in a less desirable direction over time.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 142
Table 35
USNWR Financial Resources Rank (Masters-West) by University over Time from 2001 to
2012
2001 2008 2012
Santa Clara University 2 6 5
Gonzaga University 15 17 16
Loyola Marymount University 6 8 7
Seattle University 13 10 10
University of Portland 20 30 27
St. Mary’s College of California 10 9 8
Mount St. Mary’s College 5 15 18
Dominican University of California NA 17 12
Notre Dame de Namur University 11 11 22
Sample institutions and competing marketplace variables: Alumni giving rank.
Brewer et al. state that the market for private giving is one in which schools can reap the
benefits of prestige and, to a more limited extent, reputation (p. 86). Evidence from their
research suggests that donors want to support institutions that currently are doing a good
job, not bail out instiutions that are aimless or being mismanaged. Their study of several
institutions mentioned that successful sports teams can generate additional private giving,
especially from alumni. PS and P institutions emphasized more altruistic relationships
with the private sector, especially alumni. The case of Elon College cited in Chapter
Two (Keller, 2004) indicated mobilizing the alumni was key to increasing perceived
prestige, if not just reputation.
According to Brewer, et al. even if alumni donations become a less crucial
element of financial strategy, they will also play a role in the institution’s reputation in
the market through rankings like those of U.S. News & World Report, which examines
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 143
the rate at which living alumni donate to the institution’s annual fund. This may lead
institutions to try to wage a broad alumni donation campaign, encouraging alumni to
donate even a small amount of money, in order to increase their ranking. The U.S. News
Alumni Giving Ranks of this study’s sample institutions amongst their Masters-West
peers are presented in Table 36. These alumni giving rankings are calculated by
comparisons of the average percentage of living alumni with bachelor’s degrees who
gave to the schools.
Table 36
USNWR Alumni Giving Rank (Master-West) by University over Time from 2001 to 2012
2001 2008 2012
Santa Clara University 6 10 8
Gonzaga University 13 4 3
Loyola Marymount University 47 17 5
Seattle University 31 24 29
University of Portland 9 21 12
St. Mary’s College of California 25 13 23
Mount St. Mary’s College 34 14 7
Dominican University of California NA 20 26
Notre Dame de Namur University 15 34 33
According to this data, clearly, and consistent with Brewer et al’s assertions, the
market for private giving rewards this study’s P institutions. Perceived prestige appears
to help institutions compete for private donations, and the revenue generated by private
donations appears to help institutions increase prestige.
Sample institutions and competing marketplace variables: Percentage of
Catholic students. This study considered the question of market competitiveness and the
push to distinguish a Catholic institution as a top-flight destination for the nation’s best
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 144
and brightest. Earlier in chapter two, Provost (2000) stated that, the challenge of Catholic
higher education remains to put Catholic identity into practice. This, he claims, requires
attention to persons and procedures. First, presumably, a Catholic institution has some
Catholic members. For an institution of higher education to be “Catholic” implies a
critical mass of people who are Catholic in full communion. This includes
faculty/administration, but importantly, students. In addition to attention to the
individuals who make up the community, a Catholic institution will also be marked by its
careful implementation of Catholic social teaching about persons.
This position is countervailing to the concept of establishing greater market share,
discussed earlier in this chapter, in which the reputation and prestige of Catholic
educational traditions are promoted to actually increase student enrollments beyond the
niche of professed Roman Catholics. Clearly, there is something appealing about the
marriage of Catholic faith and identity and the conduct of academic life – to Catholics
and non-Catholics alike (Day, 2007). As stated in Chapter Two, from an economic
standpoint, there is a necessity to make non-Catholic students feel welcome at the school,
and not require them to disavow or minimize their own faith (or lack thereof) but doing
so while not compromising the school’s Catholic identity. Data is presented in Table 29
that show the state of Catholic student enrollments at the sample schools over time.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 145
Table 37
USNWR Percent of Student Body that is Catholic by University over Time from 2001 to
2012
2001 2008 2012
Santa Clara University NA 47% 50%
Gonzaga University NA 47% 49%
Loyola Marymount University NA 48% 47%
Seattle University NA 33% 33%
University of Portland NA 45% 50%
St. Mary’s College of California NA 60% 51%
Mount St. Mary’s College NA 62% 53%
Dominican University of California NA 37% 33%
Notre Dame de Namur University NA 23% 23%
Sample institutions and competing marketplace variables: Key dependent
USNWR measures by religious order. Currie (2011) suggested that making a distinction
between mission and identity is a critical factor for Catholic institutions to consider.
Speaking from a Jesuit perspective on service and education, Currie stated that “identity
is who we are; our mission is what we do,” (Currie, 2011, p. 351). From this vantage
point, identity may be proscribed, fixed, narrow and specific. It is interesting to note that
a growing number of Catholic institutions have implemented an identity campaign
connecting the university or college to the “traditions” of their founding religious orders
in an effort to connect with the broader, non-Catholic marketplace. As cited previously,
Loyola Marymount University and Santa Clara University are among several institutions
determined that the school would benefit from an effective branding campaign that would
highlight what the school knew to be one of its strengths -- a Jesuit educational tradition -
- while positioning them within the pantheon of the most respected universities, secular
and religious alike. The branding effort also went a step further in tying the core Jesuit
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 146
values of “service to all” to real-world applications through compelling advertising both
in print and online. These branding efforts appeared to be a great success. The
implication is that strong and recognizable religious identity, in and of itself, is a strong
selling point for these schools to draw on when positioning themselves within the
competitive market.
That branding strategy has been rewarded by the U.S. News & World Report
scores and rankings over the past decade. The data in Table 30 demonstrate, the
perceived prestige of this study’s sample institutions in terms of their Jesuit religious
affiliation. The comparison is made over time with Catholic peers in the Masters-West
category, with the depedent variable being founding religious order – Jesuit, LaSallian,
etc. Clearly, we see more than a conincidence in the high regard for the schools
designated as P in this study – the influence of the 600 year-old Jesuit educational and
traditional influence on the myriad scoring factors in the U.S. News formula must be
considered in assessing the perceived prestifge of the study’s P schools. Additionally,
earlier in this chapter, there is evidence from the survey responses that the on-campus
Jesuit communities retain real influence on their schools’ missions and identities.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 147
Table 38
Key Dependent Measures by Religious Order by Year U.S. News & World Report Data
(Masters-West)
Jesuit Schools Other Orders
Santa Clara University
Gonzaga University
Loyola Marymount University
Seattle University
University of Portland
St. Mary’s College of California
Mount St. Mary’s College
Dominican University of
California
Notre Dame de Namur
University
2001 2008 2012 2001 2008 2012
Averages By Category:
Overall Score 82.5 80.8 85.5 62.0 48.4 52.0
Overall Ranking 4.5 4.0 3.8 18.6 27.4 31.0
Peer Assessment Score 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.1 2.9 3.0
Sample institutions and competing marketplace variables: Perceived prestige of
competitive sports programs. For the purposes of this study, the researcher developed a
“de novo” scorecard of perceived prestige regarding the sample institutions’ competitive
sports programs (Table 31). This was done because no single, evenly weighted
evaluation of this study’s sample’s athletic programs could be discovered. The
researcher utilized the Learfield Sports Directors’ Cup standings for 2011-2012. The
Learfield Sports Directors' Cup is awarded annually to the nation's best overall collegiate
athletics program. In 1993, USA Today and the National Association of Collegiate
Directors of Athletics (NACDA) jointly launched the Directors' Cup and it has since
grown into a highly recognized mark of distinction among collegiate institutions. Each
institution is awarded points in a pre-determined number of sports for men and women.
The overall champion is the institution that records the highest number of points in their
division’s Directors’ Cup standings. When no ranking existed, the combined number of
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 148
men’s and women’s Division I sports was used to determine its Proxy Prestige
Evaluation.
To be consistent with the Brewer et al. model, no athletic prestige was awarded to
institutions with sports programs other than Division I. This study’s sample institutions
were compared also to nationally-ranked universities and colleges identified by the
survey respondents as the most prestigious Catholic institutions. That data will be
explored in the next chapter.
Table 39
Collegiate Athletic Program Proxy Prestige Evaluation
Number of Sports
Institution
Learfield
Cup
Ranking
Men’s DI
Women’s
DI
Men’s DII
Women’s
DII
Western Catholic Universities
Santa Clara University 182 (tie) 6 9 -- --
Gonzaga University 140 7 8 -- --
Loyola Marymount University 182 (tie) 7 11 -- --
Seattle University Unranked 3 4 5 5
University of Portland 137 6 7 -- --
St. Mary’s College of
California
114 7 8 -- --
Mount St. Mary’s College 0* -- -- -- --
Dominican University 0* -- -- 3 5
Notre Dame de Namur
University
0* -- -- 4 5
* Due to having no DI sports
Source: NCAA.com and rank in Learfield Sports Directors’ Cup standings 2011-2012. When no ranking exists, the
combined number of men’s and women’s Division I sports is used to determine its’ Proxy Prestige Evaluation. No
athletic prestige is awarded to institutions with sports programs other than Division I.
Other Findings
National and Regional models of preeminence. The data gathered for this study
indicated that there exists a huge consistency across the board with institutions of higher
education recognized as the most prestigious Catholic universities in the United States of
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 149
America by the sample respondents (Western Catholic Universities Survey, Q20). With
little deviation in rank order, those institutions are:
1. University of Notre Dame,
2. Georgetown University,
3. Boston College.
Respondents from the Top Level Group schools in the sample recognized
themselves as prestigious Western U.S. Catholic universities, however they did not
identify themselves as belonging to that group of the most prestigious Catholic
universities in the entire United States. The Top Level Group’s three institutions, Santa
Clara University, Gonzaga University, and Loyola Marymount University, incidentally,
were the three highest-ranking Catholic in their category in the U.S. News and World
Report America’s Best Colleges. Also, 100% of respondents from those Top Level
Group (P) institutions stated that they were in the top three prestigious Catholic
universities in the West or comparable (Western Catholic Universities Survey, Q21).
