Inside Higher Ed and Hanover Research sent survey invitations via email to 2,636 provosts, with regular
reminders sent throughout the February to March 2024 field period. Hanover collected 331 fully or
partially completed surveys, yielding a 13 percent response rate. The survey is an attempted census
of all provosts using the most comprehensive sample information available to target all eligible U.S.
colleges and universities from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) database.
The margin of error for this survey is 5.04 percent, given a total n-count of 331. Conclusions drawn from
a small sample size (n<20) should be interpreted with caution. In the charts and percentages that follow,
some percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.
Two in 10 provosts (20 percent) say their institution has published a policy or policies governing
the use of artificial intelligence, including in teaching and research. Another six in 10 provosts (63 percent)
say that such a policy is under development. The remainder (17 percent) say no such policy is being
drafted. This breakdown is similar to how presidents answered the same question in Inside Higher Ed’s
and Hanover Research’s 2024 Survey of College and University Presidents (18 percent).
Back to provosts, by institution type, a quarter (25 percent) of those at public doctoral institutions say
they’ve published a policy governing the use of AI, compared to just an eighth (13 percent) of those at
associate degree-granting institutions and one-sixteenth (6 percent) of those at public master’s and
baccalaureate degree-granting institutions. Among provosts at private nonprofit institutions, 30 percent
at baccalaureate institutions report having published an AI use policy, as do 23 percent at doctoral and
master’s institutions.
By age, younger provosts—those 40 to 49—are somewhat more likely than older ones to say their
institution has developed an AI use policy (27 percent versus 19 percent each for those 50-59 and 60-69).
Nearly all provosts surveyed (92 percent) say faculty and staff members at their institution have asked for
additional training related to developments in generative AI. This is consistent across institution types.
About three-quarters of provosts (78 percent) say their institution has offered training in response to
faculty concerns or questions about AI within the last 18 months, while most of the remainder (20 percent)
say such training is forthcoming.
Just one in seven provosts (14 percent) says their institution has reviewed the curriculum to ensure
that it will prepare students for the rise of AI in the workplace. Most remaining provosts (73 percent) say
their institution is planning such a review, while another one in seven (13 percent) says no such review
is planned.
Provosts whose institutions are in the West (20 percent), Northeast (18 percent) and South (15 percent)
are more likely than those in the Midwest (6 percent) to have conducted a curricular review based on the
rise of AI in the workplace. Provosts from the Midwest are also likeliest to say that their institution isn’t
planning this kind of review (19 percent). Among provosts at public colleges and universities, those at
doctoral institutions are especially likely to report having reviewed the curriculum in this way (28 percent
versus 11 percent of community college and 12 percent of master’s and baccalaureate institution provosts).
Just 8 percent of provosts at private nonprofit baccalaureate institutions say they’ve conducted such a
review and another quarter (25 percent) have no plans to do so.
Most provosts are concerned about the risk generative AI poses to academic integrity. About a
quarter are extremely (6 percent) or very (20 percent) concerned, while about half are moderately (47
percent) concerned. Another quarter are slightly concerned (25 percent) and just 2 percent are not at
all concerned. This is relatively consistent across institution types, though more provosts are highly
concerned at private nonprofit institutions (32 percent) than at public institutions (22 percent). Older
provosts, those 60 to 69, show elevated rates of alarm, as well (33 percent are highly concerned,
compared to 24 percent each for provosts 40 to 49 and 50 to 59).
At the same time, most provosts are at least somewhat enthusiastic about AI’s potential to boost
their institution’s capabilities: just 2 percent are not at all enthusiastic, while 15 percent are slightly
enthusiastic, 40 percent are moderately enthusiastic, 32 percent are very enthusiastic and 11 percent
are extremely enthusiastic.
As for how institutions are using AI already, the top six uses from a long list are:
About two in 10 provosts say their institution does not currently use AI.
These results mirror how presidents answered a similar question on AI in their annual survey, with the top
reported AI use being chat assistants and chatbots (also 45 percent).
Provosts at private nonprofit institutions (27 percent) are significantly more likely than those at public
institutions (15 percent) to say they’re not using AI. Provosts at public institutions are also much more likely to say that they’re using virtual chat assistants and chatbots (55 percent) than provosts at private nonprofit institutions (35 percent).
