Blog - Greg D. Pillar, Ph.D.

Teaching to Ghosts: How Higher Ed’s Past Haunts Us—and What It Takes to Move On

gregpillar on May 9, 2025

Title Image: OpenAI. (2025). Vibrant campus scene with a haunted building and a diverse mix of students, faculty, and staff interacting. DALL·E. https://openai.com/dall-e

The Ghosts in the Classroom

A professor sits down to design a syllabus. He—or she—imagines a student who is 18-19 years old, lives on campus, attends class full time, and has long afternoons to read, reflect, and write. The course is built around that student—the one we used to picture when we talked about “college.”

There are students sitting in our classrooms who, by nearly every measure, are invisible. They show up—but not always at 8:00 a.m. and not always in person. They juggle coursework with caregiving, jobs, anxiety, trauma, or housing insecurity. Some are first-generation college students; others have stopped out and come back; many question whether they belong in the room at all. They are not who our systems were built for. And too often, they are treated as if they aren’t really there.

We have built an entire educational apparatus on a lingering myth: that today’s college student is academically prepared, economically secure, and fully devoted to full-time study, preferably in a residence hall surrounded by leafy quads. The problem is not that this student archetype never existed—it did, in pockets and privileged spaces. The problem is that we still organize our curriculum, advising, scheduling, and expectations around this idealized model while the real students before us live different, more complex realities (DeLaski, 2025; Selingo, 2025).

In reality, most college students today are navigating a landscape that looks nothing like the brochures. Nearly one-third have considered leaving their programs due to mental health, financial pressure, or lack of support (Gallup & Lumina Foundation, 2025). More than half of college students are employed while enrolled, and a significant number also serve as caregivers for siblings or elders (Goines, 2024). Many arrive underprepared—academically, emotionally, or logistically—not because they lack ability but because the system assumes a level of readiness that was never designed for them (ACT, 2023; Bookbinder, 2024).

And yet, our syllabi, our policies, and even our pedagogy often center expectations that belong to another era. We assign dense readings without accounting for digital reading habits or cognitive fatigue (Flaherty, 2024; Bookbinder, 2024). We demand synchronous attendance while students are working night shifts. We measure success by who fits the mold, not who grows beyond it. It’s not just that we are failing to serve these students—we’re haunting them with a version of college that serves only their ghosts.

If higher education is to be relevant—if it is to be just—it must confront this reality. We must meet students where they are, not where we wish they were. And that begins by seeing them clearly, not as ghosts in a traditional classroom fantasy, but as whole, capable, complex learners deserving of systems that believe in them.

The Myth of the “Traditional” Student

For decades, higher education has perpetuated a powerful illusion: the “traditional” student. This imagined learner is 18 to 22 years old, academically prepared, financially supported, attending full time, living on campus, and fully immersed in a four-year residential experience. That image still dominates campus brochures, administrative planning, and even faculty expectations. But it is largely a myth.

Today, only 26% of college students fit that profile—that is, students who are not only between the ages of 18 and 22 but who also attend full-time, live on campus, and are fully immersed in a four-year residential experience (DeLaski, 2025b; Hanover Research, 2025a). In terms of age alone, the student population is nearly split: 51.6% are age 20 or younger, while 48.4% are 21 or older. Notably, nearly 25% of students—3,956,430 individuals—are age 25 or older (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2025). These figures highlight just how far removed our imagined “traditional” student is from the demographic reality on today’s campuses. And even among those who do fall within the traditional age range, many are working while pursuing their education. In 2020, 40% of full-time undergraduate students were employed, underscoring the fact that even traditional-aged, full-time students must often balance school with work responsibilities (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022).

Demographic projections make it even clearer: the pipeline of traditional-aged students is shrinking. National forecasts show declining high school graduation rates over the next decade, particularly in the Northeast and Midwest (Lane, et. al., 2024). This means that clinging to outdated models isn’t just inaccurate—it’s unsustainable.

Most students are older, work while enrolled, commute to campus or learn online, and are often the first in their families to attend college. Many are returning adults, veterans, parents, or students managing chronic health or mental health conditions. And yet, our institutional architecture—from advising models to course schedules to financial aid policies—continues to center the traditional student as the norm.

This mismatch creates what Jeff Selingo (2025) calls a “design lag”: a gap between who students are and the systems intended to serve them. It also creates deep frustration for faculty, who often try to teach in environments designed around the wrong assumptions. As one professor observed, “We are designing for ghosts”—a poignant critique of how higher education often caters to an outdated student archetype (Chappell, Natanel, & Wren, 2021).

The results are predictable. Underprepared students are treated as if they are anomalies. Working learners are seen as disengaged. Students who can’t attend every synchronous session are flagged as unreliable. These assumptions not only fail to support today’s students—they actively alienate them (Gallup & Lumina Foundation, 2025; ACT, 2023).

We need to retire the myth. Not just in our messaging, but in our policies, pedagogies, and priorities. The modern student is not a deviation from the norm. They are the norm. And when we continue designing around outdated ideals, we send a clear signal: this place was not built for you.

Meet the New Majority: The Modern Learner

Today’s students are not anomalies or outliers. They are the new majority—and they are reshaping the fabric of higher education. These learners are more diverse, more digitally immersed, more economically stretched, and more purpose-driven than the traditional students our systems were designed to serve.

They prioritize flexibility and accessibility over legacy academic experiences defined by geographic location or institutional prestige. Instead of waiting for brochures, they evaluate institutions based on transparency, adaptability, and outcomes. Nearly 70% use AI tools like ChatGPT to research colleges, and they build personalized pathways informed by real-time information and real-world goals (EducationDynamics, 2025).

Balancing coursework with caregiving, job responsibilities, and family support is routine—not exceptional. Even those within the traditional age band are navigating competing pressures that once defined “nontraditional” status. What unites this student population is not age or format, but intent: they are seeking learning that fits their lives. Modular learning options, career-aligned credentials, and asynchronous access aren’t bonus features—they are the new baseline (Sallustio & Colbert, 2024; Hanover Research, 2025a).

Institutions that deliver short-term, stackable credentials connected to in-demand skills are not just innovating—they are surviving. These learners want to know how their education connects to careers, not only someday, but now. High-impact career services that integrate early and often, rather than waiting until senior year, are vital. Effective models build relationships with industry, empower faculty partnerships, and make employability a shared responsibility across the institution (Hanover Research, 2023).

Modern students are also clear-eyed about value. They don’t need platitudes about lifelong learning. They want to see return on investment through tangible opportunities, relevant coursework, and pathways to economic mobility. Messaging must move beyond romanticized campus experiences to a clear articulation of purpose, fit, and impact (Hanover, 2025b).

To retain this new majority, institutions must also recognize the risk of attrition—especially for those navigating instability or trauma. Targeted support strategies like early alert systems, proactive advising, and embedded academic coaching are not perks—they are survival infrastructure (Hanover Research, 2019).

This isn’t just about keeping students enrolled. It’s about honoring their time and trusting their goals. And that trust must extend to acknowledging that for some, a degree isn’t the only—or even best—path. High-quality, workforce-aligned credentials must be welcomed, not viewed as secondary options (Goines, 2024).

Kathleen DeLaski (2025b) calls this group “the new majority”—a diverse and growing student population too long treated as an exception. Designing for them means designing for everyone. It isn’t about lowering standards. It’s about raising relevance, deepening connection, and expanding access.

These students remain eager to learn, even as traditional systems often push them away. Survey data continue to show that interest in higher education remains strong, particularly among those seeking meaningful work, career growth, and personal fulfillment (Ray, 2025). Yet trust is fragile. Many students perceive a gap between what colleges promise and what they deliver—especially around value, affordability, and inclusion (Edge Research & HCM Strategists, 2024).

If we want to retain these learners—and truly serve them—we must rewire the student experience to reflect who they are. That means rethinking advising, communication, instructional design, support services, and faculty development to serve students whose time, attention, and trust must be earned anew.

Systems Built for Ghosts: Where Misalignment Happens

When our systems are built for students who no longer exist, misalignment isn’t just a policy problem—it becomes a daily obstacle. And for the modern learner, those obstacles accumulate fast.

Consider the curriculum. Many programs still assume a standard 15-credit-hour semester across four years, often locking students into rigid, sequential course paths that unravel with the slightest disruption. For students working 30 hours a week, raising children, or returning to college after time away, this structure makes success unnecessarily difficult (Laff & Carlson, 2022; EducationDynamics, 2025; Gallup & Lumina Foundation, 2025). “On time” becomes a myth; “full time” becomes a barrier.

These assumptions often extend into the classroom. Faculty regularly assign dense reading loads assuming students are prepared, focused, and experienced with long-form academic text. But research shows that many students—especially in open-access institutions—are struggling with foundational reading skills. Expectations for daily engagement with difficult texts, without scaffolding or digital support, can overwhelm even the most committed learners (Wolf Jr., 2025). This isn’t a question of rigor—it’s a question of readiness.

Advising models also fail to account for the complexity of students’ lives. Too often, advising is built around linear paths and static requirements, assuming a full-time residential student who proceeds through four years with few disruptions. But today’s learners need conversations that account for transfer credits, family responsibilities, career pivots, and mental health. Systems must adapt to the fluid nature of the student journey—or risk losing them altogether (Laff & Carlson, 2022).

Systems also overlook the fact that many students are entering college underprepared—not because of personal failure, but because of systemic gaps in K-12 education. One recent study found that over half of incoming students at many institutions are not ready for college-level coursework, yet we continue to teach as if they are (Butrymowicz, 2017). This readiness gap becomes an invisible barrier embedded into every policy that assumes prior preparation.

Policies around attendance, deadlines, and participation carry silent assumptions: that students are financially secure, trauma-free, and constantly connected. But many are navigating mental health struggles, caregiving roles, and unstable housing. Systems that don’t accommodate this aren’t neutral—they’re extractive. They punish students for not conforming to a model they were never meant to fit (Riddell, 2023; Gallup & Lumina Foundation, 2025; Flaherty, 2024).

Even support services like tutoring, mental health counseling, or career coaching are often hidden behind procedural barriers or limited hours. Technically available doesn’t mean functionally accessible. As outlined in The Connected College, these resources are often wrapped in an “invisibility cloak”—ineffective not by absence, but by poor design (Felix, 2021; Hanover Research, 2025).

In my own leadership experience, I’ve seen these gaps firsthand. A student working retail evenings missed a required synchronous online class. A caregiver missed advising deadlines due to unpredictable family obligations. A first-generation student struggled with assessments built around timed essays and fast recall—formats that rewarded familiarity over learning.

None of these students lacked ambition. They lacked alignment. This is the real systems problem higher education must confront. We are still designing for ghosts, and it’s the living learners in front of us who pay the price.

Why This Hurts Everyone: Equity, Engagement, and Belonging

Misalignment in higher education doesn’t just inconvenience students. It chips away at equity, erodes belonging, and breaks the trust that holds institutions together. When we teach to ghosts, we not only lose students—we lose the soul of our mission.

For students, the message is loud and clear: this place was not built for you. When systems consistently fail to see or support them, students internalize the dissonance. They feel unseen, undervalued, and unsupported. Nearly one-third have considered leaving their institution, citing stress, anxiety, financial pressures, and a lack of connection or support as leading reasons (Gallup & Lumina Foundation, 2025; Marken, 2025a; Marken, 2025b). The emotional toll of navigating institutions built around outdated expectations is real—and rising.

The pressure to perform within academic structures designed for a narrow archetype compounds the problem. Many students report feeling overwhelmed by dense, analog reading assignments, inflexible pacing, and assessments that privilege speed and recall over synthesis and application. Even some of the most elite, high-achieving students are struggling to engage with traditional college reading loads, suggesting that the issue is structural, not personal (Horowitch, 2024).

This disconnect is especially harmful for students from historically marginalized backgrounds. When first-generation students, students of color, or those managing trauma and caregiving responsibilities encounter rigid systems, they are more likely to disengage—not out of apathy, but exhaustion. The absence of flexible structures communicates that they were never the intended audience. This design-based exclusion becomes an equity issue in plain sight.

Faculty are not exempt from this erosion of connection. Many feel demoralized, caught between students’ complex needs and institutional systems that fail to adapt. The emotional weight of declining attendance, missed deadlines, and unspoken struggles often lands squarely on instructors, who feel unsupported and ineffective. As Riddell (2023) argues, coherence and care must be institutionalized—not improvised—if we hope to sustain the energy and purpose of educators. Despite skepticism about cost, the belief in higher education’s long-term value persists. Most students still see college as a worthwhile investment, even if they view tuition pricing as unfair—underscoring the tension between value and trust that institutions must navigate (Marken & Hrynowski, 2025).

There are solutions—but they require intentionality. Scalable, equity-minded practices like proactive advising, early alert systems, and relationship-rich engagement models can interrupt student attrition and restore connection when implemented as part of a broader commitment to student success (Hanover Research, 2019). These aren’t just strategies. They are signals of care, and they shape whether students and faculty feel seen.

If we want to retain trust, we must restore alignment—between values and actions, expectations and supports, systems and the humans they are supposed to serve.

Rewiring for the Real Student: What Needs to Change

The future of higher education will not be secured through slogans or marginal adjustments. If colleges and universities are to thrive—and, in some cases, survive—they must move from accommodating the modern learner to redesigning entirely around them. This is not a matter of preference. It’s a matter of institutional viability and educational justice.

To begin, institutions must embrace modular, flexible, stackable learning pathways. Today’s students need degrees and credentials that can bend with life—not break under it. Certificates should ladder into degrees. Degrees should be customizable. Skills should be portable. And learning must be available in formats that respect time, context, and learner agency (EducationDynamics, 2025; Sallustio & Colbert, 2024; Hanover Research, 2025).

Second, we must embed trauma-informed, relationship-rich practices into the very architecture of our institutions. This means rethinking course policies, advising structures, communication practices, and faculty development. It’s not enough to “add” support; we need to embed support as a design principle. My own work in trauma-informed leadership as well as that of Jessica Riddell has shown that when institutions lead with care, transparency, and shared agency, student engagement improves—and so does staff morale (Pillar, 2024; Riddell, 2023).

Third, we need to stop treating equity and belonging as supplemental initiatives. They are not programs. They are principles. Inclusive design must be baked into everything—from how syllabi are written, to how learning outcomes are assessed, to how feedback is delivered. As The Connected College makes clear, institutions that center empathy and belonging in their culture not only serve students better—they build resilience into their very foundation (Felix, 2021).

Fourth, institutional leaders must be bold enough to discontinue what no longer works. Some legacy programs, policies, and roles have outlived their relevance. We need courage to close outdated offerings, reallocate resources, and invest in interdisciplinary, career-connected programs that reflect current needs. This doesn’t mean abandoning tradition. It means honoring mission by updating methods.

One compelling example of this kind of bold redesign comes from Dr. Melik Peter Khoury, President of Unity Environmental University. Under his leadership, Unity transformed from a tuition-dependent college serving fewer than 500 students into a national institution serving nearly 10,000—without chasing prestige or abandoning mission. The transformation wasn’t cosmetic. It included a full overhaul of governance, curriculum, support structures, and faculty models—grounded in scalability, relevance, and student-centered design (Khoury, 2025). His approach makes clear that institutional reinvention isn’t about rebellion—it’s about responsibility. And it starts by refusing to replicate a system that no longer serves.

And finally, we need to rebuild trust. That begins with telling the truth—about who our students are, about what they need, and about what it will take to meet them. Trust grows when students see policies that reflect reality, hear language that honors their experiences, and encounter faculty and staff who are empowered to support them holistically.

This work is hard. But it is also hopeful. The ghost stories we tell ourselves—about what college used to be, or who deserves to be here—no longer serve us. What comes next must be built not on nostalgia, but on clarity, care, and courage.

Final Thoughts: Letting Go of Ghosts

Nothing I’ve written here is revolutionary. These ideas—the urgency to meet students where they are, the call to redesign outdated systems, the recognition of the modern learner—have been championed by many others, many of them with larger platforms, more influential audiences, and longer résumés. But that’s precisely why I’m adding my voice.

Because this message can’t be shared enough.

It bears repeating in every meeting, every convocation address, every policy review, every accreditation review, and every course redesign. As institutions grapple with enrollment declines, rising skepticism, financial strain, and even closures, the through line in many of their stories will be the same: they spent too long designing for a student who doesn’t exist anymore.

This article has made the case that higher education’s default systems—its curricula, policies, and assumptions—are no longer fit for purpose. We’ve seen how these misalignments compound barriers for today’s learners, demoralize educators, and undercut institutional trust. But we’ve also explored a path forward: one grounded in coherence, care, flexibility, and relevance.

The erosion of public trust in higher education is not accidental. In recent surveys, confidence in colleges and universities has reached historic lows, with fewer than half of Americans expressing strong faith in the sector (Jones, 2024). And yet, the desire for learning, growth, and opportunity remains high. People still believe in the promise—if not always the practice—of higher education.

This piece is just one contribution to a wider and growing conversation. Countless scholars, educators, and reformers have been urging change grounded in care, relevance, and equity (Pillar, 2024). What we need now is not more awareness—but more action.

The real student is here now. And they are watching to see whether we’re brave enough to see them.