The followingt able, Table 40 , presents data related to the aspirational tendencies
of the sample. The survey questionnaire asked recipients to name, in their opinion, the
top three, most prestigious Catholic university or college in the United States. The data
in Table 40 demonstrates the consistency of those findings.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 150
Table 40
Identification of Top Catholic Universities Nationally, Top Three Mentions (n=33)
University Number of Mentions Percent Mentioning
University of Notre Dame 29 88%
Georgetown University 28 85%
Boston College 21 64%
Catholic University of America 5 15%
Franciscan/Steubenville 3 9%
Santa Clara University 2 6%
The data in Table 41 also puts into perspective where the undisputed leader in perceived
prestige in the West (according to survey respondents) – Santa Clara University -- lies in
comparison to nationally-ranked institutions.
The next set of data, shown in Table 41, reflect responses to survey Q21, “What
three institutions would you personally identify as the most prominent Catholic
universities in the WEST?” Respondents were permitted to rank them and mention
institutions from the previous question, if appropriate.
Table 41
Identification of Top Catholic Universities In the West Top Three Mentions (n=33)
University Number of Mentions Percent Mentioning
Santa Clara University 30 91%
Gonzaga University 17 52%
Loyola Marymount
University
18 55%
Seattle University 3 9%
University of Portland 7 21%
St. Mary’s College of
California
6 18%
Mount St. Mary’s College -- --
Dominican University of
California
-- --
Notre Dame de Namur
University
-- --
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 151
Compare this analysis to the inconsistencies uncovered in another survey item,
Q22, asking respondents to appraise their own institutions in comparison to others in the
sample: “How do you feel your institution measures up to these top three Catholic
institutions in the West, in terms of prominence?” These inconsistencies are most
pronounced in the Middle Group or PS institutions in Figure 10.
Table 42
Comparison of Own University to Top Catholic Universities in the West
Top Prestigious
Universities
Middle Prestige
Seeking Universities
Low Reputation
Building Universities
Santa
Clara
Gonzaga LMU Seattle Portland
St.
Mary’s
Mount
St.
Mary’s
Dominican
NDDN
U
My university IS
one of the top
three that I
mentioned
100% 80% 100% 100% 100% 60% -- -- --
My institution is
comparable to
these most
prominent
institutions
-- 20% -- -- -- -- -- -- --
My institution is
striving for
similar
prominence,
although has not
achieved it
-- -- -- -- -- 40% 100% 75% 50%
My institution
does not have,
and is not
striving for
prominence
similar to these
institutions
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 25% 50%
By way of comparision and contrast, it is worth revisiting how all of this self-
appraisal is reflected in the wider, consumer-based, market-driven world of the U.S. News
& World Report rankings. For ease of recapitulation, the study republished Table 8, the
USNWR Peer Asssessment score table here:
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 152
Table 8
Peer Assessment (Undergraduate Academic Reputation) Score Rated From 1 to 5 By
University over Time from 2001 to 2012 (Repeated)
2001 2008 2012
Santa Clara University 4.0 3.9 4.0
Gonzaga University 3.8 3.8 3.8
Loyola Marymount University 3.7 3.6 3.6
Seattle University 3.5 3.5 3.5
University of Portland 3.5 3.4 3.5
St. Mary’s College of California 3.3 3.1 3.2
Mount St. Mary’s College 3.2 3.0 3.1
Dominican University of California 2.6 2.5 2.7
Notre Dame de Namur University 2.9 2.4 2.4
In this respect, the real differences underlying the USNWR measures between this
study’s prestigious group and prestige-seeking group, the top and middle groups,
becomes blurred. Deeper inquiry demonstrates reponses that lead to the kind of identity
crisis discussed in the next chapter.
Conclusion
Chapter Four represented the results and the analysis of the data gathered to
complete this study. The chapter presented results based on a cross tabulation of survey
responses with institutional scoring in the U.S. News and World Report rankings of
colleges and universities. Finally, the chapter presented the comparison of attitude and
behavior responses and factual knowledge questions in the survey instrument with the
taxonomy of institutional prestige advanced by Brewer, Gates and Goldman (2006).
Discussion of the results and further implications for the research are presented in
Chapter Five.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 153
Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusions And Recommendations
Summary
The purpose of this study was to determine what effect the perception of an
institution’s prestige has on strategic planning undertaken by American Catholic colleges
and universities and whether these schools engage in purposeful and effective positioning
of themselves in the market. Institutions of higher education sit in an interesting market
position; they are producers of the knowledge and training that students consume with the
intention of securing their futures, and these schools are also consumers in terms of their
pursuit of the most desirable students. Kimball (2011) observed that highly sought after
students are a “scarce input” and access to them requires colleges and universities to
“compete in secondary markets tied to prestige,” (p. 21). The researcher defined these
secondary markets as the competition for private funding, federal research monies, and
attracting the most promising graduate students and gifted and renowned faculty
members. Given the vast number of schools competing for these same limited resources,
the perception of prestige, particularly as reflected in U.S. News and World Report
Annual Rankings of America’s Best Colleges and Universities, is often critical to a
higher education institution’s long-term well-being.
The literature surveyed in Chapter Two demonstrates that in recent years there has
been a growing research interest in branding and marketing efforts as they are realized by
institutions of higher education (Anctil, 2008; Barron, 2012; Mause, 2009; Moore, 2004).
But colleges and universities are not strict commercial entities, looking to capitalize on
the widest possible audience by providing the greatest imaginable range of services.
Most public and private institutions are ostensibly committed to a non-profit mission to
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 154
educate and empower students, in keeping with a particular institutional mission or
philosophy of education (Considine, 2006; Farrell & Van der Werf, 2007; Kezar, 2008;
Khoon et al., 2005). Squaring institutional mission commitment with marketing
objectives can prove a challenging business and some schools struggle to achieve this
balance (Bergerson, 2009; Brewer, 1999; Holley & Harris, 2010).
For Catholic colleges and universities, the balance may be especially challenging.
In order to remain competitive with comparable secular institutions, Catholic schools
may find themselves softening their religious identity in an effort to appeal to a greater
range of students and faculty (Bollag, 2004; Symposium, 2010). In these instances,
schools strive to be perceived not as “Catholic” schools first but as prestigious and
desirable academic institutions (Henking, 2004; Morey & Piderit, 2006). But Catholic
higher education institutions also have a responsibility to uphold Church doctrine and to
observe the directives of Ex corde Ecclesia (Hatch, 2005; Heft, 2003a, 2003b; Provost,
2000). They further must seek to distinguish themselves from their Catholic college and
university peers with whom they are in direct competition for Catholic funding support
and Catholic student and family interest (Gambescia & Paolucci, 2011; McMurtrie, 1999;
Trainor, 2006).
It is the effort of these Catholic higher education institutions and the particular
concerns they negotiate in regard to balancing their Catholic educational mission with the
competitive need to market themselves in a highly diverse culture that was the focus of
this research. While a number of Catholic colleges and universities in the eastern and
central U.S. enjoy excellent reputations and prestigious rankings – Boston College,
Fordham University, Georgetown University, Notre Dame University, and Villanova
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 155
University, to name just a few – it would appear that Catholic higher institutions situated
in the western U.S. have had a more difficult time distinguishing themselves as
preeminent institutions of higher education.
For this reason, the goal of this study was to consider efforts to achieve
preeminence amongst comparable Catholic higher education institutions situated in the
western U.S. As outlined in Chapters Three and Four, nine Catholic colleges and
universities situated in California, Oregon and Washington met the design criteria of
being designated as “Masters” among west coast institutions in the U.S. News and World
Report classifications and ranked as Tier One schools. Each of the schools was affiliated
with a Catholic order known for its distinct intellectual tradition, e.g. Jesuit, Marymount
or Lasallian. The nine schools were Dominican University, Gonzaga University, Loyola
Marymount University, Mount St. Mary’s College, Notre Dame de Namur University, St.
Mary’s College of California, Santa Clara University, University of Portland, and Seattle
University. Each of these schools had implemented a strategic plan sometime between
2001 and 2008.
The following questions were posed for this study:
1. How do similar Catholic institutions of higher education in the western
United States compare in achieving the goal of perceived market
preeminence as evidenced by accepted measures of prestige?
2. How have institutional leaders implemented elements of their strategic plans
over the past decade in order to encourage systemic change that promotes
prestige amongst their peers?
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 156
3. How are Catholic institutions of higher education faring, generally, in
competing against each other in the western United States for prestige and
increased market share?
Sixty-nine administrators and faculty from these nine institutions were contacted
for this survey, and 43 responded by completing the survey. All nine colleges and
universities were represented in the subject respondent population. Of this subject
population, five respondents were currently serving as the President or CEO of their
institution, four were provosts or vice presidents of academic affairs, and six were vice
presidents of student affairs/student services. Additionally, 82% of the subjects reported
that they were directly involved in their institution’s strategic planning.
Based on the cross-tabulation and analysis of the survey responses correlated with
the institutions’ quality dimensions as rated by U.S. News & World Report Annual
Rankings in 2001, 2008, and 2012, and reviewed in light of the identified prestige
indicators [peer assessment rating; student retention; faculty resources; student
selectivity; financial resources; alumni giving rate] indicated by Brewer et al. (2002,
2006), the following results were determined:
• Santa Clara University, Gonzaga University, and Loyola Marymount
University were found to constitute the Top Level group, corresponding to
Brewer et al.’s (2002) P designation for prestigious schools. These three
schools all scored at 76 or higher on the U.S. News & World Report
ratings of Masters-West institutions.
