CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

In stressing the need for a higher level of planning, assessment, and cooperation, one must recognize that there are constraints on how far and how fast such efforts can move. For example, in formal or informal consortia, small institutions tend to worry about losing their identity when one of the partners in the consortium is large and powerful. For real cooperation to occur, the largest institutions must be sensitive to this fear and avoid behavior that might be interpreted as condescending or preemptive by their smaller partners. At the same time, however much they may cooperate in planning and in sharing resources, institutions have their own legitimate self-interests to consider. Most can be expected to continue recruiting, counseling, and instructional programs independently of one another. The Boston Six institutions, though serious in their intent to work together in a number of areas, continue to maintain separate institutional programs in those areas. That is proper as long as each institution understands that for certain purposes their own independently operated programs and services must give way to joint action. The right balance is difficult to strike.

Finally, all of the ventures discussed in this paper occurred because external funding was available. To argue for more initiatives like them, one must acknowledge that how much the institutions can do depends in the long run on outside funding, particularly from state sources. Urban-oriented colleges and universities, like the entire educational enterprise, exist in a political environment, shaped increasingly at the state level. Yet state legislatures are often far removed from the day-to-day realities of the cities and the institutions of higher education that serve them. Much more communication is needed if legislators are to look upon the institutions with greater favor and understanding.