Higher education doesn’t need more ghosts. It needs a reckoning—and the resolve to build what comes next

References

ACT. (2023). 2023 National ACT profile report. ACT. https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/2023-National-ACT-Profile-Report.pdf

Bookbinder, H. (2024). The average college student today. The Commonplace. https://hilariusbookbinder.substack.com/p/the-average-college-student-today

Butrymowicz, S. (2017, January 30). Most colleges enroll students who aren’t prepared for higher education. The Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/colleges-enroll-students-arent-prepared-higher-education/

Chappell, K., Natanel, K., & Wren, H. (2021). Letting the ghosts in: Re-designing HE teaching and learning through posthumanism. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(7–8), 968–984. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1952563

DeLaski, K. (2025a, February 3). OPINION: It is time to expand the definition of college to include other high-quality pathways. The Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-we-must-acknowledge-that-students-are-asking-for-options-beyond-the-four-year-college-degree/

DeLaski, K. (2025b). Who needs college anymore? Imagining a future where degrees won’t matter. Harvard Education Press.

Edge Research & HCM Strategists. (2024, March 11). Student perceptions of American higher education. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. https://usprogram.gatesfoundation.org/news-and-insights/articles/student-perceptions-of-american-higher-education

EducationDynamics. (2025). Engaging the modern learner: 2025 report on the preferences and behaviors shaping higher ed. https://tinyurl.com/539upxm4

Felix, E. (2021). The connected college: Leadership Strategies for Student Success. ThriveU Press

Flaherty, C. (2024, March 15). Is this the end of reading? The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/is-this-the-end-of-reading

Gallup & Lumina Foundation. (2025). The state of higher education 2025. https://www.gallup.com/analytics/644939/state-of-higher-education.aspx

Goines, D. (2024, December 2). OPINION: Schools can and should do more to help students prepare for career paths that don’t require a college degree. The Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-our-system-steers-most-students-toward-attending-college-but-it-is-not-realistic-or-even-desirable-for-everyone/

Hanover Research. (2025a). 2025 trends in higher education. Hanover Research.

Hanover Research. (2025b). Communicating the value of a college degree. Hanover Research.

Hanover Research. (2025c). Microcredential Trends 2025. Hanover Research.

Hanover Research. (2023). Benchmarking best-in-class career services. Hanover Research.

Hanover Research. (2019). Prevent student dropout toolkit. Hanover Research.

Horowitch, R. (2024, November). The elite college students who can’t read books. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/11/the-elite-college-students-who-cant-read-books/679945/

Jones, J. M. (2024, July 8). U.S. confidence in higher education now closely divided. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/646880/confidence-higher-education-closely-divided.aspx

Khoury, M. P. (2025, May 9). I wasn’t meant to lead their system. I was meant to reimagine it. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/i-wasnt-meant-lead-system-reimagine-dr-melik-peter-khoury-0zale/?trackingId=fbeez7km13b%2FNp7h3ABJDw%3D%3D

Laff, N. S., & Carlson, S. (2022). Hacking college: Why the Major Doesn’t Matter – and What Really Does. Johns Hopkins University Press

Lane, P., Falkenstern, C., & Bransberger, P. (2024). Knocking at the College Door: Projections of High School Graduates. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. https://www.wiche.edu/knocking.

Marken, S. (2025a, May 1). One in three college students consider leaving program. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/659897/one-three-college-students-consider-leaving-program.aspx

Marken, S. (2025b, March 26). Mental health, stress top reasons students consider leaving. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/644645/mental-health-stress-top-reasons-students-consider-leaving.aspx

Marken, S., & Hrynowski, Z. (2025, February 15). College prices seen as unfair but worth the investment. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/657686/college-prices-seen-unfair-worth-investment.aspx

National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Student employment (SSA indicator). https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/ssa

National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2025). Current term enrollment estimates – Spring 2025. https://nscresearchcenter.org/current-term-enrollment-estimates/

Pillar, G. (2024). Beyond the critique: A nuanced approach to higher education reform for the modern learner. GregPillar.com. https://gregpillar.com/beyond-the-critique-a-nuanced-approach-to-higher-education-reform-for-the-modern-learner/

Pillar, G. (2024). Building resilient leadership in higher education: Merging trauma-informed practices with key presidential competencies. GregPillar.com. https://gregpillar.com/building-resilient-leadership-in-higher-education-merging-trauma-informed-practices-with-key-presidential-competencies/

Ray, J. (2025, May 7). Interest in higher education remains high. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/660134/interest-higher-education-remains-high.aspx

Riddell, J. (2023). Hope circuits: Rewiring Universities and Other Organizations for Human Flourishing. McGill-Queen’s University Press

Selingo, J. (2025). The state of higher education 2025, jeffselingo.com

Sallustio, J., and K. Colbert. (2024). Engaging the modern learner in higher education: Strategies for educators. https://evolllution.com/engaging-the-modern-learner-in-higher-education-strategies-for-educators

Wolf, F. A., Jr. (2025, January 17). Help college students read: Gen Z can’t make it through a book. Professors can help. The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal. https://jamesgmartin.center/2025/02/help-college-students-read/

The Future of College Majors: Reinvention or Extinction? —— Part 3: Let It Go – Why Some Majors Need to be Cut for Higher Ed to Thrive

gregpillar on April 22, 2025

We Are the Problem—And the Solution

Higher education has reached an inflection point. Questions about cost, relevance, and long-term sustainability are no longer confined to think tank reports or state budget hearings—they’re now playing out in real time, on campuses across the country. Students and families are reconsidering the value proposition. Faculty and staff are weary. And institutional leaders face decisions that will determine whether their schools survive the next decade.

When Ignaz Semmelweis discovered in the 1840s that handwashing drastically reduced deaths in maternity wards, his colleagues rejected his findings. Not because the evidence was weak—it was overwhelming—but because it meant admitting they were the cause of the deaths. The discomfort of accountability outweighed the imperative for change. Nicole Poff (2025a) invoked this story in a searing critique of higher education’s well-meaning but self-defeating behaviors, and the metaphor is hauntingly apt. In our industry, we keep building new programs atop broken systems, afraid to acknowledge that we might be part of the problem.

Meanwhile, the closures are piling up. In the last few months alone, Northland College, Iowa Wesleyan, and Alverno College all announced permanent shutdowns (Donadel, 2025; Lederman, 2024; Marcus, 2025). Now, Limestone University—after 179 years of in-person education—is teetering on the edge of closure or a full pivot to online-only instruction, pending a last-ditch $6 million fundraising effort (Limestone University, 2025). These announcements are not early warning signs. They are symptoms of decisions that were delayed too long. Institutions rarely close because of a single misstep—they close after years of avoided conversations, failed pivots, and wishful thinking.

This third installment in the series isn’t about innovation or reinvention. That was Part 2. This is about triage. It’s about having the courage to let go of what no longer works—not only out of respect for what higher education can and should be, but out of respect for what students deserve. Today’s learners are making life-altering financial and personal commitments to attend college. They deserve institutions that are honest about what they can sustainably offer. With each unexpected closure or program elimination, public confidence in higher education takes another hit—eroding trust in a sector already on shaky ground.

A Cliff of Our Own Making

We’ve known about the demographic cliff for years. Birth rates plummeted after the Great Recession, and that shortfall is now coming due. The number of traditional college-aged students will begin a steep 15-year decline starting this year, falling by 13–20% depending on the region (Carey, 2022; Knox, 2024; Marcus, 2025). Some states like California and Illinois are projected to lose nearly a third of their college-going population (Knox, 2024).

But to blame what’s happening solely on demographics is to ignore our role in deepening the crisis. The enrollment cliff may be real, but the chaos we’ve layered on top of it—through short-sighted strategy, performative governance, political fear-mongering, and a retreat from student-centered design—is a cliff of our own making. As I argued in Rewiring the Academy, higher education isn’t just reacting to external threats; it’s unraveling from years of internal drift, distrust, and dysfunction. What we are experiencing isn’t a downturn—it’s the compound effect of unresolved crises across governance, culture, mission, and leadership (Pillar, 2025).

Public trust is wavering. According to the Pew Research Center, more than half of young adults believe colleges have a negative effect on the country (Sanders, 2023). Student debt has topped $1.7 trillion, and nearly 40 million Americans hold some college credit but no degree (Weissman, 2023). These figures are not just symptoms of individual hardship—they are indictments of systemic failure. This isn’t a temporary dip. It’s a structural unraveling, and the institutions that continue to operate as if nothing has changed are the ones most at risk.

Institutions like Alverno and Northland didn’t close because people hate learning. They closed because their offerings no longer aligned with what students wanted or needed. They waited too long to change. They designed for a model of higher education that no longer exists—and clung to it even as the signals of urgency became deafening.

Too many colleges have tried to be everything to everyone—adding programs without clear strategy, expanding student services without alignment, chasing enrollment without defining whom they serve. But narrowing the focus too tightly comes with its own dangers. Building an institution solely around one population, such as traditional 18- to 22-year-olds, is a risky proposition in this demographic moment. Very few institutions have the brand strength, endowment cushion, or market dominance to sustain that strategy.

Instead, we need to step back and ask the hard questions: Who are we actually serving? What do today’s learners need? How do we stop designing for imagined archetypes and start building for real people? This is where the modern learner becomes central—not as a segmented demographic (adult learner, first-gen, residential, commuter), but as the unifying focus of institutional design. Whether they are 19 or 49, pursuing their first credential or a second chance, today’s students want flexibility, relevance, and value. They want institutions that acknowledge their complexity—not ones that ask them to conform to outdated structures.

Only a finite number of schools can afford to stay narrowly focused on one segment of the market. For the rest, resilience will come through coherence: designing for the modern learner with humility, adaptability, and purpose. As I wrote in the white paper, this is not just a philosophical shift—it’s a strategic imperative. It’s the difference between weathering the chaos and succumbing to it (Pillar, 2025).

When Good Intentions Go Wrong

In Part 1, I argued that some programs are simply no longer viable. In Part 2, I made the case for reinventing those worth saving. But what derails both efforts—more often than we’d like to admit—is how we tend to respond to challenge with performative fixes rather than structural solutions. When faced with institutional pressure, enrollment concerns, or shifting student needs, our default is often to add—another program, another center, another committee—without asking whether those additions actually solve the underlying problems.

Colleges love to respond to problems with addition. Another program, another support center, another layer of complexity. But as Nicole Poff (2025b) argues, these well-meaning actions often obscure root issues. We create programs before we validate problems. We collect data and never act on it. We build for yesterday’s students, not today’s.

A clear example: I’ve seen an institution launch a Center for Academic Community & Civic Engagement staffed by a single director. The goal—encouraging faculty to integrate service learning and community engagement into the curriculum, particularly the general education program—was worthy. But the center was not grounded in the institution’s strategic plan, nor clearly aligned to its mission, even though it could have been with better coordination. It operated largely in isolation. And like many “centers of one,” it struggled to gain visibility, traction, or sustainable influence. A more effective move might have been to house that role within the university’s Center for Teaching and Learning—another unit led by a single person—where their shared focus on supporting faculty could have amplified impact. Instead, the two centers operated side by side, siloed and under-resourced, each trying to reach faculty with overlapping goals.

This is what happens when we conflate motion with progress. We hold summits, form task forces, and create shiny new offices without pausing to ask whether these additions are integrated, resourced, or even visible to those they’re meant to serve. It feels like change, but it’s often just institutional theater.

Higher education doesn’t need more resilience. It needs reinvention. As Spiva (2025) puts it, “An ostrich with its head in the sand isn’t much safer than a sitting duck.” Students are voting with their feet, and they’re walking away from bloated systems that are hard to navigate, expensive to complete, and too often irrelevant to their futures. A system that produces millions of students with some credit and no credential isn’t underperforming—it’s broken (Weissman, 2023).

Today’s students—modern learners—aren’t interested in navigating five different offices to get basic help. They’re not waiting for us to untangle our org charts. They want flexible, efficient, meaningful pathways—and they’re increasingly finding them outside of higher ed. If we continue to design for the institution rather than for the learner, we will keep losing them.

The problem isn’t that higher education doesn’t care. It’s that we care in all the wrong directions. We try to care our way out of structural failure. We avoid hard choices, smooth over systemic cracks with well-intended new initiatives, and confuse activity with transformation. Until we fix that, no amount of reinvention will take hold.

Sunset Signals: Knowing When to Let Go

So what should go? Let’s start with the obvious:

Programs graduating fewer than 10 students a year for five consecutive years.
Degrees that consistently produce poor job outcomes.
Programs whose curriculum hasn’t meaningfully changed in more than 10 years.
Programs with four-year graduation rates below 40%.
Majors misaligned with both institutional mission and workforce needs (The Change Leader, 2024).

These aren’t just inefficiencies; they are moral liabilities. They ask students to invest time and money into programs with unclear returns. And disproportionately, these students are first-generation, low-income, or students of color (Weissman, 2023). Programs with unacceptably low graduation rates or stagnant curricula are often silent indicators of broader dysfunction—poor advising, irrelevant coursework, lack of engagement, or outdated pedagogical approaches. If a curriculum hasn’t meaningfully evolved in over a decade, it’s not just an oversight—it’s a structural failure. What happened during annual assessments? During 3- to 5-year program reviews? How did that stagnation go unchallenged?

This is also where one of higher education’s most enduring internal tensions comes to the surface: the perceived divide between liberal education and vocational outcomes. As institutions face increasing pressure to demonstrate return on investment, some stakeholders argue that we’re losing sight of the intrinsic value of education. Scott Parker (2025), for instance, laments that education has been reduced to job training, writing that we’ve forgotten college is for “probing the human condition, not lining up a good internship.” His essay is heartfelt and eloquent—and I agree with much of it. But in today’s reality, where students are borrowing tens of thousands of dollars to attend, few have the luxury to pursue a four-year degree purely for the enrichment of their inner lives.

This isn’t a binary. Schools don’t have to choose between preparing students for meaningful employment and offering a vibrant, engaging, and reflective liberal education. The best institutions do both. They expose students to literature, theory, and philosophy while helping them gain skills in research, data, collaboration, and critical analysis. But ignoring the economic stakes of a degree—especially for students with limited financial flexibility—is no longer ethical. Students are rational actors in a volatile market. If they don’t see a path from their program to a viable future, they’ll look elsewhere. And increasingly, they already are.

Letting go doesn’t mean disrespect. It means being honest about what we can no longer sustain, and imagining new ways those ideas and disciplines can still live on. Many programs that are no longer viable as standalone majors could thrive as part of broader interdisciplinary degrees, stackable certificates, or integrated credentials. A philosophy department doesn’t need to disappear—but it may serve more students when embedded in a major like Ethics and Public Policy, or when contributing to certificates in digital humanities, civic leadership, or pre-law pathways. These shifts are not diminishment—they’re redesigns, aimed at relevance and renewal.

Facing the Resistance

The biggest challenge in closing a program isn’t data. It’s denial. Academic departments are often confused with disciplines, which are often confused with programs (Rosowsky & Keegan, 2020). Faculty resist changes that threaten identity or autonomy. Shared governance, while essential, can default to protectionism (Rosenberg, 2024).

But the resistance isn’t purely bureaucratic—it’s emotional. Faculty aren’t just defending curriculum maps—they’re defending legacies. A major that has been cultivated over decades may represent a lifetime of scholarship, mentorship, and intellectual identity. To suggest that it’s no longer viable can feel like an existential threat, not just an administrative one. That’s why conversations about program review often turn into debates about institutional values and academic freedom, even when no one is challenging either.

As Ryder et al. (2023) explain, many departments suffering from dysfunction can’t recognize their own decline. Leadership avoidance, gridlock, and turf wars are common symptoms. Instead of confronting misalignment, we justify it. We tell ourselves that if we just marketed better or recruited harder, things would turn around.

And resistance often arrives in familiar packaging. There’s the optimistic belief that a new social media strategy or a rebranded flyer will revive interest. There’s the single success story—a student who got into law school or landed a Fulbright—offered as proof that the program still matters. There’s the quiet hope that this is just a cyclical downturn and the major will rebound next year. These narratives comfort us. But they are rarely grounded in enrollment or outcome data—and they defer hard decisions at the expense of future sustainability.

Shared governance, for all its flaws, doesn’t have to be the enemy of change. At its best, it offers a collaborative framework for making courageous decisions with collective wisdom. What it requires is a shift in posture—from approval-seeking to solution-building. Faculty don’t just need to be informed; they need to be empowered as co-authors of reinvention. That means data transparency, genuine dialogue, and the courage to lead through ambiguity rather than avoid it.

Ironically, students—the people most affected by these decisions—are often absent from the room. Their silence is not consent; it’s a signal that they’ve already made up their minds and moved on. They’ve transferred, changed majors, or chosen a different institution altogether. If a program can’t fill its seats, the market has already spoken. Our job is to listen.

Because no amount of rebranding can save a program that students no longer choose or employers no longer value. The question isn’t whether it still matters to us. The question is whether it still matters to them.

How to Close a Program with Integrity

There is a right way to do this. Institutions like Unity Environmental University show that bold restructuring can be done ethically and effectively. Their redesign embraced student-centered learning, workforce alignment, and digital delivery—without abandoning mission (Pillar, 2024). These kinds of decisions are never easy, but when made deliberately, they can refocus institutional priorities and revitalize impact.

Best practices include:

Data transparency and inclusive planning that clearly define why decisions are being made and how.
Guaranteed teach-outs and direct, personalized support to help impacted students revise their academic path—whether through a different existing program, a reimagined interdisciplinary curriculum, or an alternative credential.
Retraining or reassignment pathways for affected faculty, ensuring the institution retains talent and supports long-standing contributors.
Clear communication that frames closures not as loss, but as part of a larger renewal.
Commitment to mission alignment—ensuring that strategic changes reinforce the values and educational goals of the institution.