• St. Mary’s College of California, the University of Portland, and Seattle
University comprised the Middle Level group, with U.S. News & World
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 157
Report ratings of between 51 and 75 for Masters-West institutions. These
three schools corresponded with the PS classification (“prestige seeking”)
according to the Brewer et al. (2002) construct.
• The final three institutions represented the Lower Level group with
Masters-West scores of 50 or lower in the U.S. News & World Report
rankings. Mount St. Mary’s College, Dominican University, and Notre
Dame de Namur University are designated as “reputation building”
schools – R according to the Brewer et al. (2002) system of prestige
classification.
The criteria for grouping institutions according to their prestige indicators
identified by Brewer, Gates and Goldman have been detailed earlier in this study. To
recapitulate, the respondents’ nine institutions can be separated into three groups to align
with the Brewer, Gates & Goldman model for the following reasons:
• First, “P” or prestigious institutions have already fulfilled the “bricks and
mortar” needs and technology needs expected of a major accredited
university in the United States. The P institution is internally-focused,
building and expending resources in order to solidify its unique value and
identity in the educational marketplace. In order to maintain their
prestige, such universities should be and are focusing on more
transcendent values, such as student resource development and activities
that build upon the universities’ heritage, all things that will further
support a quality education and a noteworthy, memorable experience for
students and their families.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 158
• Second, “PS” or prestige-seeking institutions have less flexibility to strive
for such transcendent values, as they are focusing on fulfilling the basic
expectations of an accredited university, as well as defining a market niche
for themselves based on specific aspirational criteria. Therefore, the “PS”
institutions must continue to build upon the nuts and bolts required to
produce a quality education product while establishing experiences for
their student body that will be remembered as significant or unique to that
institution.
• Third, “R” or reputation-building institutions are even further down the
food chain in their ability to strive for higher-end qualities in their
strategic plan and must instead solidify the basic building blocks required
of an accredited university. The “reputations” of “R” institutions are
based on such characteristics as their reliability for providing basic
educational services, their geographic locations, or their relative
affordability. None of these characteristics should be termed as “value-
added services.” The focus of “R” institutions is on meeting expectations
of the student-as-consumer. In other words, the reputation-building
institution is externally focused on providing desired services and
educational products, such as career preparation and basic degrees. Once
the basic foundation is laid, then these institutions can move up into
prestige-seeking activities. “R” colleges and universities must pursue
activities and initiatives where they continue to solidify and execute the
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 159
basics required. Only then can – and should – they strive for
heritage/identity-building and student quality expansion.
Data gathered from the questionnaire support demarcation along these lines of internal,
values-oriented focus versus external, service-oriented focus.
One of the compelling findings of the data analysis was that the subjects’
responses to the survey revealed prestige perception and awareness of preeminence that
strongly correlated with their institutions’ U.S. News and World Report rankings as well
as their groupings according to the prestige indicator rubric outlined by Brewer et al.
(2002). For instance, the survey responses of subjects in the Top Level group of schools
indicated that these administrators ranked “being one of the most academically
distinguished Catholic comprehensive universities in the U.S.” as one of their institutions
top three strategic goals. Conversely, none of the respondents representing the six
universities in the Middle and Lower Levels identifying this as one of their institution’s
top three goals. Another key finding was that the respondents from the Top Level
schools identified “reinforcing our identity by building on the heritage of our founding
religious congregation” as another top strategic goal, while only one of the institutions in
the Middle and Lower Levels cited this as one of the top three strategic goals of the
school.
Similarly, the subjects overwhelmingly and accurately self-identified their
institution’s position of prestige with 93% of the subjects affiliated with the Top Level
Group selecting Santa Clara University, Gonzaga University and Loyola Marymount
University as the most prestigious Catholic higher education institutions in the western
U.S. A similar rate of accurate self-identification was seen for the Lower Level tier of
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 160
schools; the vast majority of respondents affiliated with Mount St. Mary’s College,
Dominican University, and Notre Dame de Namur University stated that their school had
either not achieved preeminence but was working towards it, or conversely, was not
striving to be preeminent comparable to the Top Level Catholic institutions. The greatest
disconnect between Masters-West ranking, strategic planning, and perception of
institutional prestige was seen for the representatives of the Middle Level group of
institutions.
This is not surprising in that the top three ranked Catholic institutions in U.S.
News in this category, and thus our P universities, all were founded by the Jesuits and
maintain sizable communities of that order on their campuses, whether as faculty or as
mere residents. It should be reinforced that the educational tradition of the orders,
especially the Jesuits, encompasses and implies more than “being Catholic,” theology, or
academic rigor. There are transcendent qualities and hallmarks, such as the development
of the whole person, social justice, and the exploration of multiple ways of knowing
(epistemology) that characterize the educational heritages of the orders, thereby making
their institutions unique in the greater marketplace of higher education. The data
presented in the previous chapter appear to support the Jesuit educational reputation
adding luster to the market appeal of their respective institutions, in addition to a
quantitatively-proven level of academic preminence.
The Top Level institutions in this study also reflected accurate self-awareness in
identifying themselves in the top tier of Catholic higher education institutions in their
region, consistent with the U.S. News & World Report Masters-West ranking, but
recognized that they did not belong to the elite national group of the most prestigious
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 161
Catholic schools in the U.S. The administrators from Santa Clara, Gonzaga, and Loyola
Marymount Universities knew their institutions were well-regarded P’s among west coast
universities and colleges but they were aware that the top-ranking national Catholic
institutions – University of Notre Dame, Georgetown University, and Boston College –
were at an even more prestigious level. Brewer et al. (2002) noted that prestige at a
regional level does not necessarily translate to preeminence at the national level. Rather,
the researchers suggested that strategic planning directed toward national preeminence
takes on a different focus and intensity, if schools are to compete at this level of prestige.
According to the criteria in Brewer, Gates and Goldman, conferral of “P” or
“prestigious” status on a national level is not automatic. If they aspire to national
preeminence, the strategic plans of the Top Level Catholic institutions in the West must
be reviewed in terms of the criteria for national prestige: i.e. more nationally renowned
faculty, bigger athletic programs, world class research facilities, etc.
The subjects’ responses to survey questions exploring aspects of strategic
planning supported Brewer et al.’s (2002) identification of distinctions between P, PS and
R institutions as to the types of challenges identified and how priorities are shaped for
investing for the school’s future. Almost 70% of the administrators representing the Top
Level group of schools reported their institutions had a strategic plan in place while the
remaining administrators stated their school was in the process of developing a new one.
By comparison, 91% of the Middle Level school administrators and 100% of the Lower
Level school administrators stated their schools had a strategic plan in place but had not
plans for adapting it or creating a new plan. In keeping with the Brewer et al. model, the
Lower and Middle Level groups largely cited external needs such as infrastructure and
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 162
resource needs such as improving buildings and other physical aspects of the campus,
raising more money, building greater alumni engagement and support, and creating a
capital campaign to pursue their strategic objectives. Conversely, the Top Level schools
were more focused on internal concerns such as increasing diversity, strengthening
identity, strengthening the association with their Catholic heritage, and improving
accessibility through greater financial aid for deserving students.
The majority of the administrators (over 70%) reported that their institutions had
embarked on major capital campaigns. The number was highest among the Middle Level
group (92%), a finding that reflects Brewer et al.’s (2002) argument that PS institutions
are likely to pursue this course as a school investment strategy. The Lower Level schools
were least likely to have a capital campaign in place or in the works, despite many of the
administrators of these R schools identifying raising money to support initiatives and
development as one of their institution’s top strategic goals. Based on these
administrators’ responses to related survey questions, it appears that capital campaign
efforts in this Lower Level group have not been highly successful, whereas the Middle
Level and Top Level schools in this study reported a clear understanding of how to
envision and manage effective capital campaigns.
These conclusions appear consistent with the implication that the Top Level
institutions of higher education in our sample and prestigious universities in general
practice continuous improvement strategies, such as investments in financial health and
growing their endowments. Furthermore, Prestige-Seeking colleges and universities
should be actively conducting a successful capital campaign in order to achieve a greater
level of preeminence, building the tools to achieve their aspirations, and Prestigious
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 163
institutions must continue to do so in order to maintain their status of preeminence in
their market sector.
Despite the fact that the three schools in the Top Level group identified the
importance of highlighting their Catholic heritage and strengthening their Catholic
identity, none of these three schools appeared to incorporate this building of Catholic
identity into their goal of improving their academic standing on the national stage.
Across the board, administrators from all three cohorts indicated that faculty and
administrators who belonged to their institutions’ founding religious orders exerted the
greatest influence on their schools’ institutional mission and exhibited the least influence
on student recruitment. Among the Top and Middle Level schools, the impact of the
clergy’s influence on the institutions’ strategic objectives was greater than reported for
the three Lower Level schools.
One of the more striking findings was that there was little consensus as to what
percentage of the student population should identify as Catholic in order to realize the
institution’s Catholic identity. Some of the administrators reported that few to none of
the student body had to be Catholic for the school to retain its Catholic identity while at
the other end the figure of 65% was suggested as a necessary Catholic presence in the
student body. The typical response was 50% but although the administrators from the
Lower Level institutions had a mean response of just under 30% on this issue. This may
reflect the fact that while Theology course offerings had increased at both the Top and
Middle Level schools in recent years, the Lower Level schools did not report an increase
in religious education delivery. In fact, one of the Lower Level schools eliminated its
Theology Department during one period under investigation (2001 to 2008).