Most provosts say they’re aware of how various campus groups are doing with their mental health.
Regarding undergraduates, nearly all provosts say they’re either somewhat (40 percent) or very (57
percent) aware of the general state of their mental health. On faculty members, provosts generally say
they’re somewhat (40 percent) or very (55 percent) aware of the state of their mental health. On staff
members, provosts say they’re somewhat (55 percent) or very (37 percent) aware. Last, on graduate
students, provosts say they’re very (33 percent) or somewhat (47 percent) aware.
Asked whether their institution provides training for those in leadership positions on supporting the mental
health needs of their faculty and staff, nearly half of provosts (45 percent) say they have optional training.
A third (35 percent) say they don’t have any such training, representing growth since last year’s survey of
provosts by Inside Higher Ed and Hanover, when half (53 percent) said their institution offered no training.
This year, the remainder of provosts are split between reporting having required leadership mental health
training (6 percent) and having both required and additional optional training (14 percent). Provosts at
private nonprofit institutions are much more likely than those at public institutions to report there is no
mental health leadership training (48 percent versus 21 percent, respectively).
Asked about last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision limiting race-conscious admissions, a majority
of provosts agree (44 percent) or strongly agree (17 percent) that it will decrease student racial diversity
in higher education overall. A quarter are neutral (24 percent), while the rest disagree (10 percent) or
strongly disagree (4 percent) that it will.
Asked how the decision will affect their own institution, however, few provosts agree (9 percent) or
strongly agree (2 percent) that it will decrease student racial diversity. The rest disagree (38 percent)
or strongly disagree (26 percent). This is relatively consistent across institution types and with how
presidents answered the same set of questions in their survey—both in sentiment and in viewing
conditions at their own institution more favorably than at colleges and universities as a whole. This is an
established phenomenon across topics and job titles in Inside Higher Ed’s and Hanover’s annual surveys.
To that point, seven in 10 provosts rate the state of race relations on their own campus as good (61 percent)
or excellent (10 percent). The rest say it’s fair (28 percent) or poor (2 percent). Regarding the state of race
relations in higher ed generally, however, just three in 10 provosts say it’s good (27 percent) or excellent
(2 percent). Most say it’s fair (60 percent) or poor (11 percent).
By race, Black and white provosts are about as likely to rate their own campus racial climate and that
of higher ed as a whole good or excellent. Small sample sizes for other racial groups prevent a more
thorough analysis by race.
By region, provosts in the South are both likeliest to rate general campus race relations (39 percent)
and their own campus race relations (78 percent) as good or excellent.
Provosts in the West (74 percent) and South (70 percent) are more likely than those in the Midwest
(56 percent) and Northeast (62 percent) to disagree that racial diversity will decrease at their institution
following the court’s the ruling on affirmative action.
As for whether their institution has curtailed its diversity and inclusion efforts beyond admissions in
response to the decision, or in response to other pressure from lawmakers, one in 10 (10 percent) says
yes. The majority (87 percent) say no (the rest are unsure). Relatively more provosts at public institutions
than private nonprofit ones have scaled back on DEI beyond admissions since last year, however (19
percent versus 3 percent, respectively). By region, provosts in the South are especially likely (25 percent)
to say so (compared to 9 percent of provosts in the Midwest, 1 percent in the Northeast and 3 percent in
the West). Provosts at public institutions in the South are driving most of this difference: 41 percent say
they’ve scaled back DEI efforts beyond admissions in the last year.
Among those institutions broadly scaling back DEI efforts, the plurality are cutting back training
programs (44 percent). About a third each are cutting back faculty and staff hiring (35 percent) and
scholarship and financial aid (32 percent).
Asked to rate the effectiveness of their institution at providing a quality undergraduate education,
three in four provosts say it’s very effective (72 percent), while another one in four says it’s somewhat
effective (27 percent). In last year’s survey, fewer provosts (60 percent) said their institution was very
effective at this fundamental mission.
In 2024, more than half of provosts say their institution is very effective (57 percent) at preparing
students for the world of work, while most of the remainder say it’s somewhat effective (41 percent).
This also represents an increase from last year, when 46 percent of provosts said their institution was
effective in this area.
About half of provosts this year say their institution is very effective (55 percent) at offering
undergraduate support services beyond academic advising, while most of the rest say it’s somewhat
effective (40 percent). On providing academic advising itself, provosts are more split on whether their
institution is very effective (45 percent) or somewhat effective (48 percent).