Done poorly, closures breed mistrust. Done well, they not only free up resources for programs students actually want—they also give institutions the flexibility to strengthen student services, academic infrastructure, and other mission-critical functions.

Case in Point: A Cautionary Tale Still Unfolding – Jacksonville University’s Bold Moves

Jacksonville University recently announced the elimination of nearly 30 majors, minors, and certificates across its business, arts, and sciences portfolios as part of its “Future Focused” academic restructuring. The changes included cutting newer programs like FinTech, Data Science, and multiple MBA tracks, as well as long-standing staples like Philosophy, Music, Theatre, World Languages, and entire concentrations in Art History, Visual Arts, and Marine Science (Marbut, 2025). In total, 40 faculty members were laid off, and dozens of academic pathways sunset—touching both professional and liberal arts fields.

From a purely strategic lens, the rationale aligns with many arguments in this article. The university reported that fewer than 100 students across 4,000 were enrolled in the discontinued programs, and it committed to focusing on its 37 most in-demand undergraduate majors and 15 graduate programs. In its official release, JU emphasized alignment with workforce demand, improved efficiency, and plans to reinvest in high-growth areas like health sciences, policy, and digital learning (Jacksonville University, 2025).

Yet the handling of the announcement quickly took a turn. Within days, JU’s Faculty Assembly issued a vote of no confidence in President Tim Cost, citing a lack of transparency, trust, and shared governance in the process (Action News Jax, 2025). Some faculty reported being blindsided by the decision and publicly challenged enrollment figures used to justify cuts. Others noted that the sweeping changes seemed sudden and top-down, despite administrative claims of extensive consultation.

Even when done with clear communication and a sound strategic rationale, change is disruptive. Long-standing programs often carry deep emotional and professional meaning for faculty, and when they’re eliminated, it can feel like contributions, careers, and intellectual legacies are being erased. The status quo—even when unsustainable—offers familiarity. What Jacksonville is experiencing underscores that even necessary and well-communicated changes can provoke backlash. As this story is still unfolding, only time will tell whether the university’s decisions will ultimately strengthen its long-term future. But what is already clear is that transparency, early engagement, and sustained dialogue are essential to navigating such moments of institutional disruption.

JU’s example illustrates a larger truth: program closures must be more than just data-informed and mission-aligned—they must be relationally thoughtful, faculty-engaged, student-centered, and transparently communicated. Without those elements in place, even the most justified restructuring efforts risk damaging institutional culture and long-term trust.

Case in Point: Betting Boldly – Unity Environmental University’s High-Risk, High-Reward Restructurin

Unity Environmental University (formerly Unity College) offers an interesting counterexample. In 2020, facing financial instability and declining residential enrollment, the institution restructured around a new model designed to serve the modern learner. It made major cuts to traditional programming and pivoted toward flexible, workforce-aligned, hybrid and online academic offerings. These changes were not universally embraced. President Melik Peter Khoury faced intense criticism, including calls for his resignation from faculty and alumni who feared the institution had abandoned its roots (Curtis, 2020; Moody, 2023).

Despite the criticism, the institution moved forward with its strategic transformation. Unity emphasized career-relevant degrees in high-demand fields such as environmental science, conservation law enforcement, sustainable business, and animal health. The decision to focus on a “distance education” model allowed the university to reach students nationwide while maintaining affordability and flexibility. Enrollment grew dramatically—from 1,400 in 2020 to over 6,300 in 2023, and now more than 9,000 in 2024 (Unity Environmental University, 2024).

More than 90% of Unity graduates are employed or in graduate school within six months of completing their degrees, and the average salary for recent graduates exceeds $61,000. These metrics make it difficult to argue with the outcome. Unity didn’t just survive—it repositioned itself as a model and leader for environmental education in a digital-first landscape.

To be sure, some trade-offs were real and painful. Critics worry that the college lost part of its identity and sacrificed the communal ethos of its residential experience. But those who remained committed to the mission—and who embraced a broader definition of access, impact, and environmental stewardship—see a reimagined university that is better aligned with modern learners and global challenges. Their story highlights what’s possible when institutional leaders act decisively, communicate consistently, and stay grounded in purpose while adapting to changing realities.

Unity’s success doesn’t mean the path was smooth. But it does show that transformation—when paired with mission alignment, workforce relevance, and scalable design—can result in not just survival, but resurgence. Had this article been written in 2020, Unity might have occupied the cautionary tale slot. Today, it offers a possible glimpse into where Jacksonville—and other institutions making similar moves—might be in four to five years.

As institutions face mounting pressure to modernize, streamline, and refocus, these stories underscore that the hardest decisions can be the most necessary. But how those decisions are made—and communicated—can shape institutional culture for years. What comes next requires not just courage to change, but a commitment to doing fewer things better.

Doing Fewer Things Better

We must resist the urge to add our way out of crisis. As Poff (2024) and Blaylock et al. (2023) argue, complexity doesn’t equal quality. Real innovation comes from subtraction. Merging related disciplines, adopting cohort models, and focusing on student learning rather than teaching delivery are all strategies to streamline while improving quality. Institutions often feel pressured to demonstrate innovation through addition—new majors, new minors, new centers—but rarely ask whether these additions serve students or simply make the institution feel busier.

Many colleges suffer from academic sprawl—dozens of underperforming majors, outdated programs, siloed departments, and a cluttered catalog of undersubscribed minors. The latter is particularly deceptive: minors are often easy to create by stringing together existing courses, which makes them feel low-risk. But if few students are declaring or completing them, they are a drain on capacity, attention, and clarity. Sunsetting unused or outdated minors is not a loss—it’s an act of academic stewardship.

Some institutions are already taking bold steps. WashU revamped its English department by embracing creative writing and publishing; Ohio Wesleyan and Plymouth State are using interdisciplinary clusters to rethink how departments are organized (Cassuto, 2025; Anderson, 2024). Arizona State has adopted a knowledge core model, Georgia State uses predictive analytics to streamline student pathways, and Unity Environmental University (as noted earlier) has implemented a modular curriculum designed around learner flexibility and workforce alignment.

These moves aren’t just about administrative reorganization. They’re about designing systems that make sense to the students navigating them. The modern learner—whether 18 or 48—doesn’t benefit from bloated catalogs or overgrown org charts. They benefit from coherence, clarity, and connection between what they study and where they’re headed. They also benefit from holistic student support that’s integrated into their academic experience, not bolted on as an afterthought. Streamlining isn’t just about efficiency. It’s about delivering real value—academically, personally, and professionally.

This shift doesn’t diminish the role of faculty—it strengthens it. When faculty collaborate across disciplines, co-design curriculum, and focus on shared learning outcomes, they help students build intellectual bridges that mirror the real world. Fewer, stronger programs allow for deeper engagement, better mentorship, and more meaningful teaching and learning.

What "Doing Fewer Things Better" Looks Like

Streamlining doesn’t mean stripping away complexity for its own sake—it means refining the academic ecosystem to elevate quality and relevance. Here are examples of what that can look like in practice:

Interdisciplinary majors like Environmental Policy & Justice or Global Health & Communication that bring together faculty from multiple departments around real-world challenges.
Replacing siloed capstone courses with collaborative, community-based research or consulting projects tied to local partners or employers.
Phasing out low-enrollment electives and redirecting faculty energy toward high-impact practices like first-year seminars, writing-intensive courses, or experiential learning.
Revising general education programs to map directly to career-ready skills—critical thinking, ethical reasoning, data literacy—while still preserving liberal learning.
Creating modular certificate programs that can stack into full degrees, serving both degree-seeking students and working professionals.
Aligning advising and support services with academic programs so students see a cohesive, integrated path—not a series of disjointed offices.
Sunsetting minors with low completion rates, using enrollment and outcome data to determine which combinations are adding value and which are adding clutter.

These are not just operational choices—they’re philosophical commitments. They reflect a willingness to prioritize impact over volume, connection over tradition, and design over inertia.

This isn’t about abandoning the liberal arts. It’s about redesigning them so they thrive in the world students actually live in—not the one we wish still existed. It’s about creating academic portfolios that speak with clarity, not confusion. And it’s about making hard choices not to diminish education, but to make it sustainable, relevant, and transformative.

Final Thoughts: Let It Go

Letting go of a major is hard. But so is watching your institution close because you didn’t.

Throughout this piece, we’ve examined the uncomfortable but necessary truth that higher education cannot sustain every program, structure, or tradition indefinitely. The landscape has changed—demographics have shifted, learner expectations have evolved, and public trust has eroded. The question is not whether institutions will adapt. It’s whether they’ll do so early and thoughtfully—or too late and reactively.

This is our handwashing moment. We have the data. We see the symptoms. And just like Semmelweis’s peers, we are faced with a choice: deny our role and delay the inevitable, or confront the reality with humility and clarity. Some of the harm has been self-inflicted—through indecision, overexpansion, and a resistance to rethinking what students truly need. But that means we also have the power to stop it.

Reinvention begins with release. Not reckless cuts or rushed restructuring, but careful, courageous decisions to let go of what no longer serves students, faculty, or the institution’s mission. It’s recognizing that fewer, stronger programs can lead to better learning, deeper engagement, and more sustainable outcomes. It’s knowing that clarity is kinder than confusion, and that students deserve institutions willing to change—not just for survival, but for their success.

We are not choosing between ideals and outcomes. We are choosing whether to build an academy that honors both. One that sees the liberal arts not as relics, but as adaptable tools for modern life. One that treats students not as enrollment targets, but as real people—investing time, money, and trust into our care.

And ultimately, one that understands that saying goodbye to a major isn’t the end of something—it’s the beginning of doing what we do best: learning, evolving, and leading with purpose.

Because sometimes, the most strategic, most compassionate, most student-centered thing we can do… is let go.

References

Action News Jax. (2025, April 16). Jacksonville University faculty issues ‘no confidence’ vote in President Cost after decision on cuts. Action News Jax. https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/jacksonville-university-faculty-issues-no-confidence-vote-president-cost-after-decision-cuts/ZNY5A3DFFVB2RJIGSAFWIX3DPM/

Anderson, N. (2024, January 17). How an academic restructuring is creating interdisciplinary opportunities—and saving this university money. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://narratives.insidehighered.com/academic-restructuring/index.html

Blaylock, B., Zarankin, A., & Henderson, M. (2023). Restructuring colleges in higher education around learning. The Higher Education Teaching and Learning Portal. https://www.hetl.org/blog/restructuring-colleges-in-higher-education-around-learning/

Carey, K. (2022, November 21). The incredible shrinking future of college. Vox. https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/23428166/college-enrollment-population-education-crash

Cassuto, L. (2025, February 11). How to rescue your slumping humanities program. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-to-rescue-your-slumping-humanities-program

Curtis, E. (2020, September 11). As Unity College retools, some fear the school has ‘lost its way’. Portland Press Herald. https://www.mainepublic.org/business-and-economy/2020-08-10/as-unity-college-retools-some-fear-the-school-has-lost-its-way

Donadel, A. (2025, April 2). These 2 colleges avoided closings in March by merger, acquisition. University Business. https://universitybusiness.com/tracking-college-closings-in-higher-ed-2025/

Jacksonville University. (2025, April 11). Jacksonville University reimagines university-wide academic offerings, intensifies investment in priority areas. https://www.ju.edu/news/2025-04-15-jacksonville-university-reimagines-university-wide-academic-offerings-intensifies-investment-in-priority-areas.php

Knox, L. (2024, December 11). A Long Way Down the Demographic Cliff. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/traditional-age/2024/12/11/college-age-demographics-begin-steady-projected-decline

Lederman, D. (2024, February 20). Alverno declares financial exigency; will cut programs and jobs. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/06/17/alverno-declares-financial-exigency-will-cut-programs-and-jobs

Limestone University. (2025, April 12). Limestone University considers online-only education amid financial uncertainty. https://limestone.edu/news/limestone-university-considers-online-only-education-amid-financial-uncertainty

Marbut, M. (2025, April 12). FinTech to philosophy: A look at what Jacksonville University is cutting. Jax Daily Record. https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2025/apr/16/fintech-to-philosophy-a-look-at-what-jacksonville-university-is-cutting/

Marcus, J. (2025, January 8). A looming ‘demographic cliff’: Fewer college students and ultimately fewer graduates. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/08/nx-s1-5246200/demographic-cliff-fewer-college-students-mean-fewer-graduates

Moody, J (2023 June 16). Online pivot pays off for Unity Environmental University. University Business. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/tech-innovation/digital-teaching-learning/2023/06/16/online-pivot-pays-unity-environmental

Parker, S. (2024, March 27). We’ve forgotten what college is for. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/weve-forgotten-what-college-is-for

Pillar, G. (2025). Rewiring the academy: Reimagining higher education for the modern learner in a time of chaos [White paper]. https://gregpillar.com/rewiring-the-academy-leading-with-hope-in-an-age-of-chaos/

Pillar, G. (2024). Leading change in higher education: A case study on Unity Environmental University’s bold approach to modern learning. Innovative Higher Education Professional. https://gregpillar.com/leading-change-in-higher-education-a-case-study-on-unity-environmental-universitys-bold-approach-to-modern-learning/

Poff, N. (2025a). Are we the problem? EDCarta. https://edcarta.substack.com/p/are-we-the-problem

Poff, N. (2025b). The case for better, not more. EDCarta. https://edcarta.substack.com/p/the-case-for-better-not-more?r=2wmyt5&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

Rosowsky, D. V., & Keegan, B. M. (2020, August 17). What if there were no academic departments? Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/08/18/what-if-there-were-no-academic-departments-opinion

Rosenberg, B. (2024). Whatever it is, I’m against it: Resistance to change in higher education. Harvard Education Press

Ryder, J. J., Gunsalus, C. K., Luckman, E. A., & Burbules, N. C. (2023, November 29). Transforming Challenged Academic Units. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/career-advice/2023/11/29/transforming-dysfunctional-departments-and-other-campus-units

Sanders, S. (2023, September 11). The future of college degrees: Will they survive the next decade? LinkedIn Articles. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/future-college-degrees-survive-next-decade-sebastian-sanders/

Spiva, Y. W. (2025, February 11). Higher education doesn’t need resilience. It needs reinvention. University Business. https://universitybusiness.com/higher-education-doesnt-need-resilience-it-needs-reinvention/

The Change Leader. (2024). Academic realignment and organizational redesign. https://changinghighered.com/higher-education-consulting/academic-realignment-and-organizational-redesign/

Unity Environmental University. (2024). At a glance: Fast facts and outcomes. https://unity.edu/about/at-a-glance/

Weissman, S. (2023, April 25). The ‘Some College, No Credential’ Cohort Grows

Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/students/retention/2023/04/25/some-college-no-credential-cohort-grows

Rethinking ROI: Why the Ultimate Return Depends on More Than Just a Major?

gregpillar on March 30, 2025

Demystifying the value of a college degree—and what students and institutions can do to maximize it.

The College Cost Crisis

After more than 18 years working in higher education—and managing multi-million dollar budgets along the way—I confidently have a good understanding of how university finances operate (though there’s still a lot I’m learning every day). I keep an eye on the markets, but I don’t have the expertise—or the nerve—to be a day trader. And while I absolutely geek out over data, that’s usually in the world of environmental chemistry, not financial spreadsheets.

That said, I care deeply about helping students and families make informed choices—especially now, when those choices feel more complex than ever.

The question on a lot of people’s minds—parents, students, guidance counselors, and even policymakers—is whether college is still worth it. With tuition prices continuing to rise and student loan debt now exceeding $1.7 trillion, it’s a fair question. More people are also taking seriously the potential of other postsecondary paths—like trade schools, apprenticeships, or jumping directly into the workforce.

Those paths can absolutely offer a solid return—and often much faster than a four-year degree. For many, they lead to quicker employment, less debt, and a faster sense of financial stability. But over the long term, data still suggest that bachelor’s degree holders tend to have higher earning potential and greater economic and social mobility. In other words, short-term ROI might favor some non-college options, but the long-term payoff of a degree remains significant (Cheah, Van Der Werf, Morris, & Strohl, 2025; Cooper, 2024).

That said, not all degrees lead to high-paying jobs right away. Programs in fields like the humanities or education are often stigmatized for their lower starting salaries, but that doesn’t mean they lack value. Students who make the most of their college experience—by building transferable skills, seeking out applied learning opportunities, and staying open to diverse career paths—can often find rewarding work that leverages their degree in ways the statistics might not fully capture. Earning a degree in education, for example, doesn’t mean one must remain in the classroom forever. Likewise, a philosophy or English major might thrive in law, business, nonprofit leadership, or user experience design. Versatility, not just vocational training, is one of college’s greatest hidden returns.

Two of the most comprehensive national studies on college return on investment (ROI)—one from the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity (FREOPP), authored by Preston Cooper, and the other from Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW)—confirm that in most cases, a college degree yields strong financial returns over time (Cooper, 2024; Cheah et al., 2025). The catch is, those returns may take 10, 20, or even 30 years to fully materialize.

Meanwhile, students and families face steep up-front costs. Tuition, housing, books, and fees add up fast—and that’s before we even factor in loans and interest. Even if a degree pays off in the long run, the weight of debt and delayed earnings can make the ROI feel frustratingly out of reach in the early years.