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 164
Research Conclusions
This study posed three questions to guide the research and the findings outlined in
Chapter Four and discussed further above provide some interesting responses. As to how
similar Catholic colleges and universities in the western U.S. compare in achieving the
goal of perceived market preeminence as evinced by accepted measures of prestige, there
is compelling evidence supporting Brewer et al.’s (2002) identification of P, PS and R
distinctions. The Top Level (P) schools in this study reflected an internal orientation in
terms of their strategic objectives and their awareness of their competitive position. The
Middle Level (PS) institutions were somewhat less focused in their objectives and were
the least likely of the three cohorts of schools to properly identify their market
preeminence in relationship to prestige indicators. The administrators representing the
Middle Level institutions exhibited conflicting issues of identity and mission. This too
was consistent with Brewers et al.’s discussion and suggested that PS institutions that are
striving to ascend to the P level of schools experience may struggle with balancing
internal and external orientation and may not be clear as to where energies need to be
directed in order to strategically advance them to the higher level of prestige. The Lower
Level (R) schools in the study evidenced a largely external strategic orientation,
identifying objectives like the improvement of facilities and the need to increase revenue
as critical objectives. While the administrators from the Top Level schools – Santa Clara,
Gonzaga and Loyola Marymount Universities – recognized their school’s prestigious
status among west coast higher education institutions, they had no illusions about their
preeminence at the national level, identifying the key Catholic P’s on the national stage
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 165
(Notre Dame and Georgetown Universities and Boston College) as the preeminent
Catholic higher education institutions in America.
On the question of how institutional leaders implemented elements of their
strategic plans to pursue prestige and establish preeminence amongst their peers, the
differences between the three institutional cohorts were somewhat pronounced. The Top
Level schools were largely engaged in revising their current strategic plan or expressed
intention to do so in order to remain on top of their transformative strategic objectives of
raising their institutions’ standing at both the local and national levels. Among the P
administrators, 31% reported that their institutions were engaged in developing a new
strategic plan suggesting that these Top Level schools frequently revisited their goals and
assessed and adapted plans as necessary. Conversely, only 9% of the Middle level
administrators reported that their institution was in the process of revising or developing
a new strategic plan and none of the Lower Level administrators reported strategic plan
changes either currently or on the horizon. The implication is that Top Level schools are
engaged in a dynamic process of continuous improvement through strategic planning –
unlike their PS and R peers, they do not remain static in their efforts to pursue prestige.
The third question guiding this investigation was how Catholic institutions were
faring in their competition for preeminence with one another for prestige and increased
market share. The findings indicated that the P schools demonstrated a strong awareness
of what was required to achieve their strategic objectives; they understood the elements
of a successful capital campaign and how to prioritize these in their strategic plans. The
Lower Level schools recognized that they have infrastructures and foundations that
require the commitment of additional resources and that tuition revenue alone is not
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 166
sufficient to meet these needs. But these Lower Level institutions simply did not engage
in a significant capital campaign or did not conduct a capital campaign successfully.
Interestingly, the Middle Level institutions reported by far the greatest percentage of
capital campaign effort – 92% of the Middle Level respondents reported a capital
campaign within the last five to seven years however the rate of success for these Middle
Level institutions’ capital campaigns was lower than that reported by the Top Level
schools. Brewer et al. (2002) observed that investing in a capital campaign effort is very
much in keeping with PS objectives and behavior. What is significant about this finding
is that Middle Level institutions are not able to compete as successfully on the capital
campaign front as their Top Level peers, however they are still significantly more likely
to pursue a capital campaign, and to do so with some effectiveness, than are their Lower
Level peers. The evidence of this study suggests that the Top Level Catholic institutions
in the Masters-West category are not (yet) competitive with their P Catholic peers who
have realized preeminence on the national stage. In order to compete with the elite
Catholic institutions such as Notre Dame and Georgetown Universities and Boston
College, these west coast Catholic P’s (Santa Clara, Gonzaga, and Loyola Marymount
Universities) may have to strategically target and improve their prestige markers such as
building nationally-recognized athletic programs, investing in cutting-edge research
facilities, and recruiting high profile faculty.
The role of Catholic identity in establishing the prestige of the schools considered
in this study is somewhat more difficult to discern. Positioning oneself as a Catholic
institution may be particularly effective in attracting potential Catholic donors for private
individual or foundation giving. However, some of the literature discussed in Chapter
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 167
Two indicates that Catholic positioning may not be an inherent prestige marker as
perceived by prospective or even current students (Currie, 2011; Ferrari et al., 2009; Peck
& Stick); still, other authors signified the critical importance of this identity as a signifier
to donors and students alike (Gambescia & Paolucci, 2011; Symposium, 2010). It would
appear that at a number of Catholic higher education institutions in the U.S., identity is
positioned and communicated in different ways to different audiences depending on the
intent, for instance attracting high caliber students versus attracting funding.
Many practitioners interested in and involved in Catholic higher education believe
a vibrant Catholic culture is an organizational asset for Catholic institutions (Morey &
Piderit, 2006, p. 33). Certainly, the Church has made itself clear on this question and the
Ex corde Ecclesia was intended to provide direction to institutions on the matter. Morey
and Piderit argued that in terms of Catholic colleges and universities, the concept of
cultural boundary points is useful. If the boundary points are clearly marked, then any
part of the line inside those points can be occupied by institutions that have a Catholic
identity and operate as recognizably American institutions of higher education. One end
of the boundary is defined as “rigid cultural intensity” which the researchers described as
a “Catholic culture is so dominant that the institution is no longer a college or university,”
(p. 35). Given the cultural realities of American higher education and the competition for
scarce resources (select students, steady streams of revenue), institutions at this pole
would likely struggle to survive. The opposing boundary point is “Catholic cultural
disappearance: the boundary a purported Catholic institution crosses when it abandons its
Catholic character, disappearing entirely into the culture of secular academe,” (Morey &
Piderit, p. 35). As the researchers observed, there exists a wide terrain between these
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 168
boundary points and it is in this vast playing field that the nine Catholic higher education
institutions at the center of this study are striving to distinguish themselves in order to
successfully compete with their Catholic and secular collegiate peers.
Taken within the context of the existing literature, the findings of this study
suggest an opportunity to redefine what it means to be a “Catholic university” in the
modern world by emphasizing Catholic traditions in different ways or by different
degrees to different constituencies:
• For fundraising and endowment building: it may be useful to highlight Catholic
traditions of higher education. By marketing a Catholic brand, institutions of
higher education may effectively target Catholic foundations and individual
donors who are committed to the idea of a Catholic intellectual tradition.
• For selective student recruitment, or to build a more diverse student body, the
evidence suggests that it may be useful to neutralize or deemphasize Catholic
traditions in order to remain competitive with secular peers in attracting the
widest array of gifted prospective students and high profile faculty.
It is not necessary to abandon Catholic identity or institutional mission in a
“neutralized” positioning of Catholic education. As research reported by Weerts and
Hudson (2009) indicated, donors appear to be more inclined to make financial gifts to
schools for programming that directly targets and benefits the greater community. In
their study of students at the Catholic institution, DePaul University, Ferrari et al. (2009)
found that all students, regardless of their level of religious commitment or campus
engagement, were more interested in university activities and programming that
supported Catholic mission through service to self and others over religious programming
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 169
that reflected the school’s Catholic heritage. And as Hufton (2008) observed, the Jesuits
(as with most orders affiliated with a Catholic intellectual tradition) have elevated
education in humanistic terms, committing to improving the lot of others and securing the
Catholic commitment to social service. It is not necessary for Catholic institutions of
higher education to abandon or betray their identity in pursuit of either students or
funding. Rather, it would appear that effective framing of mission realized through
education and social service could be a very successful strategy for marketing Catholic
education and suggest the way for pursuing preeminence on both the local and national
academic stage. This discussion would benefit from a recent example of a nationally-
preeminent Catholic institution’s efforts at synthesizing these strategies within the
framework of an ambitious capital campaign.
Case Study: Georgetown University
On the final weekend in October 2011, more than 1500 members of the
Georgetown University community gathered on campus for the public launch of For
Generations to Come, the most ambitious capital campaign in the institution’s 220 year
history. It was a weekend filled with discussions of big ideas with high-profile speakers,
including a former U.S. Presdient and a former secretary of state. The publicity materials
connected to this campaign, the banners on campus, and the multimedia on the intenet
made generous use of the iconic doors of Georgetown’s famous campus – the white
Federal-style door of Old North, the Gothic-style arched entrance to Dahlgren, the
Georgetown seal-bedecked double doors of Healy Hall – all emblazoned with For
Generations to Come. Yes, Georgetown was in “prestige campaign” mode, and like a
candidate running for office, the university was seeking to galvanize its supporters from
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 170
across the vast spectrum of cultural constituencies represented in its high net worth
alumni. The door icons and imagery used in the campaign were carefully chosen to
symbolize how Georgetown opens doors of elite educational opportunity for Catholics
and non-Catholics alike, today and for generations to come: The doors represent
Georgetown’s main, medical, and law campuses, as well as their Jesuit identity.
These signs, both literal and figurative, are everywhere, symbolic of the four
pillars of the capital campaign: scholarships, faculty excellence, a richer student
experience, and to invest in initiatives and innovations “that will transform the
universityand prepare it for the global challenges to come.” This is only the fourth major
capital campaign in Georgetown’s history, but the most ambitious yet. For Generations
to Come: The Campaign for Georgetown seeks to raise $1.5 billion by the year 2016.