Fewer provosts—about a third each—say their institution is very effective at the following: using data to
measure student outcomes (37 percent); using data to inform student success initiatives (35 percent);
using data to aid campus decision-making (34 percent); and controlling rising prices for students and
their families (37 percent).
Just 22 percent of provosts say their institution is very effective at recruiting and retaining talented
faculty, about the same as last year (19 percent).
Public and private nonprofit institution provosts are in relative alignment as to their general
effectiveness across these areas, though those at public doctoral institutions express somewhat
more confidence in how they use data than do provosts at other kinds of public institutions. For
example, 93 percent of provosts at public doctoral institutions indicate they’re at least somewhat
effective at using data to inform student success initiatives, compared to 82 percent of provosts at
community colleges.
By region, provosts in the South are least likely (12 percent) to say that they’re very effective at
recruiting and retaining talented faculty.
On budgets and finances, eight in 10 provosts (82 percent) agree or strongly agree that financial
concerns, including revenue, market opportunities, and profit, factor in to discussions about launching
new academic programs, with those at associate institutions least likely to say this (70 percent) and
those at private doctoral and research institutions most likely to say so (91 percent). About three in four
provosts across institution types (74 percent) agree or strongly agree that most new funds that their
institution spends on academic programs will come have to come from reallocation, not new revenue.
Fewer than half of provosts (42 percent) agree or strongly agree that their institution should reduce its
number of academic programs by the end of next academic year, while nearly as many (35 percent) say
their institution is likely to do so by then. By region, provosts in the Midwest are more likely to report
that their institution should reduce the number of academic programs it offers (48 percent). Provosts at
private nonprofit master’s and doctoral institutions are most likely to want to cut academic programs
(58 percent) and those at public master’s and baccalaureate institutions are least likely to want this
(29 percent).
Nearly six in 10 provosts (56 percent) say that based on enrollment data, students tend to prefer in-
person courses over online or hybrid courses when both are offered. Three in 10 provosts (29 percent)
say that students prefer online or hybrid courses over in-person ones. The rest (15 percent) say students
have no preference. The numbers are similar for provosts on faculty preferences for teaching: 62 percent
say faculty members prefer in-person courses over online or hybrid when both are offered while 24
percent say they prefer online or hybrid, and 14 percent say faculty members have no preference.
By region, provosts in the West (44 percent) and South (36 percent) are most likely to say that students
prefer online or hybrid courses. Provosts in the Midwest and Northeast (both 68 percent), meanwhile, are
most likely to say that faculty members prefer teaching in person. Younger provosts (age 40 to 49) are
also more likely than older ones to say that both students (44 percent) and faculty members (36 percent)
prefer online/hybrid courses.
By sector, provosts at private nonprofit institutions are significantly more likely than their public
counterparts to report a preference for in-person courses, both among students (75 percent versus
38 percent, respectively) and faculty members (80 percent versus 43 percent). And among public
institution provosts, in particular, those at associate degree-granting institutions are most likely to say
that both students (55 percent) and faculty (52 percent) prefer online or hybrid courses to in-person
courses when both are offered.
About half of provosts (53 percent) say that up to a quarter of their course sections are offered online or
in hybrid format, while 28 percent say between a quarter and half of course sections are offered online
or in hybrid format. Few provosts report that up to three-quarters (14 percent) or all (4 percent) of their
courses are offered this way. Just 25 percent of provosts at private nonprofit institutions report that more
than a quarter of courses are offered online, compared to 66 percent of public institution provosts. Nearly
all provosts at community colleges (95 percent), in particular, say that more than a quarter of classes are
offered online or in hybrid format.
Two in three provosts (64 percent) agree or strongly agree that their institution is currently seeing
higher-than-usual staff turnover rates. Nearly as many provosts (60 percent) agree or strongly agree
that recruiting faculty members now is more challenging than it was prior to the pandemic, while about a
third each say they’re seeing higher than usual faculty turnover rates (35 percent) and higher-than-usual
faculty retirement rates (30 percent).
Three in five provosts (60 percent) say their institution has made adjustments to employee
compensation in light of inflation, but just two in five (39 percent) say their institution is doing more now
to retain and engage faculty members than it was prior to the pandemic.