And here’s an important point I want to emphasize: this isn’t just a conversation for traditional 18-year-olds entering college straight from high school. In fact, there are over 40 million adults in the U.S. with some college and no credential. For many of them, going back to school—whether for a certificate, associate’s, bachelor’s, or graduate degree—might be the key to unlocking better wages, job security, or new career paths. ROI matters to them, too.

So while I’m not a financial analyst, my goal in this article is to lay out the return on investment of college in plain terms—to give students, families, and adult learners alike a clearer picture of what they might gain, what it costs, and how long it takes to see the return. The stakes are high, and the timeline is long—but that doesn’t mean the investment isn’t worth it. It just means we need to understand it better.

Understanding ROI: What Do These Studies Measure?

If we’re going to talk seriously about the return on investment (ROI) of a college degree, we need to be clear about what that term actually means—and how researchers are measuring it. It turns out, there’s more than one way to calculate ROI, and the two most prominent studies in this space take slightly different approaches. Together, though, they offer a powerful window into how degrees pay off, for whom, and over what time horizon.

At its core, ROI in higher education is about comparing the cost of earning a credential with the financial benefit it provides over time. But just like in investing, the details matter. The FREOPP report, authored by Preston Cooper (2024), uses a comprehensive method that estimates the lifetime financial gain a student receives from completing a specific program—say, a bachelor’s in nursing at a private university—compared to what they likely would have earned had they entered the workforce directly out of high school. This model accounts for tuition costs, lost earnings during college, and the risk of non-completion.

The Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW), by contrast, calculates institutional ROI based on cumulative post-enrollment earnings minus net price, using data from the U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard (Cheah, Van Der Werf, Morris, & Strohl, 2025). They present ROI over several timeframes: 10, 15, 20, 30, and 40 years after a student first enrolls. This allows them to show not just how much a degree pays off—but when. Their approach is intentionally conservative: they assume no income growth after year 10 and do not factor in debt repayment, which makes short-term ROI look even bleaker for students with loans.

Despite their differences, both studies reinforce a central truth: not all degrees offer the same financial payoff, and the path to ROI is rarely quick. For example, CEW finds that graduates of certificate and associate’s programs often see higher returns in the first 10–20 years because they enter the workforce sooner and with less debt. But over the long run, bachelor’s degrees tend to win out, with higher earnings compounding over time (Cheah et al., 2025). Similarly, the FREOPP report shows that what you study often matters more than where you study.

This is especially evident in FREOPP’s analysis of ROI by major. As shown below, students who earn degrees in engineering, computer science, economics, or nursing consistently realize the highest financial returns—regardless of institution. This further reinforces the point that field of study often drives ROI outcomes more than college brand.

That’s why it’s especially concerning that nearly three in ten undergra duate students are currently pursuing programs with negative ROI. As this graph from the FREOPP report illustrates, far too many students are entering fields that are unlikely to pay off financially over time—a challenge that underscores the importance of access to program-level ROI data, high-quality advising, and career exploration support.

A bachelor’s in computer science or nursing typically yields a high ROI regardless of the institution, while degrees in performing arts, psychology, or some education programs often result in a net financial loss—even at prestigious universities (Cooper, 2024).

That said, I firmly believe that ROI is not determined solely by a student’s major. Students make hundreds of choices in college—some small, some transformational—that shape their outcomes. Their ability to navigate the hidden curriculum (the unwritten rules of higher ed), take advantage of co-curricular and experiential opportunities, and develop professional networks can significantly impact their career trajectory and earning potential. Two students with the same major from the same school can have wildly different outcomes based on how they filled in the “blank spaces” of their college experience.

This idea is central to the concept of a “field of study,” as discussed in Hacking College by Laff and Carlson. They argue that students should approach college not as a checklist of requirements, but as an opportunity to construct a personal academic and career narrative by integrating general education, major courses, electives, and hands-on experiences around a central vocational purpose. Field of study reframes the college journey as one of exploration, synthesis, and strategy—especially important for students who may not enter college with the cultural capital to see all the options available to them (Laff & Carlson, 2025).

In that framing, ROI becomes less about simply picking the “right” major and more about cultivating agility and intentionality. As the authors note, students who actively shape their undergraduate experience around real-world problems and interdisciplinary curiosity are more likely to find meaningful work—even if their major wasn’t associated with the highest median salary on graduation day.

Importantly, both the CEW and FREOPP studies attempt to bake in the real-world risks that students face—especially the risk of dropping out. As the FREOPP report notes, ROI is highly sensitive to whether students finish their programs. The graph below shows how programs with low graduation rates tend to deliver significantly lower returns—even when the major is in a high-demand field. Completion isn’t just a personal milestone; it’s a financial hinge point.

FREOPP’s model adjusts for the fact that a degree doesn’t pay off if you don’t finish it, and CEW includes the earnings of both completers and non-completers in their estimates, making their numbers more representative of actual student outcomes (Cooper, 2024; Cheah et al., 2025). This is especially relevant for adult learners and first-generation college students, who often face steeper barriers to completion and carry greater financial risk.

In short, both the FREOPP report and the CEW study help clarify a complicated picture. While their numbers don’t always align perfectly, they converge around several key insights:

College is still a good investment on average.
ROI varies dramatically by program and institution.
The timeline to see a return can be decades, not years.
Student choices and institutional structures both shape the final outcome.
And for many students, especially those balancing work, family, and finances, the journey to positive ROI is a long one—but not a passive one.

As we’ll explore next, that long timeline is one of the biggest barriers to how students perceive value. Even when a degree pays off in the long run, the financial pressure in the short term can make it hard to feel like a smart investment.

The Time Trap: Why ROI is Hard to Feel

Even when the math shows that college pays off, it often doesn’t feel that way—especially in the early years after graduation. That’s the challenge at the heart of college ROI: the payoff is real, but for many students, it’s also distant, delayed, and emotionally disconnected from the financial pressures they face right now.

Both the FREOPP report (Cooper, 2024) and the CEW study (Cheah, Van Der Werf, Morris, & Strohl, 2025) confirm that college degrees tend to yield strong lifetime returns. According to CEW, the median ROI for private nonprofit institutions in North Carolina at the 40-year mark exceeds $800,000—and it’s even higher for selective institutions. FREOPP finds that nearly 75% of bachelor’s programs nationwide deliver a positive return, with many health, engineering, and business degrees yielding returns over $500,000.

But here’s the problem: those are long-term gains. CEW’s model shows that for many programs, it takes 10 to 15 years just to break even—especially when factoring in net price and lost wages during college. Some degrees take even longer. At over 1,200 institutions in CEW’s dataset, the net financial return to students is negative at the 10-year mark. That’s a long time to wait when student loan payments kick in just six months after graduation.

The FREOPP report tells a similar story. While the majority of bachelor’s programs eventually produce a positive ROI, the timing of that return varies widely. In North Carolina’s private nonprofit colleges, we see strong long-term ROI for programs in nursing, business, and computer science—but far more modest or even negative returns in fields like fine arts, theology, and some education programs, particularly at the master’s level. That’s not a judgment on the value of those fields—it’s a reflection of current labor market realities.

And yet, many students from these programs enter careers with purpose and meaning—just not high salaries. The real difficulty is that the cost of attending college is immediate and steep, while the benefits are distributed slowly over decades. Monthly loan payments, housing costs, and entry-level wages don’t leave much room for the long view. For recent graduates, especially those supporting families or living paycheck to paycheck, the phrase “college pays off in the long run” can feel almost cruel.

This is especially true for students from low-income backgrounds or first-generation college-goers, who are less likely to have financial safety nets and more likely to work during school—stretching time-to-degree and increasing the odds of leaving without a credential. Even when they do graduate, they often lack the networks or internship experiences that help turn a degree into a job quickly (Cooper, 2024; Cheah et al., 2025).

Hacking College digs into this issue through its discussion of “blank spaces” and the hidden curriculum. Many students are handed a roadmap to degree completion—but not a real strategy for turning that degree into a launchpad. They’re told the major will lead to a job, but they aren’t coached on how to explore the hidden job market, identify mentors, or build social capital along the way (Laff & Carlson, 2025). In the absence of that support, too many students check the boxes but leave college unsure how to connect their studies to a career. The financial anxiety that follows can erode even the most promising ROI.

And here’s where we have to be honest: time isn’t the only hurdle. Emotionally, psychologically, and practically, the delayed nature of ROI asks students to act on faith—to make a large, often debt-financed investment in something that won’t pay off for a decade or more. That’s a big ask, especially in a world where alternatives like short-term credentials or skilled trades can offer faster, more visible returns.

In fact, CEW’s report notes that certificates and associate degrees often yield higher ROI than bachelor’s degrees for the first 10 to 20 years after enrollment. For students with immediate financial needs, those faster-paying credentials may be the smarter choice. But over time, the gap widens. By year 30 and 40, bachelor’s and graduate degrees typically overtake short-term paths—not just in cumulative earnings but in access to professional advancement and long-term economic mobility (Cheah et al., 2025).

Still, the timing challenge is real. As one Hacking College student story illustrates, even a student who “did everything right”—picked a major, followed the degree audit, and graduated—can leave college with debt, anxiety, and a sense of lost potential if they didn’t have the right conversations or connections along the way (Laff & Carlson, 2025).

Ultimately, the time trap is about expectations. We’ve sold college as a guaranteed ticket to prosperity, but the timeline and path are far more complex. Some also point to the inherent, intangible value of being a well-rounded and well-educated individual—a contributor to society, a critical thinker, a lifelong learner. And those benefits are real. But they aren’t sufficient justification for going tens of thousands of dollars into debt without a clear and timely pathway to financial stability.

That’s why students need better tools, clearer guidance, and more transparent data—not just on what college costs, but how long the payoff takes and how to maximize it through every decision they make along the way.

What the Data Shows: Highlights from NC and SC

At the national level, the data on college ROI tell a consistent story: college is still a good investment for most people over time, but the scale and speed of that return vary dramatically by program, degree level, and institution. The same patterns hold true in North Carolina and South Carolina—and when you drill down into specific programs, the contrast between high-ROI and low-ROI degrees becomes even sharper.

Let’s start with some broad context. According to the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW), over 60% of private nonprofit institutions in the U.S. deliver a positive ROI by year 10—and by year 40, that number jumps to nearly 95% (Cheah, Van Der Werf, Morris, & Strohl, 2025). The median 40-year ROI for these institutions is $918,000 nationally. In North Carolina, private nonprofits like Duke, Davidson, and Wake Forest perform exceptionally well in CEW’s model, but so do lesser-known schools like Gardner-Webb and Meredith—especially when measuring ROI at 30 and 40 years.

The FREOPP report, authored by Preston Cooper (2024), offers even more granular insight by calculating ROI at the program level. This means we can see not just how an institution performs overall, but how specific degrees—say, a B.A. in Psychology versus a B.S. in Nursing—stack up against each other. Using the data compiled from North Carolina’s private nonprofit schools, several clear trends emerge:

Undergraduate ROI Trends in North Carolina:

High-ROI fields include nursing, computer science, finance, and business administration. These programs often show lifetime ROI well above $500,000, even at smaller or regional institutions.
Low-ROI or negative-ROI fields include theology, music performance, and some visual and performing arts programs. In a few cases, bachelor’s programs in these fields had negative ROI estimates—meaning students may earn less over a lifetime than peers who entered the workforce directly out of high school (Cooper, 2024).
Even within the same institution, ROI can vary widely. One NC college, for example, has a business program with a lifetime ROI of over $600,000—while its education and English programs are estimated below $50,000.

This variability reinforces a core theme from earlier: the major matters as much as the institution, if not more.

Graduate ROI: A Riskier Bet

The picture gets murkier at the graduate level. Nationally, the FREOPP report shows that more than 40% of master’s programs have negative ROI, especially in the arts, social work, and education fields (Cooper, 2024). In North Carolina, some master’s in education programs show positive but modest ROI—often under $100,000 over a lifetime. In contrast, graduate degrees in health sciences or business tend to deliver much stronger returns.

This aligns with findings from EducationData.org, which note that ROI at the graduate level is less predictable and highly dependent on program cost, market demand, and opportunity cost. Many graduate students are older, have families, or are balancing full-time work—so the timeline for payoff becomes even more complex (EducationData.org, 2023).

South Carolina Snapshot

Trends in South Carolina’s private nonprofits look similar to North Carolina’s. Nursing and business remain strong at the undergraduate level, with several programs showing ROI above $500,000. Meanwhile, fields like fine arts, religion, and interdisciplinary humanities lag behind. Graduate-level ROI is mixed, and again, master’s programs in education often show returns that are positive but small—and, in some cases, negative.

Download the Data

To help make this information more accessible, I’ve compiled two downloadable spreadsheets for readers to explore (see below):

One with combined ROI data for North and South Carolina private nonprofit institutions from the CEW study
One with program-level ROI data from FREOPP, including both undergraduate and graduate programs

These datasets can help students, families, and institutions dig deeper into ROI trends by program, school, and region—and use that information to make smarter, better-informed decisions about the true value of a college degree.

Beyond the Numbers

It’s important to stress: low financial ROI doesn’t mean low value. The TIME article Can Young People Afford to Not Go to College? makes this point well. While annual salaries may be modest, college still provides non-monetary benefits—like personal growth, critical thinking, and social mobility—especially for students from historically underserved backgrounds (Olian, 2025). But we also have to acknowledge that those intangible benefits don’t always translate into financial stability—particularly when students are saddled with debt and entering low-wage sectors.

That’s why the Forbes article on college ROI urges institutions and policymakers to go beyond “college = good” messaging. Instead, they argue for transparency and reform—helping students identify high-ROI pathways and holding institutions accountable for chronically underperforming programs (Dorfman, 2024). Students deserve to know not only whether college will pay off, but how long it takes and what they can do to increase the odds.

FREOPP Report – Data for ROI by program (undergraduate and graduate) offered by private not-for-profit in North Carolina.

CEW Report – Data for ROI by institution (undergraduate) for private not-for-profit schools in South and North Carolina.

Reframing the Conversation

For years, conversations about college value have bounced between two extremes: on one side, the belief that a college degree is an automatic path to success; on the other, the claim that it’s an overpriced scam that leaves students with debt and no direction. The truth, as is so often the case, lies somewhere in the middle. But to really support students—both those entering college and those thinking about returning—we need to change how we talk about return on investment.

First, we need to stop treating ROI like a fixed number on a spreadsheet. While the data from the FREOPP report and the CEW study provide invaluable benchmarks, they don’t capture the full story. A degree’s ROI isn’t just about what you major in or how much money you make right after graduation. It’s also about how well students understand and navigate their college experience—how they choose electives, pursue internships, engage with mentors, and align their education with a personal sense of purpose.

That’s why I appreciate the framework laid out in Hacking College by Laff and Carlson. They argue that we need to move away from a narrow focus on majors and start teaching students to think in terms of a field of study—a holistic, flexible approach to crafting an undergraduate experience around a real-world problem or vocational purpose. This approach encourages students to use every part of the degree—the general education courses, electives, projects, and co-curriculars—to build a more integrated and useful foundation for life after college (Laff & Carlson, 2025).

In short, ROI isn’t something students just receive—it’s something they can help shape. But only if they’re taught how. As the FREOPP data show, ROI is strongly tied to earning potential—but that potential isn’t determined by major alone. The graph below illustrates that higher post-graduation earnings are the strongest predictor of ROI, but it also reinforces the importance of student choices: internships, skill development, and experiential learning can all help graduates raise their earning potential and realize stronger returns.

That’s where institutions have a huge role to play. Too often, students—especially first-generation or adult learners—are ushered through the system via transactional advising and rigid degree audits. They’re told what boxes to check but not how to connect their education to their goals. As Hacking College makes clear, even highly motivated students can end up with what the authors call an “empty college degree”—a collection of credits that meets graduation requirements but lacks any meaningful connection to a job, graduate program, or deeper purpose.

We also need to rethink our academic structures through the lens of equity and efficiency. One of the most effective—but underutilized—strategies is expanding Competency-Based Education (CBE) and Credit for Prior Learning (CPL). These tools give credit where it’s due—recognizing learning that has occurred outside the classroom through work, military service, volunteerism, or other lived experience. And they have powerful effects: CAEL’s research shows that receiving CPL boosts adult learner completion rates by 17%, while also saving students significant time and money (Council for Adult and Experiential Learning [CAEL], 2022; Swabek & Fowler, 2025).

Consider the example of the University of Maryland Global Campus (UMGC). Students who transferred in ACE-recommended Sophia Learning courses had a 47% higher continuation rate to their second term and were 86% more likely to be enrolled by their fourth term than their peers (CAEL, 2023). Similarly, College Unbound redesigned its CPL program with student voices at the center, tripling the number of students earning CPL in just three years. By the time of graduation, 96% of their students had earned CPL, accelerating time to degree and reducing costs—especially for students of color and those with caregiving responsibilities (Cleary, 2023).

Yet despite the benefits, uptake remains far too low. Nationally, only 11% of adult learners earn CPL, even though 80% of institutions offer it (CAEL, 2020). The equity paradox here is stark: Black, Hispanic, and low-income students are the most likely to benefit from CPL—but the least likely to receive it. The reasons are systemic—ranging from lack of outreach to institutional bias about what counts as “creditworthy” learning.