Georgetown’s current capital campaign serves this study as an excellent example
of the prestige-driving behaviors of the institutions universally identified by the survey
respondents as belonging to that group of the most prestigious Catholic universities in the
entire United States. Georgetown’s strategic behaviors appear consistent with the
implication that the Top Level institutions of higher education in our sample and
prestigious universities in general practice continuous improvement strategies, such as
investments in what Brewer et al. identified as the “prestige drivers”, investments in
financial health and growing their endowments.
For example, two-thirds of the funds raised in Georgetown’s campaign will go to
investing in attracting the best students and faculty. The largest single line item on the
campaign’s focused list of strategic priorities is $400 million for the university’s
ambitious initiative to fund 1,789 (eponymous to the year that the university was
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 171
founded) undergraduate scholarships annually of $25,000 each. Georgetown also seeks
to raise $100 million for graduate scholarships and $500 million for faculty and academic
excellence. These dollars also will support more endowed chairs and professorships as
well as experiential learning environments and research centers.
Another campaign pillar, enhancing student life and community experience, has a
$200 million goal. A new student center is planned, along with the opening of a state-of-
the-art science building in the 2012-13 academic year housing an Institute for Soft Matter
Synthesis and Metrology, as well as chemistry, biology, and physics labs. Other capital
projects reflect the university’s commitment to its Catholic and Jesuit heritage: Dahlgren
Chapel on campus is undergoing a historic $8 million restoration, and an Ignatian retreat
facility in the Blue Ridge Mountains has broken ground.
Finally, the campaign will fund Georgetown’s major growth aspirations: $300
million to invest in “transformative opportunities.” Areas in which the university seeks
to pursue enhanced capacity include environmental studies, global health, neurologic
medicine, transactional law, and interreligious understanding – all areas that resonate
significantly with the universal mission of Georgetown’s founding order, the Society of
Jesus: the magis, that is, being “more for others.”
“This campaign embodies the very best of Georgetown,” said President John J.
DeGioia. “From our commitment to need-blind admissions to our emphasis on academic
excellence and the ideals of service and social justice, For Generations to Come supports
the people, places and the promiserepresented in our communityand ensures the
university’s contributions to the vital challenges and issues of today” (Opening Doors:
Campaign Kickoff 2012, 2012).
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 172
Recommendations
The findings derived from this research may be of use to other institutions of
higher education implementing a strategic planning process. Catholic or other religious
institutions of higher education who seek to strengthen their mission and consolidate their
religious identity within a strategic plan in order to ensure an essential part of their legacy
while they pursue preeminence at the local or national level, may find this research
valuable, especially given the institutional trend of casting mission and identity into
purely secular categories of growth or market share (Tripole, 2000).
Recommendations for Prestige-Seeking Western Catholic Colleges and
Universities: “Claiming the White Space First”. Claiming the empty or “white” space
of this unique market sector will involve an interesting and delicate multi-channel
communications strategy that positions the institution as sufficiently Catholic for the
targets that care (Bollag, 2004; Gambescia & Paolucci, 2011; Provost, 2000; Symposium,
2010) and yet not so “rigid [with] cultural intensity” (Morey & Piderit, 2006) that one
alienates the greater pool of potential students and parents generating tuition revenue.
None of the west coast Catholic institutions considered in this research specifically
claimed this space by owning and emphasizing their Catholic identity or culture as their
most significant defining feature. Therefore, there exists an opportunity for one of them
to claim this “white space” and distinguish themselves from their regional Catholic peers.
This may be achieved by highlighting Catholic cultural intensity during capital
campaigns for endowment funding, while conversely, targeting a broader range of
student by neutralizing the Catholic identity of the institution in a positive way on
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 173
websites and collateral materials so the college or university can attract the best Catholic
and non-Catholic students.
Recommendations for Western Top Level (P) Catholic Colleges and
Universities that Aspire to Elevate Themselves to a National Level of Prominence,
The evidence indicates that the strategic directions and tactics are different for prestige-
seeking at the national level. In order to compete with the preeminent Catholic colleges
and universities, and by association, with secular institutions also at the P level on the
national stage, the focus must be on embracing a different set of prestige markers. To
compete nationally it is evident that it is necessary to embark on complex and parallel
sets of strategies – one to remain pre-eminent in the regional category and one to
graduate to the national level of preeminence. Merely pursuing the same strategic plan
that has secured regional Top Level status is not sufficient to propel an institution to the
most elite level of preeminence. This will entail the recasting of strategic planning goals
to align with prestige-seeking ones (Brewer et al., 2002), albeit at more nationally-
competitive levels and commensurate with institutions competing in the targeted
nationally-recognized category (i.e. Notre Dame, Georgetown, Boston College).
The following model graphically represents this conclusion:
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 174
Figure 1. Recasting of Strategic Planning Goals
As Brewer et al. observed, conferral of P status on a national level is not
automatic. If schools aspire to national preeminence, the Top Level schools surveyed in
this study must review their strategic plans in consideration of the criteria for national
prestige, for instance hiring nationally renowned faculty, investing in high profile athletic
programs and world class research facilities.
Still, the enormous task of progressing from regional preeminence in the
educational marketplace, regardless of religious or secular provenance, is daunting, if not
statistically insurmountable. The following data sets indicate the monumental task that
would face the institutions in this study, should they have the resources, willingness, and
strategic temerity to attempt a great leap upward to national preeminence. The following
figures compare this study’s sample institutions with the three National-level universities
that were nearly unanimously identified as the “gold standards” of Cathoic higher
education in America. They include the U.S. News and World Report scores on peer
assessment/undergraduate reputation, student selectivity and graduation rates, as well as
perspectives on the relative sizes of endowments and alumni engagement.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 175
Table 43
Key U.S. News and World Report Measures Comparison Part I, 2012 Undergraduate
Academic Reputation and Graduation & Retention Measures
Undergraduate
Academic
Reputation/Peer
Assessment
Score
Freshmen
Retention Rate
6-Year
Graduation
Rate
22.5% for National
Universities and 25% for
Master’s West/Regional
Universities and Colleges
20% for National Universities and 25% for
Master’s West/Regional Universities and
Colleges
Master’s-West (Survey
Schools)
Santa Clara University 4.0 93% 85%
Gonzaga University 3.8 92% 81%
Loyola Marymount University 3.6 88% 78%
Seattle University 3.5 89% 72%
University of Portland 3.5 87% 74%
St. Mary’s College of
California
3.2 83% 64%
Mount St. Mary’s College 3.1 79% 59%
Dominican University of CA 2.7 77% 52%
Notre Dame de Namur
University
2.4 72% 55%
National Universities
University of Notre Dame 3.9 98% 96%
Georgetown University 4.0 96% 93%
Boston College 3.6 96% 91%
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 176
Table 44
Key U.S. News and World Report Measures Comparison Part II, 2012 Faculty Resources
Measures
Classes
With
Fewer
Than 20
Students
Professors
With
Highest
Degrees In
Their Field
Student-
Faculty
Ratio
Faculty
Who Are
Full-Time
Faculty
Resources
Ranking*
20% weighting for both National Universities and Master’s West/Regional
Universities and Colleges
Master’s-West (Survey
Schools)
Santa Clara University 40% 93% 13 78% 10
Gonzaga University 41% 86% 11 78% 18
Loyola Marymount
University
49% 96% 11 75% 5
Seattle University 55% 77% 13 84% 10
University of Portland 31% 92% 13 84% 40
St. Mary’s College of
California
51% 95% 12 68% 6
Mount St. Mary’s College 60% 61% 12 51% 82
Dominican University of CA 57% 74% 12 51% 87
Notre Dame de Namur
University
66% 88% 12 57% 87
National Universities
University of Notre Dame 55% 90% 12 97% 16
Georgetown University 61% 87% 11 76% 33
Boston College 47% 98% 14 78% 51
* Master’s West and National Universities rankings cannot be compared; two different comparison sets
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 177
Table 45
Key U.S. News and World Report Measures Comparison Part III, 2012 Student
Selectivity Measures
SAT Scores
75
th
Percentile
Graduated In
Top 10% of
High School
Class
Acceptance
Rate
15% weighting each for National Universities and Colleges and Master’s
West Universities
Master’s-West (Survey
Schools)
Santa Clara University 1350 48% 58%
Gonzaga University 1300 40% 64%
Loyola Marymount University 1300 37% 54%
Seattle University 1270 31% 71%
University of Portland 1300 46% 45%
St. Mary’s College of
California
1210 32% 75%
Mount St. Mary’s College 1070 17% 73%
Dominican University of CA 1110 24% 52%
Notre Dame de Namur
University
1040 10% 73%
National Universities
University of Notre Dame 34 (ACT) 87% 29%
Georgetown University 1490 91% 20%
Boston College 1430 79% 31%
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 178
Table 46
Key U.S. News and World Report Measures Comparison Part IV, 2012 Financial
Resources and Alumni Giving Measures
Financial
Resources
Rank*
Alumni
Giving Rate
Alumni
Giving Rank*
10% each for National
Universities and
Master’s
West/Regional Schools
5% each for National Universities and Master’s
West/Regional Schools
Master’s-West (Survey
Schools)
Santa Clara University 5 16% 8
Gonzaga University 16 20% 3
Loyola Marymount University 7 19% 5
Seattle University 10 11% 29
University of Portland 27 15% 12
St. Mary’s College of
California
8 12% 23
Mount St. Mary’s College 18 17% 7
Dominican University of CA 12 11% 26
Notre Dame de Namur
University
22 9% 33
National Universities
University of Notre Dame 36 41% 3
Georgetown University 35 26% 28
Boston College 68 27% 27
* Master’s West and National Universities rankings cannot be compared; two different comparison sets
In order to demonstrate the virtual impossibility of the study’s sample institutions’
ability to begin competing in the same forum with Catholic institutions possessing
national prestige, a major aspect of the Brewer, Gates & Goldman model of prestige
generation, fund raising and giving rates were examined across the board. The first
figure below shows the comparative giving rates by institution, according to U.S. News,
along with the average giving rate by category.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 179
Table 47
University Alumni Giving Rates
Universities
Individual
Alumni Giving
Rates
Alumni Giving
Averages By Tier
Alumni
Giving
Averages by
Classification
Tier 1 Master’s West
Santa Clara University 16%
Gonzaga University 20% 18%
Loyola Marymount University 19%
Tier 2 Master’s West
Seattle University 11%
University of Portland 15% 13% 14%
St. Mary’s College of California 12%
Tier 3 Master’s West
Mount St. Mary’s College 17%
Dominican University of
California
11% 12%
Notre Dame de Namur
University
9%
National Universities
University of Notre Dame 41%
Georgetown University 26% 31% 31%
Boston College 27%
In order to fairly weight these giving rates, the subsequent data set demonstrates
how the sample Western-Masters Catholic institutions were indexed against the largest
single Catholic university endowment in the United States – University of Notre Dame.