Provosts at private nonprofit institutions are more likely to report seeing increased turnover than their
public counterparts, both in terms of staff (74 percent versus 56 percent, respectively) and faculty
(42 versus 28 percent). Provosts at private nonprofit institutions are also less likely to say they’ve made
recent changes to employee compensation (70 percent versus 52 percent of public institution provosts)
and that they’re doing more now to retain and engage faculty (44 percent versus 33 percent).
By region, provosts in the South are most likely to say they’re seeing increased faculty turnover
(45 percent) and to say that recruiting faculty members is now more challenging than it was before
the pandemic (71 percent). Provosts in the South are also least likely to say they’ve made changes
to employee compensation (51 percent).
Three in four provosts (74 percent) say their institution surveys faculty, staff and administrators to
assess their job satisfaction, with public institution provosts more likely to say so than private nonprofit
ones (79 percent versus 68 percent, respectively.) Among public institution provosts, those at doctoral
institutions are most likely to survey their employees in this way (91 percent). By region, provosts in the
Northeast are least likely to report such surveying (62 percent).
About half of provosts (49 percent) say they’ve altered their employment policies in ways that give
employees more latitude to work remotely full-time since the pandemic. By region, provosts in the
South are least likely to say they’ve done this (39 percent). Three in four provosts altogether (75
percent) say they’ve altered their employed policies in ways that give employees more latitude to work
remotely part-time since the pandemic. Again, provosts in the South are least likely to say this (62
percent). Provosts at public doctoral universities are most likely to have allowed flexibility part-time
(97 percent versus 59 percent of provosts at community colleges and 80 percent at public master’s
and baccalaureate institutions). For additional context, about six in 10 presidents in their recent survey
said that up to a quarter of their faculty members and non-faculty staff are working in flexible, hybrid or
remote arrangements this spring.
Three in 10 provosts (30 percent) agree or strongly agree they’re seeing increased union activity on their
campus this academic year. By region, provosts in the Northeast (47 percent) and West (42 percent) are
most likely to report increased union activity on their campus.
Just about the same share (31 percent) say shared governance is stronger than it was before the pandemic.
On tenure, half of provosts (50 percent) say it’s very or extremely important to the overall health of their
institution. About a quarter (22 percent) say tenure is moderately important and the rest deem it slightly
(11 percent) or not at all (17 percent) important.
Asked how viable tenure is within their institution—meaning how well it works and its likelihood to
endure—nearly two-thirds of provosts (62 percent) say it’s very or extremely viable. Some 18 percent say
it’s moderately viable, 9 percent say it’s somewhat viable and 11 percent say it’s not at all viable. Provosts
at public and private nonprofit institutions are in relative agreement on these points, though provosts at
private doctoral and master’s institutions are less likely than those at private baccalaureate institutions
to say both that tenure is highly important (45 percent versus 61 percent, respectively) and highly viable
(50 percent versus 72 percent). By region, provosts in the Northeast are most likely to say that tenure is
highly viable (75 percent).
Provosts are split on support for a system of long-term faculty contracts over the existing tenure
system in higher education, with 54 percent favoring this idea and 46 percent opposing it. Among
private nonprofit institution provosts, those at doctoral and master’s institutions are especially likely
to favor long-term contracts over the existing tenure system (67 percent, versus 44 percent of provosts
at private baccalaureate institutions).
Among provosts at public institutions, however, those at doctoral institutions are the least likely to favor
long-term contracts over the current tenure system (41 percent versus 54 percent of community college
provosts and 53 percent of those at master’s and baccalaureate institutions).
Provosts aged 40 to 49 (60 percent) and those 50 to 50 (57 percent) are also likelier to favor long-term
contracts over the current tenure system than are provosts 60 to 69 (46 percent). By region, provosts
in the South (45 percent) are less likely to favor long-term contracts over tenure than are provosts in the
Northeast (62 percent).
A plurality of provosts (38 percent) say a quarter to half of all course sections are delivered by
instructors who are not tenured or on the tenure-track. One in four provosts (23 percent) says up to
a quarter of courses. The rest say half to three-quarters (16 percent) or three quarters to all courses
(20 percent). Two in three provosts (65 percent) say their institution will be about as reliant as it is
today on non-tenure-track faculty members for instruction in the next two years to near future.