Even when CPL is earned, it’s not always honored across institutions. Many colleges still won’t accept CPL in transfer, frustrating students who’ve already demonstrated their learning. CAEL and AACRAO have called for standardized, high-quality practices for evaluating and transcripting CPL, noting that poor transferability is a major obstacle to realizing its full impact (Flaherty, 2024; Swabek & Fowler, 2025).

Fortunately, best practices are emerging. The UNC System recently launched a Military Equivalency System to match service experience with credit at 16 public institutions. Purdue University Global and Ivy Tech created a model to prevent duplicate CPL awards by embedding clear CPL indicators in student records. And schools like Front Range Community College are showing students exactly how much time and money they can save through CPL—on average, $1,600 to $6,000 (Flaherty, 2024).

These aren’t fringe experiments—they’re practical, equity-driven strategies that improve student ROI. But they require intentional investment, cross-institutional collaboration, and cultural change.

As CAEL has long argued, recognizing learning in all its forms is not a shortcut—it’s a pathway to equity, affordability, and adult student success. If we’re serious about increasing ROI for today’s learners, then CBE and CPL must be central to that strategy—not optional extras (CAEL, 2022; CAEL, 2023; Cleary, 2023).

And we must continue removing barriers—academic, financial, or bureaucratic—that slow students down or block recognition of what they’ve already achieved. As Melanie Booth from the Higher Learning Commission puts it, “CPL isn’t just a tool for degree acceleration—it’s a bridge between learning, work, and upward mobility” (Flaherty, 2024).

The bottom line is this: college ROI is real, but it’s not guaranteed. And it’s certainly not automatic. It depends on the structure of the institution, the intentionality of the student, and the alignment between educational experiences and career goals. If we want to keep higher education relevant—and restore public trust in its value—we need to move from oversimplified promises to empowered planning and informed decision-making.

The ROI is Real, But so is the wait

As we’ve seen throughout this exploration, the return on investment for a college degree is not a myth. It’s backed by data, shaped by experience, and confirmed by countless individual stories. But that doesn’t mean it’s immediate—or easy to access.

The reality is that college ROI is real, but so is the wait.

For many students, especially those taking on debt or juggling school with work and family, the payoff can feel abstract and painfully delayed. When it takes 10, 15, even 20 years to truly realize the financial benefit of a degree, it’s no wonder that skepticism has grown—especially in a world where rising costs and stagnant wages make each financial decision feel more consequential.

But this isn’t just about money. It’s about trust. When we tell students that education is the key to a better life, we need to back that up with clear, honest, and actionable pathways. That includes transparency around earnings data, cost, time-to-degree, and career outcomes. It also means redesigning the system to make that ROI easier to reach—through better advising, expanded CPL and CBE, more flexible formats, and degrees that adapt to shifting workforce needs.

And we have to stop talking as though the only “real” college student is 18 years old and living on campus full time. Today’s learners are as likely to be 35 as they are to be 19. Many are returning to college to finish a degree, switch careers, or earn a credential that unlocks a promotion or new opportunity. These students deserve pathways that respect their time, honor their experience, and accelerate their journey forward.

To do that, institutions must move from gatekeeping to goal-setting—from sorting students by what they lack to supporting them in building on what they’ve already done. One of the most consistent ROI predictors isn’t selectivity or endowment—it’s whether students graduate. As shown in the graph below, institutions with higher completion rates tend to deliver much stronger ROI. For colleges and universities, this underscores the moral and financial imperative to support persistence and completion for all students.

And students, in turn, must be empowered not just to choose a major, but to shape a meaningful field of study that reflects both who they are and where they want to go.

At its best, college doesn’t just train workers. It equips people to adapt, reflect, collaborate, and lead. But for that to be sustainable—for individuals, families, and society—we need to reckon with the cost and pace of that payoff.

I don’t claim to have all the answers. But if I’ve learned anything from two decades in higher education, it’s this: students will rise to the occasion when given the tools, information, and respect they deserve. Our job is to build systems that earn their trust—and make good on the promise we’ve made for generations: that education can lead to a better future.

Yes, the ROI is real. But we still have work to do to ensure that everyone—not just those with wealth, privilege, or inside knowledge—gets the chance to realize it.

Final Thoughts

If we’re serious about strengthening the return on investment of a college degree, then we have to shift more of the responsibility to the institutions themselves—not just the students navigating them.

Colleges and universities can no longer rely on tradition or reputation alone. They must be proactive in reducing costs for students through strategies like expanding Credit for Prior Learning (CPL), creating clear and generous transfer pathways, and shortening time-to-degree wherever possible. These aren’t just administrative fixes—they’re equity strategies that directly affect whether a student can afford to persist and finish.

But lowering costs is only half the equation. Institutions also need to focus on raising the value of what students experience once they’re enrolled. That means helping them understand and navigate the hidden curriculum—the norms, networks, and unwritten rules that often determine who gets access to high-impact opportunities like internships, mentorship, and leadership roles. It means making the most of co-curricular and extracurricular learning, where students develop the professional and interpersonal skills that employers consistently value. And it means embracing a more holistic field of study approach, where students actively construct a pathway that reflects their goals, their strengths, and the real-world challenges they want to solve.

Increasing ROI—and accelerating how quickly students realize it—requires this kind of institutional intentionality. We cannot continue placing the entire burden on students to figure it out on their own.

Whether someone is 18 or 38, working full-time or coming straight from high school, they deserve a college experience that is transparent, empowering, and worth the investment. The data makes one thing clear: college can absolutely pay off. But it’s on all of us—faculty, staff, administrators, and policy leaders—to ensure it pays off more consistently, more quickly, and more equitably for everyone who walks through our doors.

References

California Competes. (2020). Credit for prior learning and competency-based education: Tools to boost adult learning and close equity gaps. https://californiacompetes.org

Carlson, S., & Laff, N. (2025). Hacking college: Navigating the broken promises and evolving needs of higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Cheah, B., Van Der Werf, M., Morris, C., & Strohl, J. (2025). The college payoff: More education doesn’t always mean more earnings (2025 update). Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/college-roi-2025/

Cleary, K. (2023, September 27). Increasing equity with credit for prior learning [Opinion]. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2023/09/27/increasing-equity-credit-prior-learning-opinion

Cooper, P. (2024). Does college pay off? A comprehensive return on investment analysis. Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity. https://freopp.org/does-college-pay-off-50b2fbd8d3c7

Council for Adult and Experiential Learning. (2022). Partners in a new learning model: Credit for prior learning and competency-based education. https://www.cael.org

Council for Adult and Experiential Learning. (2023, June 22). Research shows retention gains through credit for prior learning. https://www.cael.org/resources/pathways-blog/research-shows-retention-gains-through-credit-for-prior-learning

Council for Adult and Experiential Learning. (2025). State of undergraduate credit for prior learning report. https://www.cael.org

Flaherty, C. (2024, January 5). Push for colleges to accept more credit for prior learning. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2024/01/05/push-colleges-accept-more-credit-prior-learning

Olian, J. D. (2025, March 13). Can young people afford to not go to college? TIME. https://time.com

Swabek, T., & Fowler, D. (2025). Credit for prior learning mobility: Possibilities and practice from the field. Council for Adult and Experiential Learning. https://www.cael.org

Rewiring the Academy: Leading with Hope in an Age of Chaos

gregpillar on March 28, 2025

Leading Higher Education Forward with Radical Hope, Trauma-Informed Practices, and a Commitment to the Modern Learner

Hope Is a Strategy: Why I Wrote This White Paper

This white paper was born from both personal reflection and professional urgency.

Over the past year, I’ve been trying to make sense of the increasing chaos in higher education—both personally and nationally. The sector is reeling from overlapping pressures: political interference, legislative attacks on diversity and free speech, eroding trust in the value of a degree, and a growing culture war aimed squarely at our education system. Every week brings a new headline—another funding threat, another no-confidence vote, another public skirmish between faculty and administration. The system feels disoriented, reactive, and often disconnected from its mission. I’ve contributed to that conversation myself, including my own article in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which joined a growing chorus naming the threats facing our institutions.

But naming the chaos wasn’t enough.

This paper began as a way to process my own journey through that disruption. After experiencing burnout, toxic workplace culture, and the absence of psychological safety in my previous role, I made the difficult decision to leave. What followed was more than a career change—it was a reminder of what higher education can be. In my current role, I’ve found the trust, autonomy, and support I had been craving: the opportunity not just to manage, but to lead. To grow. To be seen.

That contrast—the emotional whiplash between exhaustion and renewal—is what compelled me to write this.

In recent months, I’ve immersed myself in books and articles that helped reframe my thinking. Radical Hope, Hope Circuits, The Connected College, Whatever It Is, I’m Against It, and Hacking College have all, in different ways, reminded me that transformation is still possible—even in crisis. And that hope is not a feeling. It’s a practice.

This white paper brings those frameworks together—along with dozens of recent reports, essays, and articles from higher ed publications—to do three things:

Map the chaos we’re facing with clarity and care.
Name the emotional, cultural, and structural toll it’s taking on our institutions.
Offer a path forward rooted in radical hope, trauma-informed leadership, shared stewardship, and design for the modern learner.

This isn’t a traditional research article or policy memo. It’s a call to action.

It’s for faculty who feel silenced. For staff who feel invisible. For administrators trying to lead with purpose in a system built for compliance. For students wondering what kind of institution they’re inheriting.

It’s for anyone who refuses to give up on higher education—because they still believe in its promise

If the paper resonates, I’d love for you to share it. If it challenges or complicates your thinking, even better. And if it helps spark one new idea, one better question, or one act of leadership—you’ve made it worth writing.

Citation:
OpenAI. (2024). Rewiring the academy: Leading with hope in an age of chaos [AI-generated image]. ChatGPT, DALL-E.

The Future of College Majors: Reinvention or Extinction? —— Part 2: Beyond Declining Enrollments: Creating Adaptive, Interdisciplinary Programs for the Modern Student

gregpillar on March 7, 2025

The challenge facing higher education is not merely about deciding which programs to add or cut—it is about reimagining how academic offerings should evolve to better serve students, institutions, and the workforce. Traditional majors, particularly those in the humanities and some social sciences, are experiencing significant declines in enrollment, leading institutions to consider program closures. The declines are due, in part, to there being no clear connection to gainful employment after graduation. The value of certain majors and liberal arts degrees simply to be “well rounded” and “educated citizens” is in itself, not sufficient. However, eliminating struggling programs without rethinking how disciplines can be integrated into new, dynamic, and skill-based curricula is shortsighted.

Rather than outright elimination, universities have the opportunity to transform their academic structures, making them more interdisciplinary, flexible, and aligned with labor market demands. This shift is not only relevant for the humanities but also crucial for STEM, business, health, and other fields that increasingly intersect with technology, policy, and ethics (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022). The most resilient academic programs will be those that foster adaptability, problem-solving, and cross-disciplinary collaboration, preparing students for evolving career landscapes rather than static job markets.

As institutions explore academic transformation, it is essential to differentiate between interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches, as well as between interdisciplinary majors and interdisciplinary studies as a degree completion route. Interdisciplinary programs intentionally integrate multiple fields of study, synthesizing knowledge and methodologies to create a cohesive, problem-solving framework. In contrast, multidisciplinary programs draw on multiple disciplines but do so without fully integrating or synthesizing them. While multidisciplinary studies place various academic fields under a thematic umbrella, they often function independently, lacking the deep connections that define true interdisciplinary education.

A related concept gaining traction in research and policy discussions is convergence research, a term championed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the National Science Foundation (NSF). The National Academies define convergence research as “a comprehensive synthetic framework for tackling scientific and societal challenges that exist at the interface of multiple fields. By merging these diverse areas of expertise in a network of partnerships, convergence stimulates innovation from basic science discovery to translational application” (National Research Council, 2014, p. 3). While interdisciplinary education integrates fields, convergence represents the next step—one that fosters deep, solution-oriented collaboration between disciplines. Bringing interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary together. Thus, an effective interdisciplinary education should not merely introduce students to multiple disciplines and facilitate integration, but should go further to cultivate convergence skills—the ability to synthesize knowledge, methodologies, and practical experience across fields to address complex challenges.

The concept of convergence also broadens the definition of education beyond the traditional classroom experience. In this context, “education” refers to the totality of a student’s learning journey—spanning coursework, research, internships, service-learning, and co-curricular experiences. A well-designed interdisciplinary program should provide students with opportunities to apply their learning across diverse contexts, reinforcing convergence skills in ways that prepare them for dynamic, evolving careers.

Many institutions offer an Interdisciplinary Studies degree as a flexible degree completion option for students who have accumulated credits across multiple disciplines and need a structured pathway to graduation (Mazzoni, J. F. R., 2024). While this model provides an important avenue for degree attainment, it differs from intentionally designed interdisciplinary programs that integrate multiple fields from the outset. The recent book Hacking College by Ned Laff and Scott Carlson introduces the concept of Field of Study, which encourages students to center their college experience around a “wicked multidisciplinary problem” of deep personal and societal relevance (Laff & Carlson, 2025). This model moves beyond traditional academic structures by allowing students to craft learning experiences that connect disparate fields into meaningful and applicable frameworks.

The Field of Study concept aligns with the broader movement toward interdisciplinary majors that are intentionally structured around integration. Programs such as Bioethics & Artificial Intelligence, Health & Data Analytics, or Environmental Policy & Business exemplify this shift—combining knowledge from multiple domains into new, cohesive areas of study that reflect the complexity of real-world issues. These interdisciplinary programs are designed to equip students with both depth and breadth, helping them navigate the increasingly interconnected workforce.

Additionally, Hacking College critiques the rigid, bureaucratic nature of many higher education pathways, arguing that students are often forced to navigate a series of institutional hurdles rather than engaging in a genuinely transformative intellectual and professional journey (Laff & Carlson, 2025). The book highlights the need for students to build their own pathways—ones that integrate multiple disciplines while fostering intellectual curiosity, emotional growth, and career preparation. This underscores the importance of developing interdisciplinary majors that not only reflect workforce demands but also empower students to take ownership of their education.

The next sections explore how institutions can break down academic silos, implement interdisciplinary programs, and reimagine advising to better support student-driven, flexible learning models that cultivate convergence skills and prepare students for the future.

The Interdisciplinary Imperative: Breaking Down Academic Silos

Interdisciplinary programs are increasingly recognized as a viable alternative to declining standalone majors. Employers value graduates who can synthesize knowledge across disciplines, adapt to emerging challenges, and apply critical thinking to real-world problems (Spelt et al., 2023). While traditional majors have historically operated within rigid academic silos, modern workforce demands necessitate a shift toward more integrative and skill-based curricula.

For smaller institutions, the urgency of this transformation is particularly acute. Low-enrollment programs can become financial liabilities, stretching faculty resources and administrative costs without generating sustainable returns. Interdisciplinary programs provide a strategic pathway to consolidate struggling majors while maintaining a breadth of academic offerings that prepare students for dynamic careers. Importantly, restructuring programs does not inherently require faculty layoffs but rather a rethinking of faculty roles, workload distribution, and course integration. Faculty members who previously specialized in single-discipline programs can transition into interdisciplinary teaching and research roles, ensuring that their expertise continues to enrich the institution in new and relevant ways.

One approach that has gained traction is allowing students to design their own interdisciplinary majors. At institutions like Lycoming College and Davidson College, students who demonstrate a clear academic vision can craft their own interdisciplinary programs by combining courses from multiple departments under faculty mentorship (Lycoming College, 2025). For example, at Davidson College, the Environmental Studies major initially began as a student-designed program before evolving into an established interdisciplinary major. These student-driven models provide flexibility for learners while allowing institutions to test the viability of new interdisciplinary fields before formally adopting them. When designed with faculty oversight, these programs maintain academic rigor while giving students agency over their education (Mazzoni, 2024).

The table below presents examples of possible interdisciplinary programs that reflect labor market needs while promoting academic sustainability:

While these examples highlight the versatility of interdisciplinary education, institutions must also be cautious about creating overly specific programs that lack flexibility. A notable example is the forensic science degree boom of the early 2000s. Fueled by television dramas like CSI and NCIS, many universities introduced forensic science programs to meet surging student interest. While these degrees provided direct career pathways, they often lacked the adaptability of traditional biology, chemistry, or physics degrees, which could have prepared students for forensic careers while offering broader employment opportunities (Dempsey, 2025). This underscores the importance of designing interdisciplinary programs that maintain adaptability, ensuring graduates can pivot into multiple career pathways rather than being locked into narrowly defined roles.

At Arizona State University, degree programs are structured around “knowledge enterprises,” which emphasize broad academic clusters rather than traditional departments (Crow & Dabars, 2023). Similarly, Northeastern University has integrated experiential learning with interdisciplinary coursework, allowing students to gain both academic and practical expertise in high-demand sectors. These institutional models demonstrate that universities can redesign their academic portfolios without compromising intellectual rigor, making graduates more competitive in a rapidly changing job market.

Yet, as Hacking College notes, even in institutions that offer interdisciplinary pathways, students often face barriers in understanding how to navigate these options effectively (Laff & Carlson, 2025). Academic and career advising must evolve to support interdisciplinary exploration, ensuring that students are not just aware of new program structures but also equipped to take full advantage of them. Without proactive advising, students may struggle to see the value of interdisciplinary study or how to translate it into career opportunities.

The next section explores how institutions can overhaul advising and career development to align with interdisciplinary learning, ensuring students have the guidance and resources needed to craft meaningful, career-ready academic experiences.