This index magnifies the enormity of attempting a great leap upward.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 180
Table 48
University Alumni Giving Rates Indices Indexed against Number One School – Notre
Dame
Universities
Individual Alumni
Giving Index
Alumni Giving
Indices By Tier
Alumni
Giving
Indices by
Classification
Tier 1 Master’s West
Santa Clara University 39
Gonzaga University 49 45
Loyola Marymount University 46
Tier 2 Master’s West
Seattle University 27
University of Portland 37 31 35
St. Mary’s College of California 29
Tier 3 Master’s West
Mount St. Mary’s College 42
Dominican University of
California
27 30
Notre Dame de Namur University 22
National Universities
University of Notre Dame 100
Georgetown University 63
Boston College 66
Finally, the resources chasm between regional P status and nationally-prestigious
instituions is amplified further by revisiting the Collegiate Athletic Program Proxy
Prestige Evaluation and this study’s sample institutions’ Learfield Cup Rankings
compared to Notre Dame, Boston College and Georgetown university.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 181
Table 49
Collegiate Athletic Program Proxy Prestige Evaluation
Number of Sports
Institution
Learfield
Cup
Ranking
Men’s DI
Women’s
DI
Men’s
DII
Women’s
DII
Western Catholic Universities
Santa Clara University 182 (tie) 6 9 -- --
Gonzaga University 140 7 8 -- --
Loyola Marymount University 182 (tie) 7 11 -- --
Seattle University Unranked 3 4 5 5
University of Portland 137 6 7 -- --
St. Mary’s College of California 114 7 8 -- --
Mount St. Mary’s College 0* -- -- -- --
Dominican University 0* -- -- 3 5
Notre Dame de Namur University 0* -- -- 4 5
National Schools
University of Notre Dame 17 12 12 -- --
Boston College 60 12 15 -- --
Georgetown University 63 10 12 -- --
* Due to having no DI sports
Source: NCAA.com and rank in Learfield Sports Directors’ Cup standings 2011-2012. When no ranking exists, the
combined number of men’s and women’s Division I sports is used to determine its’ Proxy Prestige Evaluation. No
athletic prestige is awarded to institutions with sports programs other than Division I.
In terms of Catholic identity the evidence of this study suggests that the Top
Level group of Catholic colleges and universities was best prepared of the three group
cohorts to own “the white space” of Catholic higher education tradition in this Western-
Masters market.
The subjects representing Santa Clara, Gonzaga, and Loyola Marymount
Universities overwhelmingly identified the objective of “Engaging the Catholic identity
successfully” as an important strategic goal for their institutions.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 182
If any of these schools aspire to the national stage, they cannot assume that the
strategies and tactics that brought them to regional preeminence are ultimately enough to
achieve a comparable level of preeminence (P status) nationally. In other words, no
matter the increase in intensity or dedication, there can be no automatic graduation to
national prestige. Rather, these Top Level schools must engage in the delicate balance of
strategic activities that help them maintain their preeminence in their current category as
well as the prestige-building behaviors outlined by Brewer et al. (2002). Much like the
athletic program that suddenly finds itself thrust into the Division I limelight, these
regional P institutions would benefit from identifying the higher level of expectation and
work to strengthen their recruitment of star “players” and “coaches” to assure them a spot
in the “big game” competition of preeminent, National First Tier higher education
institutions.
Alternatively, if any of these schools are not interested in pursuing preeminence at
the national level as one of the most prestigious educational institutions in the nation,
there is ample opportunity to cast future strategic plans with the goal of “capturing the
white space” of what it means to be a 21
st
century Catholic university in the Western
United States – by defining themselves uniquely as a preeminent Catholic university as
opposed to a preeminent university that happens to have a Catholic tradition. Either
course presents the potential for elevating the profile of these Top Level Western-Master
Catholic institutions and to add luster to their market position.
Recommendations for Prestige-Seeking (PS) Western Catholic Colleges and
Universities. The three Middle Level institutions identified for this research as prestige-
seeking Catholic schools – St. Mary’s College of California, the University of Portland,
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 183
and Seattle University – demonstrated somewhat split personalities as evidenced by the
survey responses of their administrators. These institutions recognized that they were
prestige-seeking, as indicated by the range of tactics and strategies they employed to
achieve their objectives, however many of their institutional behaviors mirrored those of
the prestigious, Top Level (P) institutions. Perhaps this was “aspirational” behavior;
Morphew and Swanson (2011) observed that prestige-seeking institutions often seek to
mimic what they perceive to be the successful strategies undertaken by their more
prestigious peers. The data from the self-identified prominence category in the survey
supported this because the respondents in this PS group appeared to overestimate their
level of prestige; for example, articulating loftier and internal goals such as reinforcing
and reengaging with their Catholic identity. In fact these schools would be better served
by focusing on their fundraising efforts to support strategic plans and tactics that could
position them to define themselves and compete in specific categories – such as athletics
or research programs – with more prestigious schools (Brewer et al., 2002).
The implications of the research are that these Middle Level institutions revisit
their strategic plans so that they are consistent with those tactics that focus on prestige-
seeking, like building on institutional infrastructure and foundational development while
also pursuing the “value-added,” internally-focused goals that mimic their more
prestigious cousins.
Recommendations for Reputation-Building (R) Western Catholic Colleges and
Universities. The Lower Level schools are not engaged in significant,
continuousendowment building activities, and as the Brewer et al. (2002, 2006) model
described, tend to treat financial gifts as a windfall. The survey responses of the
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 184
administrators representing Mount St. Mary’s College, Dominican University and Notre
Dame de Namur University supported this view. Although they expressed the need for
greater financial resources, these institutions seemed content with building a local
reputation, and appeared satisfied with their U.S. News & World Report ranking among
the Masters-West most notable Catholic colleges and universities. Everything in their
strategic plans required money and an increase of their endowment assets and yet these
schools, consistent with the R institutions outlined in the Brewer et al. theoretical model,
have engaged in no significant capital campaigns, or at least none that they judged to be
particularly successful.
According to Brewer et al., R colleges and schools should seek to define and build
on their reputations in terms of the reliability of the specialized services they provide,
such as good teaching, job placement success of graduates, or their convenient
geographic location. These are not value-added services as Moore and Diamond (2000)
described, but rather must be defined and owned (thereby claiming a different type of
white space) by the institutions themselves in order to successfully position them to
compete in the higher education market sector. In claiming what they do well and
outlining what they offer to customers, these R schools need not worry about pursuing
prestige in order to remain competitive. Their self-awareness about what informs their
reputation and what the customer (student) expects can provide enough strategic direction
for these schools to build upon for greater reach and success. These schools would
however benefit from more concrete planning in terms of fundraising so that their
survival is not based solely on tuition dollars and the periodic (and unplanned for) gift
from a beneficent donor.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 185
Chabator (2010) reported that his research on higher education institutions
revealed that schools “raised more money when they were able to make the case that
donors could add to excellence and serve their passions rather than come to the college’s
financial rescue. It also helped if the campus had a strategic plan or capital campaign
statement that showed donors how they could help the institution meet its goals,” (p. 11).
The research data compellingly suggests that each of the nine Catholic colleges and
universities at all three levels considered in this study (P, PS, and R) could be more
effective in leveraging their positions to successfully target donors and desirable
prospective student populations by honing their strategic plans in concrete and insightful
ways. They are not alone in this need.
Cooper (2009) noted that most colleges and universities struggle to reach their
target audiences. Catholic colleges and universities may confront a distinct challenge in
balancing their Catholic identity with their educational mission in the largely secular and
diverse culture of American society. However, in this distinction also lies a strength –
the unique ability of the Catholic intellectual tradition of service to appeal to both donors
and students (Ferrari et al., 2009; Gambescia & Paolucci, 2011; Hufton, 2008; Peck &
Stick, 2008; Weerts & Hudson, 2009). Catholic institutions of higher education that seek
to build their reputation or pursue a higher level of preeminence might consider this as a
starting point for reframing their strategic position in keeping with their Catholic
heritage.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to determine what linkages exist between the
implementation of a strategic plan and the perception of an institution’s prestige in the
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 186
context of American Catholic higher education. The study measured and compared
progress in achieving preeminence amongst comparable Catholic university and college
peers in the western United States that have implemented a strategic plan since 2001, and
culminated in an examination of the subject institutions’ overall positions according to
U.S. News and World Report Annual Rankings of America’s Best Colleges and
Universities in 2001, 2008, and 2011. In effect, this study produced a market analysis of
Roman Catholic institutions of higher education in the Western United States and their
perceived positions of prestige.