About a quarter (23 percent) say they’ll be more reliant while 11 percent say they’ll be less reliant.
Private nonprofit institution provosts are more likely than their public counterparts to say they have
less than a quarter of course sections taught by non-tenure-track faculty (31 percent versus 16 percent,
respectively). Among public institution provosts, in particular, those at community colleges are most
likely to report (29 percent) that non-tenure-track instructors are teaching three-quarters to all of their
course sections. By region, institutions in the South are also most likely to report that three-quarters to
all of their course sections are taught by non-tenure-track professors (34 percent).
The following shares of provosts say their institution has done the following for non-tenure-track faculty:
Most provosts indicate their institution has at least considered taking the above steps.
Asked about their beliefs on faculty duties at their institution, 48 percent of provosts indicate that
teaching is much more important. Another 32 percent say teaching is more important than research
and 15 percent say teaching and research are equally important. Just 5 percent say research is more
important (4 percent) or much more important (1 percent) than teaching.
Asked the same question about higher education as a whole, a much larger share of provosts (44
percent) say that teaching and research are equally important. Unsurprisingly, provosts at both
public doctoral and private master’s or doctoral institutions are more likely than those at other kinds
of institutions to say that research matters at least as much as teaching, with just 13 percent of public
doctoral institution provosts, for instance, saying that teaching is more or much more important than
research at their institution.
Nearly half of all provosts agree (33 percent) or strongly agree (13 percent) that graduate programs
at higher education institutions in the U.S. admit more Ph.D. students than they should given the
current job market. Another third (33 percent) neither agree nor disagree while the rest disagree (16
percent) or strongly disagree (5 percent). Provosts at public doctoral institutions are especially likely to
agree or strongly agree that Ph.D. programs admit too many students (61 percent). Just 42 percent at
private doctoral and master’s institutions agree or strongly agree, however, compared to 59 percent of
baccalaureate private provosts. By age, younger provosts (40 to 49) are less likely to agree or strongly
agree (38 percent) that Ph.D. programs admit too many students than are older provosts (46 percent of
those 50 to 59 and 48 percent of those 60 to 69).
On campus speech, seven in 10 provosts (73 percent) agree or strongly agree that their institution
has a clear response plan in place for addressing student complaints about professors’ speech in the
classroom. About half as many provosts (36 percent) say the same for addressing student complaints
about professors’ extramural speech. Three in 10 provosts (31 percent) say they have a policy or plan for
addressing online trolling or other outside attacks against professors.
Six in 10 provosts (61 percent) say they have a clear response plan in place for addressing complaints about
individual students’ speech. About the same share (58 percent) say they have a clear response plan in
place for addressing complaints about student organizations’ speech.
Provosts at public institutions (79 percent) are more likely than their private nonprofit counterparts (66
percent) to say that they have a clear response plan for addressing student complaints about professors’
classroom speech. Public institution provosts are also significantly more likely to say that they have a
response plan for addressing complaints about individual students’ speech (67 percent versus 54 percent,
respectively), complaints about student organizations’ speech (68 percent versus 48 percent) and for
addressing student complaints about professors’ extramural speech (45 percent versus 28 percent).
By region, provosts in the West are especially likely to have a clear response plan for addressing student
complaints about classroom speech (82 percent). They’re also most likely to have a response plan in
place for addressing student complaints about professors’ extramural speech (48 percent).
Provosts at doctoral institutions are likelier than their peers at associate and master’s or baccalaureate
institution to have every kind of speech response plan. For example, 81 percent of public doctoral
institutions have a policy in place for addressing complaints about student organizations’ speech, versus
65 percent each for associate and master’s or baccalaureate public nonprofit institutions.
As for how provosts rate the climate of open inquiry and dialogue in higher education generally, a
quarter rate it good (26 percent) or excellent (1 percent). Half (49 percent) rate it fair, while the rest rate
it poor (20 percent) or very poor (4 percent).
Regarding their own institution, however, provosts feel differently: Nearly two-thirds rate the climate for
open inquiry and dialogue on their own campus as good (52 percent) or excellent (10 percent). A third
rate it fair (32 percent) while very few rate it poor (5 percent) or very poor (1 percent).