Overhauling Advising and Career Pathways

A critical barrier to implementing interdisciplinary education is the outdated nature of academic and career advising. Traditional advising structures often emphasize course selection within rigid degree pathways rather than guiding students in crafting meaningful, cross-disciplinary learning experiences (Palmer, 2024). Hacking College argues that students need advising models that empower them to build an individualized college-to-career trajectory—one that embraces interdisciplinarity and intellectual curiosity rather than functioning as a bureaucratic checklist (Alssid & Lemoyne, 2025; Laff & Carlson, 2025). This rigid system often fails to equip students with the flexibility and skills necessary to navigate an increasingly dynamic job market (Ledwith, 2014).

Current advising models frequently separate academic and career advising into distinct functions, often providing generic guidance rather than individualized, skill-based mentorship (Parrent, 2023). The Work Forces podcast interview with Julian Alston and Caitlin Lemoyne highlights the need for a fundamental overhaul, suggesting that advising should focus on helping students develop hidden intellectualism by identifying the intersections between their academic interests and career goals (Alston & Lemoyne, 2025). Rather than funneling students into rigid degree tracks, advising should equip them with tools to translate interdisciplinary knowledge into actionable career pathways—a skill often missing in traditional advising models. Rey (2022) similarly emphasizes that primary-role academic advisers frequently lack the training or institutional support to provide integrated career advising, which contributes to students’ confusion about how to apply their education in the workforce.

One potential model for improving advising is integrating “Field of Study” pathways, in which students choose a central interdisciplinary theme or complex problem as the focal point of their education (Alssid & Lemoyne, 2025; Laff & Carlson, 2025). For example, rather than pursuing a conventional political science degree, a student might structure their studies around Global Conflict & Technology, integrating coursework from political science, cybersecurity, and media studies. Advising would then be tailored to support this individualized path, connecting students with relevant faculty, research opportunities, and industry networks. Laff and Carlson (2025) argue that this model helps students build social and cultural capital, which are crucial for navigating both academic and professional environments. The New Directions for Student Services report similarly advocates for a more collaborative approach between academic and career advising, ensuring that students develop not only academic competencies but also marketable skills that align with their career aspirations (Ledwith, 2014).

Advising must also reflect the realities of the modern workforce, particularly the rise of hidden jobs—career opportunities that are not easily accessible through traditional job-search methods (Laff & Carlson, 2025). The Work Forces podcast discusses how many institutions fail to prepare students for these hidden job markets, where professional networks, transferable skills, and interdisciplinary competencies determine career success (Alston & Lemoyne, 2025). Parrent (2023) reinforces this concern, noting that academic advising has historically functioned as an administrative checkpoint rather than a holistic framework for skill development. Effective advising should actively connect students with industry professionals, internship opportunities, and real-world projects that expose them to emerging fields rather than solely relying on predefined career tracks.

Furthermore, institutions should ensure that advising centers provide clear guidance on how interdisciplinary certificates and micro-credentials can supplement students’ primary degree programs. By embedding stackable micro-credentials into advising frameworks, universities can help students strategically build expertise in high-demand skills such as data analytics, communication, and leadership—regardless of their major (Spelt et al., 2009). These credentials not only improve employability but also allow students to customize their education without delaying graduation. For adult learners and those with some college, no credential (SCNC) status, micro-credentials can serve as jump-start mechanisms for degree completion or career advancement (McCartney & Daniels, 2024; Palmer, 2024). Programs that offer credit for prior learning (CPL) or competency-based education (CBE) ensure that these students gain recognition for their existing skills, further increasing accessibility and affordability (Welding, 2024).

Bridle et al. (2013) highlight the importance of preparing students for an interdisciplinary future by ensuring that advising frameworks emphasize adaptability and cross-sector competencies. Without intentional advising structures that integrate interdisciplinary coursework, experiential learning, and career preparation, students risk graduating with theoretical knowledge but without the practical skills necessary to navigate a rapidly changing job market.

The Harvard EdCast podcast reinforces these themes, arguing that institutions must redefine advising as an iterative, student-centered process rather than a one-time consultation about graduation requirements (Anderson, K., 2023). Effective advising should integrate academic interests, skill-building, and career preparation into a cohesive strategy that evolves throughout a student’s college experience. Without such proactive advising, students may struggle to see the value of interdisciplinary study or how to translate their education into viable career opportunities.

Ultimately, universities that fail to adapt their advising models to accommodate interdisciplinary and student-driven learning risk leaving students underprepared for an evolving job market. A transformed advising approach—one that prioritizes interdisciplinary learning, career integration, and real-world application—will be essential in ensuring that students make the most of their college experience while preparing for long-term professional success.

Interdisciplinary Certificates and Micro-Credentials: A Scalable Approach to Transformation

While interdisciplinary majors serve as a powerful mechanism for rethinking academic programs, they are not the only solution. Another viable approach is the expansion of interdisciplinary certificates and micro-credentials, which allow students to develop specialized competencies that enhance their degrees or serve as standalone credentials. These flexible learning pathways help students acquire in-demand, industry-specific skills while providing institutions with a cost-effective means to introduce interdisciplinary learning without the logistical challenges of launching new degree programs (Palmer, 2024; Stoddard et al., 2023).

Microcredentials are particularly valuable in fields where knowledge evolves rapidly, requiring graduates to integrate expertise from multiple disciplines. Emerging areas such as cybersecurity policy, health informatics, and climate data analytics illustrate how micro-credentials help bridge knowledge gaps across disciplines (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022). For example, a Business & Sustainability certificate can equip business students with environmental policy insights, making them attractive to companies seeking corporate social responsibility expertise. Similarly, a Healthcare & Data Science certificate could prepare nursing or public health students to analyze big data trends in patient outcomes, enhancing their career prospects in health informatics (FIU College of Business, 2024).

Microcredentials as a Pathway for Degree Completion

One of the most significant benefits of microcredentials is their ability to serve as an on-ramp for adult learners and students with some college but no credential. Research from the Microcredentials Exploratory Pilot (McCartney & Terry, 2024) indicates that microcredentials provide a critical re-entry point for individuals who have paused their education due to financial, personal, or career-related barriers. By allowing these learners to gain immediate workforce-relevant skills, microcredentials serve as both a stepping stone to degree completion and a tool for career advancement.

For many adult learners, particularly those returning to college after time in the workforce, traditional degree pathways may feel daunting due to time constraints and financial pressures. However, when microcredentials are embedded within degree programs and structured as stackable credentials, they enable students to accumulate meaningful, credit-bearing learning experiences that can be applied toward an associate’s or bachelor’s degree (McCartney & Terry, 2024).

For example, a student working in healthcare who has completed a Public Health Leadership microcredential could apply those credits toward a Bachelor’s in Public Health. Likewise, a working professional who completes a Digital Marketing Analytics microcredential might later decide to pursue a degree in Business Administration with those credentials counting toward required coursework. By aligning microcredentials with broader degree frameworks, institutions can create flexible, modular learning opportunities that increase accessibility and degree completion rates among non-traditional students.

The Role of Credit for Prior Learning (CPL) and Competency-Based Education (CBE)

Microcredentials also play an essential role in Credit for Prior Learning (CPL) and Competency-Based Education (CBE) models, which validate a learner’s prior experience and skills to accelerate degree attainment. Many adult learners enter college with years of relevant work experience but lack formal credentials to demonstrate their expertise. CPL and CBE frameworks recognize this learning by assessing competencies rather than requiring students to repeat coursework in subjects they have already mastered (Stoddard et al., 2023).

For institutions, integrating microcredentials within CPL and CBE frameworks offers multiple advantages:

It allows students to earn academic credit for industry-recognized credentials they have already obtained.
It reduces time-to-degree, saving students money while improving retention and completion rates.
It strengthens university-industry partnerships by aligning educational offerings with workforce needs.

Many universities, including Florida International University and Georgetown University, have already implemented interdisciplinary microcredential programs that connect to degree pathways, enabling students to gain recognized expertise while progressing toward graduation (FIU College of Business, 2024).

Stackable Microcredentials: Customization and Career Alignment

Beyond serving as standalone credentials, interdisciplinary micro-credentials can be designed to stack within undergraduate degree programs, allowing students to customize their academic paths. This approach ensures that students graduate with both broad foundational knowledge and specialized, career-relevant skills. Certain micro-credentials, such as Data Analytics, Leadership & Organizational Communication, and Global Studies, hold value across multiple disciplines and could be integrated within a variety of majors (Spelt et al., 2023).

For example:

A biology major might complete a micro-credential in Data Analytics for Scientific Research, equipping them with computational skills that enhance their research capabilities.
An English major could pair their degree with a UX Writing & Digital Media credential, preparing them for careers in digital communication.
A political science major might pursue a Public Policy & Technology microcredential to strengthen their expertise in tech policy and governance.

By embedding stackable credentials within degree programs, universities can increase curricular flexibility while ensuring that students graduate with skills that are both field-specific and broadly transferable (Palmer, 2024). Stackability also benefits students by reducing time-to-degree and increasing employability. Rather than requiring students to take additional coursework after graduation to develop career-relevant skills, stackable micro-credentials allow students to build a more robust resume within their existing academic timeline (Crow & Dabars, 2023). Additionally, because micro-credentials can be industry-aligned, they provide immediate workforce value even before a student completes their full degree program.

Employer Recognition and Industry Partnerships

For microcredentials to be truly valuable, institutions must develop them in direct collaboration with employers to ensure they align with workforce needs. The Microcredentials Primer for Higher Education Leaders (Stoddard et al., 2023) highlights the growing employer preference for skills-based hiring, emphasizing that microcredentials are most effective when they are industry-recognized.

For example:

Some universities partner with Google, IBM, and Microsoft to offer microcredentials in Cloud Computing, Cybersecurity, and AI Ethics, providing students with credentials that are directly valued by major employers.
In healthcare, institutions have partnered with hospital networks to develop microcredentials in Health Informatics and Patient Advocacy, ensuring that graduates are well-prepared for evolving roles in the field (McCartney & Terry, 2024).
In the public sector, microcredentials in Community Engagement & Public Administration have been co-developed with government agencies to equip students with essential policy and governance skills.

Building strong employer partnerships ensures that microcredentials translate into tangible career benefits, increasing job placement rates and strengthening institutional relationships with industries.

Financial Sustainability and Revenue Generation

For institutions, microcredentials represent not only an educational innovation but also a financial sustainability strategy. With declining traditional enrollments and growing financial pressures, universities are seeking alternative revenue streams that do not rely solely on full-degree tuition models. The Microcredentials Exploratory Pilot (McCartney & Terry, 2024) outlines how microcredentials provide institutions with:

Increased student retention, as learners who see direct career value in their studies are more likely to persist to graduation.
Greater curricular flexibility, as interdisciplinary microcredentials allow departments to collaborate without requiring full program overhauls.
Improved alumni engagement, as microcredentials provide continuing education pathways that encourage lifelong learning.

By leveraging microcredentials as part of a comprehensive institutional strategy, universities can expand their reach to adult learners, increase degree completion rates, and generate additional revenue without overextending their existing faculty and administrative resources.

A Central Component of Higher Education’s Future

Interdisciplinary microcredentials and stackable certificates should not be viewed as supplemental to traditional degree programs but as integral components of higher education’s future. These programs offer scalable, flexible, and career-relevant learning opportunities that benefit both students and institutions.

By integrating microcredentials into degree pathways, expanding CPL and CBE opportunities, and partnering with industry leaders, universities can ensure that students graduate with the interdisciplinary, skill-based competencies necessary for today’s workforce. Institutions that embrace this transformation will be better positioned to serve both traditional and non-traditional learners while ensuring financial sustainability in an evolving educational landscape.

Restructuring Academic Departments: A More Holistic Approach

Beyond transforming individual programs, institutions must reconsider how academic departments are structured to foster interdisciplinary collaboration, reduce administrative inefficiencies, and align with workforce demands. The traditional department model—often rigidly divided by discipline—constrains cross-field engagement, limiting students’ ability to develop competencies that span multiple areas of expertise. As higher education evolves to meet complex global challenges, institutions that remain locked into outdated department structures risk falling behind (Crowley, Mustain, & Roberts, 2024).

Rigid departmental boundaries not only stifle innovation but also exacerbate financial and operational inefficiencies. At many institutions, low-enrollment programs remain siloed, forcing faculty to carry disproportionate service burdens while maintaining course offerings that attract only a handful of students each semester. This is particularly problematic for smaller colleges and tuition-dependent universities, where underperforming programs become significant financial liabilities (Gunsalus et al., 2023). By restructuring into broader interdisciplinary divisions or clusters, institutions can retain essential academic offerings while improving faculty workload distribution, streamlining administrative costs, and enhancing interdisciplinary collaboration (Anderson,K., 2023).

Alternative Models for Departmental Restructuring

To address these challenges, some universities have already restructured their academic departments into interdisciplinary knowledge clusters. Instead of being isolated in traditional disciplinary silos, faculty and students are organized into broad, problem-centered academic units that encourage cross-disciplinary engagement. Examples of emerging models include:

Interdisciplinary Knowledge Clusters (Crowley, Mustain, & Roberts, 2024)
- Data & Society Division: Merging Computer Science, Digital Humanities, Public Policy, and Data Analytics to prepare students for careers in technology, government, and media.
- Health & Human Sciences Cluster: Combining Nursing, Public Health, Psychology, and Bioethics to encourage collaborative research and integrated approaches to healthcare challenges.
- Sustainability & Innovation Hub: Bringing together Environmental Science, Urban Planning, Business, and Sustainable Engineering to develop holistic solutions to climate change and resource management
School-Based Models
- Some institutions have merged smaller, related departments into larger interdisciplinary schools, fostering cross-disciplinary collaboration while reducing administrative burdens.
- For example, rather than maintaining separate departments for journalism, communication, and digital media, universities can consolidate them into a School of Media and Information, allowing for more dynamic course offerings and shared faculty expertise (Anderson, K., 2023).
- Institutions such as the University of Washington’s College of the Environment and Georgia State University’s reorganized academic clusters demonstrate how restructuring enhances curricular flexibility and research collaboration while reducing redundancies (Drozdowski, 2024).
Eliminating Standalone Departments Altogether
- Some institutions have replaced traditional departments with flexible, cross-disciplinary academic divisions, which encourage team-taught courses, shared faculty expertise, and adaptable degree pathways (Rosowsky & Keegan, 2020).
- By removing departmental barriers, universities increase interdisciplinary research collaboration and improve institutional agility in responding to workforce trends.

Addressing Faculty Concerns and Resistance

While restructuring offers clear benefits, institutional leaders must carefully navigate faculty concerns regarding disciplinary identity, job security, and teaching loads. Faculty members may fear that departmental mergers will diminish their academic field’s visibility or devalue their research expertise. Some may also be concerned that interdisciplinary teaching assignments will increase their workload without adequate institutional support (Gunsalus et al., 2023).

To address these concerns, universities must:

Emphasize Faculty Inclusion in the Planning Process
- Institutions that engage faculty from the outset in designing new interdisciplinary structures are more likely to achieve faculty buy-in.
- Pilot programs, faculty task forces, and incentives for interdisciplinary research can help ensure that faculty play an active role in shaping the future of academic structures (Crowley, Mustain, & Roberts, 2024).
Ensure That Faculty Retain Job Security and Research Opportunities
- Restructuring does not necessarily require faculty layoffs but rather a reorganization of teaching loads and research expectations.
- Faculty members can be repositioned into interdisciplinary teams, enabling them to apply their expertise in new, cross-disciplinary ways while maintaining their academic standing (Anderson, K, 2023).
- Institutions should offer faculty development programs that help professors transition into interdisciplinary teaching and research roles.
Reduce Service Burdens Through Equitable Workload Distribution
- Faculty in small, low-enrollment departments often bear a disproportionate amount of service work, including committee participation and accreditation reporting.
- Merging these departments into larger interdisciplinary schools allows service responsibilities to be more evenly distributed, giving faculty more time for research, mentorship, and innovation (Blaylock, et. al., 2016).

Administrative & Operational Benefits of Restructuring

Beyond the academic benefits, restructuring optimizes institutional efficiency by:

✅ Reducing administrative redundancies – Merging departments into larger interdisciplinary schools consolidates administrative support, decreasing duplication of services (Anderson, K., 2023).
✅ Improving student experience – Interdisciplinary structures ensure students receive a more comprehensive education that aligns with industry trends and prepares them for a broader range of careers
✅ Streamlining governance structures – Fewer individual departments lead to more effective decision-making and faster curriculum adaptation to labor market changes (Gunsalus et al., 2023).
✅ Strengthening financial sustainability – By eliminating low-enrollment, high-cost standalone programs and consolidating faculty resources, institutions can reallocate funds to high-demand fields while still preserving disciplinary expertise (Crowley, Mustain, & Roberts, 2024).

Strategic Approaches for Implementing Restructuring

To ensure a successful transition, institutions should:

Pilot restructuring efforts in select academic units before full implementation (Crowley, Mustain, & Roberts, 2024).
Use institutional data (enrollment trends, workforce demand, and faculty workload analysis) to drive decision-making (Gunsalus et al., 2023).
Engage faculty, students, and external stakeholders in the restructuring process to ensure new models align with both academic priorities and employer needs (Anderson, K., 2023).
Provide clear transition plans for students enrolled in programs affected by restructuring, ensuring they can complete their degrees without disruption.