At the beginning of this study, Loyola Marymount University had just completed
seven years of a bold strategic plan implementation never before undertaken at that
institution. LMU’s strategic plan took “as its premise the conviction that LMU is
positioned to become the preeminent Catholic university in the western United States.”
LMU’s strategic plan “explicates… interconnected initiatives that, introduced
methodically and carefully within the existing University community, (would) allow
Loyola Marymount to become the preeminent Catholic University of the West (emphasis
mine).” This audacious goal statement proved to be the impetus for this study.
High quality, prestigious institutions pay attention to what George Keller advised
higher education nearly 30 years ago: They have identified unique or distinctive
strengths in their programs and services and put resources into those. This study has
demonstrated that sectarian, Catholic institutions aspiring to or achieving preeminence in
their categories do, indeed, heed that sage counsel.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 187
References
Alfred, R.L. (2006). Managing the big picture in colleges and universities: From tactics
To strategy. Westport, CT: ACE/Praeger.
Anctil, E.J. (2008). Selling higher education: marketing and advertising America’s
colleges and universities. ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(2), 1-121.
Ashburn, E. (2008). Once-quiet U. of Dayton pushes a bold brand. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 55(3), A26.
Baldwin, G., & James, R. (2000). The market in Australian higher education and the
concept of student as informed consumer. Journal of Higher Education Policy
and Management, 22(2), 139-148.
Barron, M. (2012). The business of education. Journal Of College Admission, (214), 45.
Beauchamp, E.W. (2006). University President: Faculty Convocation Address – August
2006. University of Portland. Retrieved on November 3, 2008 at
www.up.edu/president/default.aspx?cid=8277&pid=2572.
Beauchamp, E.W. (2007). University President: Faculty Convocation Address – August
2006. University of Portland. Retrieved on November 3, 2008 at
www.up.edu/president/default.aspx?cid=8277&pid=2572.
Bergerson, A. (2009). Special issue: college choice and access to college: moving policy,
research, and practice to the 21st Century. ASHE Higher Education Report, 35(4),
1-141.
Bok, D. (2003). Universitites in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher
education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bollag, B. (2004) Who is Catholic? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(31), A26.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 188
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2001). Leading with soul: An uncommon journey of spirit.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L.G. & Deal, T.E. (1997). Reframing Organizations (2nd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Brewer, D.J. (1999). How do community college faculty view institutional mission? An
analysis of national survey data. Retrieved on November 8, 2008 at
www.eric.edu.gov (#440695).
Brewer, D.J., Gates, S.M. & Goldman, C.A. (2002). In pursuit of prestige: Strategy and
competition in U.S. Higher Education. New Bruswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Bryson, J.M. (1995). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations: A
Guide to Strengthening and Sustaining Organizational Achievement (Rev. ed.).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Byrne, R. (2008a). A researcher sees “room in the middle.” The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 43(31), A12.
Byrne, R. (2008b). For Catholic educators, eagerness and angst attend Pope’s visit. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 45(31), A1.
Chabotar, K. (2010). What about the rest of us? Small colleges in financial crisis.
Change, 42(4), 6.
Considine, M. (2006). Theorizing the university as a cultural system: distinctions,
indentities, emergencies. Educational Theory, 56(3), 255-270.
Cooper, J. (2009). We don't speak their language: radical creativity with branding.
Journal Of College Admission, 20, 314-317.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 189
Currie, C.L. (2011). Pursuing Jesuit, Catholic identity and mission at U.S. Jesuit
colleges and universities. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice,
14(3), 346-357.
Danner, D.G. (1997). The University of Portland: Center of Christian humanism. In
Hughes, R.T., & Adrian, W.B. (Eds), Models for Christian Higher Education,
(47-68). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Day, J. (2007). Values that matter: differentiating Catholic colleges and universities
through comparative alumni research. Report commissioned by the National
Catholic College Admission Association. Retrieved on November 8, 2008 at
www.accunet.org/files/public/Values_That_Matter.pdf.
Durkin, M., & McKenna, S. (2011). Informing the marketing of higher education to
younger people. Irish Marketing Review, 21(1/2), 41-48.
Excellence, Distinction, Leadership: Boston College in the 21
st
Century. (n.d.). Boston
College Strategic Plan. Retrieved on Nobemver 8, 2008 at
http://www.bc.edu/offices/avp/meta-elements/pdf/strategic_plan.pdf.
Fairhurst, G.T., Jordan, J.M., & Neuwirth, K. (1997). Why are we here? Managing the
meaning of an organizational mission statement. Journal of Applied
Communications Research, 25, 243-263.
Farrell, E.F., & Van der Werf, M. (2007). Playing the rankings game. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 53(39), A11.
Feller, I. (2007). (2007). Interdisciplinarity paths taken and not taken. Change,
November/December 2007, 46-51.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 190
Ferrari, J.R., Bottom, T. L., & Gutierrez, R. E. (2010). Passing the torch: maintaining
faith-based university traditions during transition of leadership. Education,
131(1), 64-72.
Ferrari, J. R., McCarthy, B. J., & Milner, L. A. (2009). Involved and focused? Students'
perceptions of institutional identity, personal goal orientation and levels of
campus engagement. College Student Journal, 43(3), 886-896.
Fiske, E.B. (2008). How college admissions came to be hawked in the marketplace. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(5), A112.
Five-Year Strategic Plan. (n.d.) Loyola Marymount University, Office of Campus
Ministry.
Ford, J.E., Ristau, K., & Haney, R. (Eds.) (1997). As we teach and learn: recognizing our
Catholic identity. Washington, DC: National Catholic Educational Association.
From tactics to strategy. Westport, CT: ACE/Praeger.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Retrieved on November 3, 2008 at www.eric.edu.gov (#467449).
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Future Directions: Achieving National Prominence as a Catholic, Jesuit University.
(2005). Summary of meeting of trustees, regents, and alumni association board
members, Santa Clara University (January 27-28, 2005).
Gambescia, S. F., & Paolucci, R. (2011). Nature and extent of Catholic identity
communicated through official websites of U.S. Catholic colleges and
universities. Catholic Education: A Journal Of Inquiry And Practice, 15(1), 3-27.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 191
Gleason, P. (2008). From an indefinite homogeneity: Catholic colleges in antebellum
America. Catholic Historical Review, 94(1), 45-74.
Hatch, N.O. (2005). Intellectual and moral purpose still meet at Catholic universities. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(35), B16.
Heft, J. L. (2009). Almost no generalizations: reflections on Catholic Studies. Catholic
Education: A Journal Of Inquiry And Practice, 12(3), 368-383.
Heft, J.L. (1999). Have Catholic colleges reached an impasse? The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 46(12), B6.
Heft, J.L. (2003a). Identity and mission: Catholic higher education. In Hunt, T.C., Joseph,
E.A., Nuzzi, R.J., & Geiger, J.O. Handbook of Research on Catholic Higher
Education, (35-57). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Heft, J. (2003b). Secularization and Catholic higher education. Presented on September
19, 2003 as the Annual Faith and Culture Lecture, University of Dayton.
Retrieved on November 3, 2008 at www.consortium.villanova.edu/latest/Heft.pdf
Henking, S.E. (2004). Religion, religious studies and higher education: Into the 21
st
century. Religious Studies Review, 30(2/3), 129-136.
Holley, K., & Harris, M. (2010). Selecting students, selecting priorities: how universities
manage enrollment during times of economic crises. Journal Of College
Admission, (207), 16-21.
Hufton, D.O. (2008). Faith, hope and money: the Jesuits and the genesis of fundraising
for education, 1550–1650. Historical Research, 81(214), 585-609.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2281.2008.00456.x
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 192
Keller, G. (2004). Transforming a College: The story of a little-known college's climb to
national distinction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kezar, A. (2008). Is there a way out? Examining the commercialization of higher
education. Journal of Higher Education, 79(4), 473-481.
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P.D. (2004). Meeting today’s governance challenges. Journal of
Higher Education, 75(4), 371-399.
Khoon, K.A., Shukor, R.A., & Hassan, O. (2005). Hallmark of a world-class university.
College Student Journal, 39(4), 765-768.
Kimball, E. (2011). College admission in a contested marketplace: the 20th Century and a
new logic for access. Journal Of College Admission, (210), 20-30.
Lawton, R.B. (2003). President’s Convocation: God and evolution. Convocation
Address. Delivered on October 7, 2003 at Loyola Marymount University, Los
Angeles.
Lawton, R.B. (2005) President’s Convocation: Right place, right time. Convocation
Address. Delivered on September 29, 2005 at Loyola Marymount University, Los
Angeles.
LeFrere, P. (2007). Competing higher education futures in a globalizing world. European
Journal of Education, 42(2), 201-212.
Lerner, G. (2008). Corporatizing higher education. The History Teacher, 41(2), 219-227.
Loeb, G., Lawler, E., Aoun, J., Davison, G., Greiner, L, Henderson, B., Mataric, M.,
Shih, J., Thompson, J.M., & Levine, M. (n.d.). Strategic Planning Sub-committee
on Internal Organization Final Report. University of Southern California.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 193
Lowry, R.C. (2004). Markets, governance, and university priorities: Evidence on
undergraduate education and research. Economics of Governance, 5, 29-51.
Loyola Marymount University Mission and Catholic Identity. (n.d.) Retrieved on
November 8, 2008 at http://www.lmu.edu/Page109.aspx.
Lynch, R., & Baines, P. (2004). Strategy development in UK higher education: towards
resource-based competitive advantages. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management, 26(2), 171-187.