Black provosts (45 percent) are less likely to agree that the speech climate on their own campus is good
or excellent than are multi-racial (60 percent) or white presidents (62 percent). By institution type,
public doctoral institution provosts are most likely (44 percent) to agree that the general higher ed
climate for open inquiry and dialogue is good or excellent and private baccalaureate institution provosts
are least likely to agree (17 percent).
Provosts in the West, who are also more likely than those in other regions to have policies governing
various campus speech concerns, are the most likely by region to say that the overall higher ed climate
for open inquiry and dialogue is good or excellent (41 percent), though they’re about as likely as those in
other regions to view their own campus’s speech climate as good or excellent.
Additionally, provosts who say that their institution requires faculty training on facilitating difficult
dialogues (81 percent) and those who say that their institution has embedded training on difficult
dialogues in freshman orientation (76 percent) are more likely than the overall sample (62 percent) to
rate their campus speech climates as good or excellent.
As for how effective they think their campus speech policies are at creating an environment for
constructive dialogue, relatively few provosts say they’re extremely effective (3 percent) or very effective
(19 percent). Half say they’re moderately effective (52 percent). The rest say they’re somewhat effective
(23 percent) or not effective at all (3 percent).
Public and private nonprofit provosts are in relatively alignment, but 34 percent of public doctoral provosts say their policies are highly effective, compared to 23 percent of community college provosts
and just 4 percent of public master’s or baccalaureate provosts. By region, provosts in the West are
likeliest to agree that their policies are effective, at 35 percent, versus 21 percent in the South, 19 percent
in the Midwest and 17 percent in the Northeast.
Female provosts are also less likely than their male counterparts to agree that their campus speech
policies are highly effective (17 percent versus 30 percent, respectively). And gay and lesbian provosts
are less likely than their heterosexual counterparts to agree that their campus speech policies are highly
effective (13 percent versus 24 percent, respectively).
About four in 10 provosts agree (32 percent) or strongly agree (7 percent) that current world events
have stressed their institution’s speech policies to the point that they may need to be revisited. An
additional 26 percent of provosts neither agree nor disagree while the rest somewhat disagree (23
percent) or strongly disagree (13 percent). Gay and lesbian provosts are significantly more likely than
their heterosexual counterparts to say that their campus speech policies need revisiting in light of
world events (61 percent versus 36 percent, respectively). Provosts in the Northeast (47 percent) are
most likely to agree that their institution’s speech policies may need revising. And despite their relative
confidence in the effectiveness of their campus speech policies, presidents in the West (44 percent)
are also more likely than those in the Midwest (38 percent) and especially the South (29 percent) to say
their speech policies may been revisiting in light of current world events.
As for how concerned provosts are about the 2024 general election results affecting the climate for
free inquiry at their institution, more than half say they’re extremely concerned (28 percent) or very
concerned (25 percent). A quarter are moderately concerned (25 percent) and the rest are slightly
concerned (16 percent) and not at all concerned (8 percent).
Relatively more gay and lesbian provosts are highly concerned about the election and the climate for free
speech (66 percent) than are heterosexual provosts (52 percent). By age, younger provosts (40 to 49) are
least likely to be highly concerned (29 percent versus 52 percent of provosts age 50 to 59 and 64 percent
of provosts age 60 to 69). Provosts in the South are most likely to be unconcerned (16 percent), by region.
Nine in 10 provosts (88 percent) agree or strongly agree that high-quality undergraduate education
requires healthy departments in disciplines such as English, history, political science and other liberal
arts fields, about the same share as said so in last year’s survey of provosts (87 percent). Yet a majority
of provosts this year (67 percent) and last year (74 percent) also agree or strongly agree that politicians
and board members are prioritizing science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) and professional
programs over those that support general education. And this year (34 percent) and last (33 percent),
a third of provosts believe that the number of students majoring in a program is an appropriate way to
determine which departments to cut.
Public and private nonprofit institution provosts are in alignment on all these issues this year, but among
public institution provosts, those at doctoral universities are especially likely to say that high-quality
undergraduate education requires healthy liberal arts programs (97 percent). Community college
provosts, meanwhile, are least likely to agree that politicians and board members are prioritizing STEM
and professional programs over other fields (59 percent versus 78 percent each for provosts at public
nonprofit master’s or baccalaureate and doctoral institutions). Community college provosts are mostly
likely to indicate that the number of students majoring in a program is an appropriate way to determine
which departments to cut (44 percent).