Restructuring academic departments is not just an administrative necessity—it is a strategic imperative for institutions seeking to improve academic innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and financial sustainability. Universities that embrace flexible, dynamic academic structures will be better equipped to navigate enrollment shifts, workforce transformations, and financial challenges in the years ahead.

By moving toward interdisciplinary clusters, school-based models, or fully integrated academic divisions, institutions can ensure that faculty thrive, students receive broad yet specialized training, and universities remain responsive to societal and labor market needs.

Final Thoughts: Making the Hard Choices – When Reinvention Isn’t Enough

Higher education must evolve beyond rigid disciplinary silos and outdated advising models if it hopes to meet the needs of modern learners and a changing workforce. The strategies outlined in this article provide institutions with a blueprint for transforming struggling majors, integrating interdisciplinary learning, and modernizing academic structures. Yet, while these approaches can reinvigorate many programs, reinvention is not always enough. Some academic programs will remain unsustainable due to persistently low enrollment, limited career pathways, or an inability to align with emerging interdisciplinary opportunities.

Institutions cannot afford to spread resources thinly across programs that no longer serve students or the institution’s long-term viability. Academic leaders must make data-driven, strategic decisions about which programs can be transformed and which must be phased out. This is not about indiscriminate cuts but about making intentional choices that strengthen institutional sustainability while ensuring that students receive high-quality, future-focused education.

How do institutions determine which programs can be saved and which should be discontinued? What strategies ensure that these decisions are made responsibly, equitably, and in alignment with institutional mission and financial sustainability? Part 3 of this series will address these questions, outlining a structured approach for evaluating academic programs, making tough but necessary decisions, and navigating the institutional and political complexities of academic realignment. The goal is not just to survive—but to ensure that institutions are positioned to thrive in an era of rapid change.

References

Alston, J., & Lemoyne, C. (2025, March 6). Scott Carlson & Ned Laff on Hacking College [Audio podcast episode]. In Work Forces. Retrieved from [https://www.workforces.info/podcast/episode/4a392bb2/scott-carlson-and-ned-laff-on-hacking-college]

Anderson, J. (2023). The future of academic restructuring: Lessons from leading institutions. Harvard EdCast.

Anderson, K. (2023, December 5). How an academic restructuring is creating interdisciplinary opportunities—and saving this university money. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from Inside Higher Ed

Bridle, H., Vrieling, A., Cardillo, M., Araya, Y., & Hinojosa, L. (2013). Preparing for an interdisciplinary future: A perspective from early-career researchers. Futures, 53, 22-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.09.003:contentReference[oaicite:3]{index=3}.

Blaylock, B., Zarankin, T. & Henderson, B. (2016). Restructuring Colleges in Higher Education around Learning. International HETL Review, Volume 6, Article 6, URL: https://www.hetl.org/restructuring-colleges-in-higher-education-around-learning

Crow, M. M., & Dabars, W. B. (2023). Designing the new American university. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Crowley, K., Mustain, M., & Roberts, J. (2024). Academic reorganization: How strategy drives structure. Presented at the 2024 Institute for Chief Academic Officers and Their Teams, Council of Independent Colleges.

Dempsey, S. (2025). Cross-disciplinary success: How interdisciplinary certificates are shaping the future. The Evolllution. Retrieved from https://evolllution.com/cross-disciplinary-success-how-interdisciplinary-certificates-are-shaping-the-future

Drozdowski, M. J. (2024, March 11). 7 challenges threatening the future of higher education. BestColleges. Retrieved from https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/7-challenges-threatening-future-of-higher-education/

FIU College of Business. (2024). The rise of interdisciplinary roles: STEM and business in the job market. Florida International University.

Gunsalus, C. K., Luckman, E. A., Ryder, J. J., & Burbules, N. C. (2023, November 29). Transforming challenged academic units. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from Inside Higher Ed

Laff, N. S., & Carlson, S. (2025). Hacking college: Rethinking what matters in higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ledwith, K. E. (2014). Academic advising and career services: A collaborative approach. New Directions for Student Services, 148(Winter), 49-62. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20108:contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}.

Lycoming College. (2025). Interdisciplinary programs. Retrieved from https://www.lycoming.edu/interdisciplinary

Mazzoni, J. F. R. (2024, August 30). Interdisciplinary studies: Preparing students for a complex world. Faculty Focus. Retrieved from https://www.facultyfocus.com

McCartney, T., & Terry, B. (2024). Microcredentials exploratory pilot: Expanding access and career pathways through credential innovation. [White paper].

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2022). Imagining the future of undergraduate STEM education: Proceedings of a virtual symposium. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26314

National Research Council. (2014). Convergence: Facilitating transdisciplinary integration of life sciences, physical sciences, engineering, and beyond. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18722

OpenAI’s DALL-E. (2025). Conceptual illustration of Beyond Declining Enrollments: Creating Adaptive, Interdisciplinary Programs for the Modern Student [AI-generated image]. Retrieved from https://labs.openai.com

Palmer, K. (2024, January 23). Microcredentials on the rise, but not at colleges. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/tech-innovation/teaching-learning/2024/01/23/microcredentials-rise-not-colleges.

Parrent, C. (2023). Integrating career development into academic advising. National Career Development Association. Retrieved from NCDA.

Rey, B. (2022). Career advising from the primary role academic adviser’s viewpoint: A review of the literature. National Association of Colleges and Employers. Retrieved from NACE.

Rosowsky, D. V., & Keegan, B. (2020). What if there were no academic departments? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from Inside Higher Ed

Spelt, E. J., Biemans, H. J. A., Tobi, H., Luning, P. A., & Mulder, M. (2009). Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review. Educational Psychological Review, Published Online, DOI 10.1007/s10648-009-9113-z

Stoddard, S., Nguyen, T., & Patel, R. (2023). Getting started with microcredentials: A primer for higher education leaders. Center for the Future of Higher Education and Talent Strategy, Northeastern University.

The Change Leader, Inc. (2024). Academic realignment and organizational redesign: Transforming institutions for the future of higher education. Retrieved from The Change Leader

Welding, L. (2024, July 11). The rise and future of microcredentials in higher education. BestColleges. Edited by J. Bryant. Fact-checked by M. Rose. Retrieved from https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/microcredentials-rise-in-higher-education/

The Future of College Majors: Reinvention or Extinction? —— Part 1: Stop Resuscitating Dead Programs – Why Some Majors Need to Die for Higher Ed to Thrive

gregpillar on March 4, 2025

About This Series: The Future of College Majors – Reinvention or Extinction?

This article is Part 1 of a three-part series exploring how higher education must confront declining enrollments, financial instability, and outdated academic programs by making bold decisions about which majors to eliminate, reinvent, or realign for the future.

Part 1: Stop Resuscitating Dead Programs – Why Some Majors Need to Die for Higher Ed to Thrive
This first installment examines why certain academic programs are no longer sustainable, highlighting the financial and enrollment pressures forcing institutions to make tough decisions.
Part 2: Reinventing Struggling Majors – How to Transform Programs for the Future
The second installment explores how institutions can restructure struggling majors rather than eliminating them, using interdisciplinary approaches, workforce alignment, and innovative program design to revitalize outdated degrees.
Part 3: Academic Realignment – The Tough Decisions Colleges Must Make to Survive
The final part of the series focuses on the larger strategic decisions institutions must make, including how to assess program viability, implement academic realignment, and develop sustainable, future-focused curricula.

Higher education is in a period of transformation, and institutions must act strategically to ensure their long-term survival. Stay tuned for the next installment as we shift from what needs to be eliminated to how struggling programs can be redesigned for the future.

The Harsh Reality Facing Higher Education

Higher education is stuck in a time warp, recycling degrees that students no longer want, employers no longer need, and institutions can no longer afford to keep alive. Yet instead of boldly confronting this reality, many colleges and universities remain paralyzed by institutional inertia, trapped by outdated structures and traditions that make change nearly impossible.

Brian Rosenberg (2023) describes this resistance to change in Whatever It Is, I’m Against It, highlighting how higher education has evolved into a “vetocracy,” where too many people can say no, and too few have the authority to say yes. Faculty governance, administrative bureaucracy, and external stakeholders—from donors to state legislatures—each have enough power to block innovation but not enough to enact meaningful transformation. As a result, decisions that should take months stretch into years, and reforms that are desperately needed are stifled by committees, consultations, and concerns over precedent (Rosenberg, 2023). Even in the face of severe financial pressures and existential threats, the default response of many institutions is to delay, deflect, and double down on the status quo.

This resistance is especially evident in how institutions handle struggling academic programs. Instead of strategically reassessing their value, colleges cling to underperforming majors out of a misplaced sense of tradition or fear of backlash from faculty and alumni. But higher education cannot afford to wait for perfect data before making bold decisions. While data-driven analysis is essential, the reality is that colleges must take calculated risks and make strategic bets before financial pressures force them into crisis mode. Innovation, entrepreneurship, and institutional survival depend on leadership that is willing to act decisively, even in the face of uncertainty.

As we will explore in this article, some majors need to be phased out, and institutions must accept that reality before the market forces the decision for them. Colleges and universities that strategically streamline their offerings, reinvest in high-growth fields, and align their programs with workforce needs will emerge stronger. Those that hesitate risk following the many institutions that have already been forced to close, merge, or cut entire departments in the wake of declining enrollments and unsustainable business models.

Institutional Inertia: Why Colleges Keep Failing to Act

The Faculty Resistance Factor

One of the greatest barriers to discontinuing underperforming programs or making meaningful academic reforms is faculty resistance. Many faculty members view their disciplines as integral to the university’s mission, seeing proposed changes as a threat to their research opportunities, tenure security, and the intellectual fabric of the institution. As a result, higher education often defaults to preserving the status quo, even when it is no longer financially or academically viable.

Brian Rosenberg, in Whatever It Is, I’m Against It: Resistance to Change in Higher Education, identifies faculty governance and tenure protections as key obstacles to institutional change, arguing that these structures were designed for stability rather than adaptability (Rosenberg, 2023). Faculty tend to embrace change within their disciplines—constantly publishing new research, developing theories, and expanding knowledge—yet, when it comes to their own institutions, they resist even modest reforms to academic structures, faculty workloads, or curriculum realignment (Rosenberg, 2023). This paradox creates a system where institutions celebrate transformation in knowledge production but actively resist transforming themselves. As a former faculty member and an administrator and academic

leader who truly values my faculty “roots”, I understand this resistance. I was one of those faculty who was adamant about change. However, once I obtained a university perspective (and this came well before taking on the role of Assistant Provost), I understood the importance of looking beyond the trees and at the forest. I navigated this first hand when I was involved in the closure of two programs I helped to develop and launch. Programs, that although should have had more interest and enrollment, for our institution, were a dead weight that needed to go for the good of the institution. Here, the reason this change moved through the governance process so smoothly was because the only remaining faculty member of the programs – was now in Academic Affairs (me) and understood what was needed for institutional stability.

The Deep-Rooted Structures That Slow or Block Change

Higher education’s resistance to change is deeply embedded in its structural governance, tenure protections, and reluctance to align academic offerings with workforce demands. While institutions acknowledge the need for adaptation, decision-making is often stymied by bureaucratic obstacles that make meaningful reform difficult.

One of the primary barriers is shared governance, a system designed to uphold academic integrity but often functioning as a mechanism that slows or outright prevents institutional transformation. Shared governance is frequently cited as a safeguard of academic freedom, ensuring that faculty have a voice in curricular and administrative decisions. However, it also disperses authority in a way that makes decisive action challenging. Rosenberg (2023) highlights that faculty senates, curriculum committees, and tenure review boards tend to prioritize continuity over responsiveness, making it difficult to phase out low-enrollment programs or introduce new, high-demand offerings. In a recent interview, he noted, “Consensus is the enemy of change. Most transformational change originates with a small group willing to push forward—yet higher education is built to ensure that no single group has that power” (Anderson, 2023). For example, when Macalester College attempted to reassess the link between faculty research productivity and teaching effectiveness, the administration faced intense faculty resistance. Even when presented with data-driven evidence demonstrating that research output had no measurable impact on teaching quality, faculty dismissed the findings as an attack on institutional values (Rosenberg, 2023). This illustrates how shared governance, despite its intent to promote academic quality, can serve as a structural impediment to necessary reforms.

Another structural challenge is tenure, which was originally established to protect academic freedom but has since evolved into an institutional rigidity that limits adaptability. Once faculty members are granted tenure, they often have little incentive to shift their research areas, adapt to workforce needs, or realign their teaching to match student and employer demands. Anderson (2023) argues that while tenure was designed to promote intellectual exploration, it now functions as an obstacle to institutional agility. At many universities, between 60% and 80% of faculty positions are tenured or tenure-track, which restricts the institution’s ability to pivot toward high-demand disciplines (Rosenberg, 2023). This problem is particularly evident in fields where student interest has waned. For instance, a university that hired Victorian literature specialists in the 1990s may now find that demand for that field has declined significantly. However, tenure protections make it difficult to reassign these faculty members to interdisciplinary programs that might better align with modern educational and career needs (Rosenberg, 2023). The result is a faculty composition that is often mismatched with student interests and labor market trends.

In addition to governance and tenure, faculty resistance to applied and workforce-aligned curricula presents another major hurdle. Many faculty members perceive efforts to integrate digital skills, workforce training, or industry partnerships as a dilution of academic rigor. This reluctance often stems from a belief that higher education should remain distinct from vocational training. However, the reality is that employer expectations are shifting, and students increasingly seek education that provides clear career pathways. Efforts to embed data science applications into political science courses or introduce applied writing within English programs have often been met with faculty opposition, despite growing demand from students and employers (Anderson, 2023). The disconnect between faculty perspectives and labor market realities underscores a fundamental challenge: without faculty buy-in, institutions struggle to modernize their curricula in ways that align with student career goals.

Collectively, these structural barriers—shared governance inertia, tenure rigidity, and resistance to workforce-aligned learning—form a system that is slow to adapt, even in the face of clear demographic and financial pressures. If higher education is to remain viable, institutions must find ways to overcome these entrenched obstacles, making space for more responsive governance, flexible faculty roles, and academic programs that align with the evolving workforce landscape.

The Politics of Program Closures and Faculty Backlash

When institutions attempt to cut underperforming programs or restructure departments, faculty responses often follow a predictable pattern:

Faculty pushback in governance meetings – Any proposal to close or restructure a program is met with committee debates, procedural delays, and calls for additional studies or task forces.
Votes of no confidence – Faculty may issue a vote of no confidence in the administration, even when financial realities make change unavoidable.
Alumni and student protests – Programs slated for closure frequently mobilize alumni and current students to push back against decisions.
Lawsuits and legal challenges – In extreme cases, faculty members have sued their own institutions to prevent program eliminations (Anderson, 2023).

Example: When Mills College, a small liberal arts institution, announced a merger with Northeastern University due to severe financial distress, it was met with lawsuits from its own alumni and students. Despite no viable financial alternative, stakeholders fought to preserve the college’s existing structure, delaying the inevitable transition (Anderson, 2023).

What Can Institutions Do? Overcoming Faculty Resistance to Change

Rosenberg argues that higher education leaders must fundamentally rethink governance models, tenure structures, and faculty incentives to enable faster and more strategic decision-making (Anderson, 2023).

Shift Shared Governance Toward a More Agile Model

Institutions must establish mechanisms that allow for faster academic decision-making while still ensuring faculty input (Rosenberg, 2023).
Some universities are adopting “sunset clauses” on degree programs—if a program consistently underperforms, it is automatically reviewed and phased out unless faculty can justify its continuation.

Offer Faculty Pathways Into Growth Areas

Instead of cutting positions outright, institutions should create opportunities for tenured faculty to transition into interdisciplinary or applied programs (Rosenberg, 2023).
Possible opportunity: A liberal arts college retraining (or redesigning courses with) humanities faculty to teach digital communication, ethics in technology, and applied writing, preserving faculty expertise while modernizing curriculum.

Use Transparent, Data-Backed Decision-Making

Faculty are more likely to accept change when presented with objective, third-party financial and enrollment data.
Possible Opportunity: Institutions that use data-driven financial analysis tools like College Viability and Perspective Data Science would likely see+ greater faculty buy-in for program closures and restructuring efforts.

A System Built to Resist Change Must Adapt or Fail

Higher education institutions cannot afford to let faculty resistance dictate their futures. The traditional model of slow, incremental change no longer aligns with financial realities, workforce shifts, and student demand. As Rosenberg (2023) states, “If higher education remains stuck in a culture of self-preservation, we will simply see more institutions collapse.”

The universities that survive and thrive will be those that:
✅ Adapt shared governance models to allow for strategic agility.
✅ Restructure tenure policies to encourage cross-disciplinary teaching and applied learning.
✅ Use financial and enrollment data to guide program realignment and faculty hiring.

In an era of economic and enrollment challenges, faculty resistance is not just an obstacle to change—it is a direct threat to institutional survival.

The Enrollment Cliff and the Financial Sustainability Crisis

Higher education in the United States is facing a perfect storm—a shrinking college-age population, declining enrollments, and an unsustainable financial model. This is in addition to public distrust and a very unfavorable political climate. Institutions that fail to adapt to these combined pressures risk mass closures, mergers, or financial insolvency. The stark reality is that many colleges are still relying on outdated revenue models while the student pipeline continues to dry up.