Mannion, A.P. (2007). Fixing a fatal flaw in ‘U.S. News’ rankings. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 53(38), B16.
Mause, K. (2009). Too much competition in higher education? some conceptual remarks
on the excessive-signaling hypothesis. American Journal Of Economics &
Sociology, 68(5), 1107-1133. doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.2009.00663.x
McHugh, K.A., & Meister, R.J. (2004). Campus-public partnerships: successful models
for strategic and facilities planning. Change, 36(5), 22-30.
McMurtrie, B. (1999). How Catholic should Catholic colleges be? The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 46(04), A16.
McMurtrie, B. (2003). Report examines role of lay leaders at Catholic colleges. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(43), A22.
Mission of Catholic higher education. (n.d.) Powerpoint presentation for the Association
of Catholic Colleges and Universities. Retrieved on September 8, 2008 at
www.accunet.org.
Moore, M.R. (2004). The rising tide: “Branding” and the academic marketplace. Change,
36(3), 56-61.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 194
Moore, M.R. & Diamond, M.A. (2000). Academic Leadership: Turning Vision into
Reality. Available from Ernst and Young, LLP, www.ey.com, Report
#MM04017.
Morey, M.M. & Piderit, J.J. (2006). Catholic Higher Education: A Culture in Crisis.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Morphew, C.C., & Swanson, C. (2011). On the efficacy of raising your university’s
rankings. In J.C. Shin, R.K. Toutkoushian and U. Teichler (eds.), University
Rankings, The Changing Academy–The Changing Academic Profession in
International Comparative Perspective (pp. 185-199). New York: Springer
Publishing. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1116-7_10
Morris, J., Haseltine, J., & Williams, C. (2007). Building on strengths in a time of
retrenchment: developing an M.Ed. in higher education – student affairs emphasis
to train Christian practitioners. Christian Higher Education, 6, 109-117.
Musgrove, L.E. (2008). Mystery and humility in general education. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 54(36), B28.
Necessary infrastructure – or mission infraction? (2006). The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 52(21), B10.
Office of the President (Loyola-Marymount University). (2006). Sponsoring Religious
Orders. In About LMU. Retrieved September 18, 2006 from
http://www.lmu.edu/Page143.aspx.
Office of the President (Loyola-Marymount University). (2001). Strategic Plan for
Loyola Marymount University. Retrieved April 10, 2006 from
http://www.lmu.edu/startegicplan.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 195
Peck, K., & Stick, S. (2008). Catholic and Jesuit identity in higher education. Christian
Higher Education, 7(3), 200-225. doi:10.1080/15363750701818394
Provost, J.H. (2000). The sides of Catholic Identity. In Wilcox, J. & King, I. (Eds.),
Enhancing Religious Identity: Best Practices from Catholic Campuses (pp. 18-
25). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Puzo, M., Tierney, W., Bitel, L, Gross, L., Head, H., Kann, M., McCurdy, R., Myers, D.,
Yortsos, Y., & Hellige, J. (n.d.). University of Southern California: Strategic
Planning Sub-Committee on Customers/Pedagogies Final Report.
Rowley, D.J., Lujan, H.D., & Dolence, M.G. (1997). Strategic Change in Colleges and
Universities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schor, H., Shoupe, D., Casteslls, M., Heikkila, E., Kumar, R., Levine, P., Nikias, C.,
Riley, P., Stromquist, N., & Drobnick, R. (n.d.). Strategic Planning Sub-
committee on Globalization Final Report. University of Southern California.
Selingo, J. (2007, May 25). What the rankings do for 'U.S. News'. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, p. A15.
Special Edition: For Generations to Come. (2012, Spring). Georgetown Magazine, pp.
15-37.
Stevick, T. R. (2010). Integrating development, alumni relations, and marketing for
fundraising success. New Directions For Higher Education, (149), 57-64.
doi:10.1002/he.381
Strategic Plan for Loyola Marymount University. (2001). Retrieved on November 2,
2008 at www.lmu.edu/strategicplan/
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 196
Sullins, D.P. (2004). The difference Catholic makes: Catholic faculty and Catholic
identity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 43(1), 83-101.
Supiano, B. (2008). Catholic colleges face unusual financial pressures. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 54(49), p. A14.
SYMPOSIUM: Student Life. (2010). Academic Questions, 23(2), 156-176.
doi:10.1007/s12129-010-9166-y
The Catholic Tradition & the 8 Conditions that Make a Difference. (2004). The National
Catholic Center for Student Aspirations at Assumption College. Retrieved on
November 8, 2008 at www.assumption.edu/nccsa.
Thivierge, G.R. (2003). Globalization and Catholic higher education: a dialogue for
harnessing the impact of globalization. Higher Education in Europe, 28(1), 79-82.
Trainor, S.L. (2006). A delicate balance: The Catholic college in America. Change,
38(2).
Tripole, M.R. (Ed.). (2000). Jesuit Education 21: Conference Proceedings on the Future
of Jesuit Higher Education. Philadelphia: Saint Joseph's University Press.
Viacava, D.F. (2008). Spotlight on U.S. Catholic higher education sector. (2008).
Moody’s Public Finance Report (#109857). Retrieved on September 8, 2008 at
www.accunet.org/files/public/Moodys_CHE_Report.pdf.
Weerts, D., & Hudson, E. (2009). Engagement and Institutional Advancement. New
Directions For Higher Education, (147), 65-74.
Wilcox, J. & King, I. (Eds.). (2000). Enhancing Religious Identity: Best Practices from
Catholic Campuses. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 197
Wolfe, A. (2002). The intellectual advantages of a Roman Catholic education. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(38), B7.
Wuerl, D.W. (2008). Plenary address: Marks of a Catholic university. A presentation
before the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities Annual Meeting,
(February 4, 2008, Washington, D.C.).
Zagano, P. (1990). Sectarian universities, federal funding, and the question of academic
freedom. Religious Education, 85(1), 136-148.
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 198
Appendix
Western Catholic Universities Survey
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 199
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 200
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 201
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 202
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 203
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 204
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 205
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 206
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 207
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 208
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 209
PERCEPTIONS OF PRESTIGE 210
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine what effect the perception of an institution’s prestige has on strategic planning undertaken by American Catholic colleges and universities and whether these schools engage in purposeful and effective positioning of themselves in the market. The study considered efforts to achieve preeminence amongst comparable Catholic higher education institutions situated in the Western U.S. Nine Catholic colleges and universities situated in California, Oregon and Washington met the research design criteria. Administrators and faculty from these nine institutions were contacted via survey and were represented in the subject respondent population. Cross-tabulation and analysis of the survey responses correlated with the institutions’ quality dimensions as rated by U.S. News & World Report Annual College Rankings in 2001, 2008, and 2012, were reviewed in light of the identified prestige indicators advanced by Brewer, Gates and Goldman (2006). Subjects' responses revealed prestige perception and awareness of preeminence that strongly correlated with their institutions' U.S. News and World Report rankings as well as their groupings according to the prestige indicator rubric outlined by Brewer et al. Top Level institutions in this study also reflected accurate self-awareness in identifying themselves in the top tier of Catholic higher education institutions in their region, consistent with the U.S. News & World Report Masters-West ranking, but recognized that they did not belong to the elite national group of the most prestigious Catholic schools in the U.S. Responses to questions exploring aspects of strategic planning supported Brewer et al.'s identification of distinctions between different categories of institutions as to the types of challenges identified and how priorities are shaped for investing for the school’s future.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Strengthening Catholic identity: the role of an academic dean in strategic planning
PDF
Teacher perception of the implementation of the educator effectiveness system
PDF
Personnel resource allocation in a Hawaii school complex
PDF
The perception of innovation in the delivery of services for Hawaiian students
PDF
Resource allocation strategies and educational adequacy: an examination of an academic & financial plan used to allocate resources to strategies that promote student achievement in Hawaii
PDF
District adoption of the international baccalaureate: providing comprehensive programming across school campuses
PDF
School funding and the evidence based model: an examination of high school budget allocation in Hawaii
PDF
The perceptions of faculty and administrators of remedial mathematics education in two higher education institutions
PDF
Organizational onboarding and socialization of adjunct clinical faculty in nursing education
PDF
Accreditation and accountability processes in California high schools: a case study
PDF
Understanding measures of school success: a study of a Wisconsin charter school
PDF
The operationalization of excellence in teaching and scholarship: the role of the academic dean in the school of education
PDF
Creating a climate for innovation in education: Reframing structure, culture, and leadership practices
PDF
Online, flipped, and traditional instruction: a comparison of student performance in higher education
PDF
The estimated cost of public preschool in Hawaii
PDF
An examination of resource allocation strategies and finance adequacy: case studies of American Samoa Department of Education secondary schools
PDF
Ho‘okumu a‘e: innovation, the perception of innovation within the Hawaiian language immersion program
PDF
What constitutes a free and appropriate education for autistic children in Hawaii: what do parents think?
PDF
Professional development for teaching online
PDF
Adequacy in education: an evidence-based approach to resource allocation in alternative learning environments
Asset Metadata
Creator
Cifone, Rocco John
(author)
Core Title
Planning for preeminence: perceptions of prestige in Catholic universities of the western United States
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
11/21/2013
Defense Date
10/24/2013
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Catholic universities,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,preeminence,Prestige,rankings,strategic planning
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Gallagher, Karen Symms (
committee chair
), Brewer, Dominic J. (
committee member
), Picus, Lawrence O. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
rocky.cifone@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-349915
Unique identifier
UC11297263
Identifier
etd-CifoneRocc-2172.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-349915 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-CifoneRocc-2172.pdf
Dmrecord
349915
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Cifone, Rocco John
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
Catholic universities
preeminence
rankings
strategic planning