Overall, two-thirds of provosts each agree or strongly agree that they’ll see a major allocation of funds to
professional or preprofessional programs (66 percent) and STEM fields (62 percent) in their budget next
year. About half say they’ll see a major allocation of funds toward online programs (47 percent). And less
than a third say they’ll see a major allocation of funds toward arts and sciences programs (29 percent).
By region, provosts in the West are especially likely to expect a major allocation of funds toward online
programs (60 percent). Community college provosts in the West, in particular, expect this (74 percent).
Provosts in the Northeast are especially likely to expect a major allocation of funds toward STEM fields
(70 percent).
Regarding assessment of student learning, some eight in 10 provosts (83 percent) agree or strongly
agree that faculty members at their college or university view assessment as requiring a lot of work on
their parts. About two-thirds of provosts (65 percent) say their institution regularly makes changes in the
curriculum, teaching practices or student services based on what it finds through assessment.
About half of provosts each say the following: the growth of assessment systems has improved the
quality of teaching and learning at their college (52 percent); assessment has led to better use of
technology in teaching and learning at their college (48 percent); and faculty members value assessment
efforts at their institution (44 percent).
Three in 10 provosts (29 percent) say that their institution’s use of student learning assessment is more
about keeping accreditors and politicians happy than it is about teaching and learning. That’s about the
same share as last year.
Provosts at private nonprofit institutions are somewhat more likely than those at public institutions to say
that faculty members at their institution view assessment as requiring a lot of work (87 percent versus
79 percent, respectively). By region, provosts in the West are least likely to agree (68 percent) that
faculty members view assessment as requiring a lot of work on their part. Provosts in the West are also
most likely to agree that their faculty members value assessment efforts at their college (53 percent);
provosts in the Northeast are least likely to agree (37 percent).
Six in 10 provosts (61 percent) agree or strongly agree that open educational resources, or freely available
online materials, are of sufficiently high quality that they should be used in most general education courses.
That’s about the same as last year’s survey of provosts (56 percent). This year, public institution provosts
(68 percent) are more likely to say this than are private nonprofit institution provosts (55 percent). Among
provosts at public institutions, those at community colleges are especially likely to agree (75 percent).
Half of provosts (53 percent) agree, somewhat or strongly, that the need to help students save money on
textbooks justifies the loss of some faculty control over selection of materials for the courses they teach.
Public institution provosts are slightly more likely to agree (57 percent versus 50 percent of private nonprofit institution provosts), with community college provosts (70 percent) driving most of this difference.
On adoption of new course materials models, seven in 10 provosts (70 percent) say their institution has
adopted open educational resources. About a third (34 percent) say their institution has adopted inclusive
access, meaning digital-first materials with opt-out options for students. About half as many (16 percent)
say their institution has adopted equitable access, or digital-first materials typically bundled with tuition.
Relatively few provosts (15 percent) say they’ve adopted none of these models. The rest (6 percent) say
they’ve adopted other models.
Consistent with their relative support for open educational resources, provosts at public institutions are
significantly more likely than their private nonprofit counterparts to say they’ve adopted open educational
resources (86 percent versus 56 percent, respectively). Provosts at private institutions, meanwhile, are
significantly more likely than public institution provosts to say they’re not experimenting with any new
course materials models (22 percent versus 6 percent).
Nine in 10 provosts (87 percent) agree or strongly agree that they’re glad they pursued administrative
work, and this is relatively consistent across institution types and demographics, though gay and lesbian
presidents (78 percent) are somewhat less likely to agree than their heterosexual counterparts (87 percent).
Older provosts, those 60 to 69, are also somewhat more likely (94 percent) to say they’re glad they pursued
administrative work than are younger provosts (82 percent each for those 40 to 49 and 50 to 59).
Four in 10 provosts (39 percent) agree, strongly or somewhat, that their job is more focused on financial
management than on academic issues. This increases to nearly half when considering only private nonprofit
institution provosts (46 percent) and decreases to about a third when considering just public institution
provosts (34 percent). Among public institution provosts, those at doctoral institutions are most likely to
agree their job is more about finances and management than academics (45 percent versus 33 percent of
public master’s and baccalaureate institution provosts and 29 percent of community college provosts).
See how our tools are helping clients right now, get in-depth information on topics that matter, and stay up-to-date on trends in higher ed.