The Data: Shrinking College-Age Population and the Impact on Enrollment

As has been well documented by Nathan Grawe, Professor of Economics at Carleton College and author of “Demographics and the Demand for Higher Education” and “The Agile College”, the college-age population is in steep decline, and the financial impact will be devastating for institutions that depend on traditional undergraduate enrollments.

The number of high school graduates will peak in 2025 at 3.9 million, after which a 15-year decline will follow, leading to a 13% drop in traditional college-aged students by 2041 (Knox, 2024; Grawe, 2018).
This decline will not be uniform across the U.S.:
- Western states are expected to see a 20% drop, while the Midwest and Northeast will face declines of 16% and 17%, respectively (Knox, 2024).
- The most severe reductions will occur in California (-29%), Illinois (-32%), and New York (-27%), putting extreme pressure on institutions in these regions (Knox, 2024, Grawe, 2018).
The demographic shift is a delayed aftershock of the Great Recession, during which birth rates plummeted due to economic uncertainty (Carey, 2022).

These changes are already visible:

Between 2011 and 2022, overall college enrollment declined by 12.3%, with undergraduate enrollment dropping by 1.23 million students compared to pre-pandemic levels (Drozdowski, 2024).
Community colleges—often a leading indicator of broader enrollment trends—saw a 13% decline in student numbers during this period (Drozdowski, 2024).
Many regional public universities and small private colleges, which rely on traditional college-age students, have already begun closing or merging to survive (Carey, 2022).

Which Institutions Are Most at Risk?

Not all institutions will feel the effects of the enrollment cliff equally. Highly selective universities and flagship public institutions are more insulated from these shifts due to their brand reputation, financial resources, and ability to attract students from across the country and internationally. However, regional public universities, tuition-dependent private colleges, and rural institutions are at severe risk because they rely heavily on in-state and local applicants (Knox, 2024).

The urban-rural divide will also play a significant role in determining institutional survival. Urban institutions are better positioned to adapt due to access to larger, more diverse student pools. Meanwhile, rural colleges—especially those without a strong niche or distinctive program offerings—may struggle to justify their continued operation (Carey, 2022).

Some states have started taking proactive measures to mitigate enrollment declines by investing in workforce-aligned higher education strategies.

North Carolina and Florida, which are projected to see modest population growth, are expanding workforce-driven education programs to attract students (Knox, 2024).
Conversely, New York and Illinois, facing double-digit enrollment losses, are scrambling to rethink their financial models, with many institutions exploring mergers, campus consolidations, and tuition-free community college initiatives (Knox, 2024).

The Financial Model of Higher Education is Crumbling

With fewer students enrolling, many tuition-driven colleges are finding their financial models increasingly unsustainable. Most institutions are still over-reliant on tuition revenue, which has become increasingly volatile as student numbers decline and families seek more affordable alternatives. At the same time, operational costs continue to rise, forcing institutions to either cut programs, increase tuition, or drastically discount tuition to attract students.

One of the biggest financial challenges facing institutions today is the increasing reliance on tuition discounting—a practice where colleges offer financial aid that dramatically reduces the actual tuition revenue they collect.

Private institutions now return an average of 56.2% of their tuition revenue in financial aid, meaning they are often losing more than half of what they charge in tuition (Drozdowski, 2024).
Some schools have surpassed 70% discount rates, which means they are essentially paying students to attend rather than generating meaningful revenue (National Student Clearinghouse, 2024). This is not a sustainable practice.

State funding cuts have further exacerbated the crisis. Public colleges and universities have seen a steady decline in state appropriations, forcing them to pass the financial burden onto students.

Since 2008, state appropriations for higher education have dropped by 9% nationwide (Carey, 2022).
As public funding declines, many institutions now rely on tuition and fees for over 60% of their revenue, leaving them highly vulnerable to enrollment fluctuations (Felix, 2023).

The Urgency of Financial Reform

Higher education is at a financial breaking point, and institutions that fail to make proactive financial adjustments will face closures, mergers, or drastic program eliminations. The traditional tuition-driven model is no longer sustainable, and colleges must realign their operations, optimize their budgets, and expand alternative revenue streams to remain viable.

While institutional leaders often express shock when a closure is announced, the unfortunate truth is that the warning signs are usually visible months, if not years, in advance. However, instead of making difficult but necessary financial decisions early, many colleges engage in flailing, last-ditch efforts—drastic tuition discounting, unsustainable borrowing, or emergency fundraising campaigns—that rarely change the institution’s long-term trajectory.

Data entrepreneurs like Gary Stocker, founder of College Viability, and Matthew Hendricks, founder of Perspective Data Science, have done the hard work of pulling financial audits, government reports, and other records to provide transparency into the financial realities of higher education institutions. Their AI-driven tools compile data from audited financial statements, IRS Form 990s, and the National Center for Education Statistics (IPEDS database) to help students, parents, faculty, and staff assess their institution’s financial health before a crisis occurs.

Through their weekly College Financial Health Show, Stocker and Hendricks analyze key financial indicators that predict long-term institutional viability—offering stakeholders the knowledge they need to make informed decisions before it’s too late. Their 2025 College Viability App, College Majors Completion App, and College Strategic Compass provide additional transparency, helping institutions move beyond short-term fixes toward sustainable financial planning.

Institutions that take bold, strategic steps—by diversifying funding, restructuring academic offerings, and improving fiscal management—will not only survive but thrive in the next decade. However, those that hesitate will find themselves on the growing list of college closures (Donadel, 2025).

The Growing List of Colleges Facing Financial Collapse

The financial instability of higher education is no longer hypothetical—it is playing out in real time, with an increasing number of institutions closing or merging due to financial insolvency. Below are just a few examples as noted by Donadel (2025).

Northland College (Wisconsin) – Closed in 2025 after operating at a deficit for eight years, despite drastic program cuts and faculty reductions.
West Virginia University (WVU) – Eliminated 32 programs and 169 faculty positions to address a $45 million budget shortfall (Knox, 2024).
Cornish College of the Arts (Washington) – Acquired by Seattle University in 2024 due to unsustainable operating costs.
Birmingham-Southern College (Alabama) – Closed in 2024 after failing to secure a $40 million emergency loan from the state.
California State University Maritime Academy – Merged with Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, marking a major downsizing of the CSU system.

The common thread among these closures? An inability to adjust their financial models to accommodate changing student demographics and market realities.

The Rise of Adult Learners and Barriers to Re-Enrollment

While traditional college enrollments are declining, a new potential student population is growing—adults with some college experience but no credential. As of 2024, 41.9 million working-age adults in the U.S. fall into this category, a 3.6% increase from the previous year (National Student Clearinghouse, 2024). Of these, 36.8 million are between the ages of 18 and 64, making up nearly 18.1% of the total working-age population (National Student Clearinghouse, 2024). These individuals represent a significant opportunity for institutions, yet reaching and retaining them is an ongoing challenge.

Barriers to Re-Enrollment and Retention

Financial Constraints – Many adult learners have existing student debt or financial obligations that prevent them from returning to school (Weissman, 2023).
Solution: Schools can offer debt forgiveness programs, tuition discounts for returning students, innovative payment plans (such as subscription based tuition), and employer tuition benefits.
Institutional Roadblocks – Many colleges are not designed for working adults, with inflexible schedules, lack of appropriate student services, and poor transfer credit policies and/or processes (Weissman, 2023).
Solution: Institutions must implement smooth transfer pathways, including automated credit evaluations, guaranteed transfer agreements, and clear certificate-to-degree (or even microcredential-to-degree) pathways.
Competing Responsibilities – Adult learners often juggle work, childcare, and family obligations (National Student Clearinghouse, 2024).
Solution: Colleges should provide evening, weekend, and fully online options, stackable credentials, and wraparound student support services (e.g., childcare assistance and career coaching).

How Institutions Can Achieve Financial Sustainability

As higher education faces mounting financial pressures, institutions can no longer rely on outdated revenue models or assume that traditional enrollments will rebound. Colleges and universities must take proactive steps to ensure their long-term viability by embracing strategic realignment, financial efficiency, and diversified revenue streams. This requires institutions to rethink how they generate income, control costs, and design academic programs that align with workforce needs and future economic trends. Successful institutions will not simply react to financial crises but will anticipate and adapt to market demands before they reach a breaking point. The following strategies provide a framework for achieving financial sustainability in an increasingly volatile higher education landscape:

Diversify Revenue Streams Beyond Tuition
Institutions must move beyond tuition as their primary funding source by expanding corporate partnerships, non-degree credentialing, and revenue-generating initiatives (Felix, 2023).
Implement Performance-Based Budgeting & Cost Control Measures
Colleges should prioritize zero-based budgeting, (carefully) reduce administrative overhead, and align funding with student demand and institutional performance
Realign Academic Offerings to Market Demand
Universities must prioritize high-demand degree programs while phasing out low-enrollment, low-ROI programs that no longer serve student or workforce needs (Knox, 2024).
Develop (or enhance current programs to be) Future-Protected Academic Programs
Schools should anticipate workforce trends, offering programs that integrate skills such as AI literacy, data science, and interdisciplinary learning to ensure students graduate with adaptable skills (Carey, 2022).
Strengthen Endowments & Fundraising Efforts
Universities need to expand alumni giving campaigns, corporate research collaborations, and grant-seeking efforts to secure financial sustainability (Weissman, 2023).

A Call for Proactive Leadership

Implementing financial sustainability strategies is only the first step. To truly ensure the long-term viability of higher education, institutional leaders must go beyond cost-cutting and program realignment—they must embrace bold, forward-thinking leadership that prioritizes agility, innovation, and long-term investment. The institutions that will thrive in the coming decade are not just those that reduce expenses but those that reimagine their academic models, strengthen their competitive positioning, and proactively shape the future of higher education.

Without decisive action, institutions risk falling into a cycle of reactive decision-making, where financial pressures force abrupt program eliminations and faculty reductions. Instead, leaders must anticipate shifts in student demand and labor market needs, ensuring their programs remain relevant, sustainable, and academically rigorous. A critical part of this process involves evaluating which majors remain viable and which are no longer sustainable.

Which Majors Are Failing? The Hard Numbers

As institutions struggle with declining enrollment and financial instability, certain academic programs are disproportionately at risk. While universities may hope for a resurgence of interest in traditional fields, the reality is that some programs consistently fail to attract students and yield poor employment outcomes.

The Key Warning Signs of At-Risk Programs

Programs that are most vulnerable to elimination typically share the following characteristics:

✅ Sustained low enrollment—Programs that have struggled to attract students for five or more consecutive years show no signs of revival.
✅ Weak career outcomes—Graduates from these programs struggle to find employment in their field or secure competitive salaries.
✅ High operating costs with low return on investment—Disciplines that require expensive lab space, equipment, or faculty resources but serve only a handful of students become financial liabilities.

Programs at the Highest Risk of Elimination

The following disciplines have been particularly vulnerable to cuts as institutions reassess their academic portfolios:

Traditional Humanities (e.g., English, History, Philosophy) unless integrated with career-relevant applications (Cassuto, 2025).
Low-Demand Sciences (e.g., Pure Physics, General Biology without a pre-health focus) (Felix, 2025).
Standalone Social Sciences that do not incorporate data analytics or applied research (Drozdowski, 2024).
Niche Arts Programs without clear career pathways or industry-aligned training (Knox, 2024).

Universities That Have Already Eliminated or Restructured Programs

In response to financial constraints and enrollment trends, many institutions have already begun phasing out or restructuring struggling majors. Here are just a few examples:

Alverno College – Cutt 25 full-time faculty, 12 full-time staff, and reduced undergraduate majors from 43 to 29 and graduate programs from 25 to 19 (Lederman, 2024).
Indiana State University—Eliminated Physics and Philosophy while maintaining select interdisciplinary courses (Felix, 2025).
University of Lynchburg – Cut 12 undergraduate and 5 graduate programs plus expect to cut staff and faculty positions over the next 3 years. (Moody, 2024)
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point—Cut 13 majors, including English, History, and Political Science, following multi-year enrollment declines (Knox, 2024).
West Virginia University—Cut foreign languages, math graduate programs, and creative writing in response to budget deficits (Donadel, 2025).

Alternative Strategies: Reinventing Instead of Eliminating

Rather than outright elimination, some universities have successfully revitalized struggling disciplines by integrating them into broader interdisciplinary models that better align with workforce needs. By merging traditional academic strengths with high-demand skills, institutions can preserve the core values of these disciplines while making them more relevant and marketable for today’s students. Below are examples of how struggling majors can be reimagined to meet modern demands:

Philosophy → Ethics & AI Studies (Felix, 2025)
As artificial intelligence continues to transform industries, there is an increasing demand for professionals who can navigate the ethical implications of emerging technologies. A reimagined Philosophy program could offer courses in data ethics, algorithmic bias, and the philosophy of consciousness in AI systems.
Example Assignment: Students might engage in case study analysis of ethical dilemmas in AI, evaluating controversial issues such as facial recognition bias, predictive policing, or automated hiring systems. This would blend critical thinking, applied ethics, and emerging technology, preparing graduates for roles in policy, AI governance, or corporate ethics consulting.

English → UX Writing & Digital Media (Cassuto, 2025)
The rise of digital communication has created a growing need for professionals who specialize in UX (user experience) writing, content strategy, and multimedia storytelling. English departments can evolve by integrating digital communication, web accessibility, and data-driven storytelling techniques into their curriculum.
Example Project: Students might collaborate with computer science and marketing majors to develop a prototype for an interactive mobile app, where they craft user-friendly content, refine interface text for clarity, and conduct usability testing. This would combine traditional writing skills with modern digital communication strategies, making graduates highly competitive in tech-driven industries.

Sociology → Data Science for Social Change (Drozdowski, 2024)
The ability to analyze and interpret large-scale social data is increasingly valuable across fields like public policy, market research, and urban planning. A redesigned Sociology major could incorporate quantitative research, data visualization, and predictive analytics to better align with workforce demands.
Example Exercise: Students could partner with a nonprofit organization to analyze local census data and develop data-driven policy recommendations on affordable housing or economic mobility initiatives. This hands-on project would bridge social theory, data science, and public advocacy, preparing graduates for impactful careers in data-driven decision-making.

History → Digital Public History & Archival Technology
Traditional history programs often struggle to attract students, but by embracing digital archives, public history initiatives, and interactive media, history departments can create more engaging and relevant degree programs.
Example Assignment: Students could develop an augmented reality (AR) walking tour of a historic district, blending historical research with multimedia production. Working with local museums or historical societies, they would learn how to digitize archival records, create interactive digital exhibits, and use GIS mapping to visualize historical trends. This approach merges traditional historical scholarship with emerging technologies, broadening career pathways for graduates in digital humanities, museum curation, and historical consulting.

Political Science → Cybersecurity Policy & Digital Governance
With cyber threats and digital privacy issues dominating global discourse, political science programs can expand into cybersecurity law, data privacy regulations, and digital governance frameworks.
Example Capstone Project: Students might conduct a simulated policy debate on internet regulation, with teams representing different stakeholders—governments, tech companies, advocacy groups, and consumers. They would draft policy proposals addressing online misinformation, cybersecurity threats, or ethical AI governance, applying political theory to contemporary digital challenges.

Beyond Enrollment Challenges: The Erosion of Public Trust

Even as institutions grapple with shrinking student pipelines and financial pressures, another existential threat looms: declining public confidence in higher education. Across the country, skepticism about the value of a degree is intensifying, fueled by rising tuition costs, mounting student debt, and stagnant wages for many graduates. This shifting perception is reshaping student decision-making and forcing institutions to rethink their value proposition.

Declining Public Trust & Changing Student Preferences

Higher education in the United States is facing not just a demographic crisis, but also an erosion of public trust. A Pew Research Center report found that 51% of adults aged 18 to 29 believe that colleges and universities have a negative impact on the country, while 59% argue that four-year colleges do not provide good value for the money (Sanders, 2023). The perception of college as a high-cost, low-return investment is rising, fueled by soaring tuition prices, student loan debt, and stagnant wages for many degree holders (Weissman, 2023).

The Shift from a Universal Good to a Questionable Investment

For much of the 20th and early 21st century, higher education was seen as a gateway to upward mobility. A college degree was once considered an essential stepping stone to financial stability and professional success. However, in recent years, this perception has shifted dramatically:

In 2015, over 70% of Americans believed a college degree was worth the cost—by 2023, that number had dropped below 50% (Knox, 2024).
A third of Americans now believe that college degrees are unnecessary for career success, particularly as alternative education pathways become more widely available (Drozdowski, 2024).
Millennials and Gen Z students are the most skeptical generations in modern history regarding higher education’s value (Felix, 2025).

This skepticism is not without reason. Tuition has increased by 211% since 1980, yet real wages for many degree holders have remained stagnant (Weissman, 2023). Additionally, student loan debt in the U.S. has surpassed $1.7 trillion, with many borrowers struggling to make payments due to underemployment or low post-graduation salaries (National Student Clearinghouse, 2024).

Rising Costs, Declining ROI, and Economic Uncertainty

One of the biggest drivers of public distrust in higher education is the disconnect between the rising cost of college and the economic realities that graduates face:

The average cost of a four-year degree at a public institution is now over $100,000, while private institutions often exceed $250,000 (Knox, 2024).
The median salary for recent college graduates is only $55,000, leaving many struggling to justify the cost of their degree (National Student Clearinghouse, 2024).
44% of recent college graduates are in jobs that do not require a degree, a figure that has risen steadily over the past decade (Drozdowski, 2024).
While fields like engineering, healthcare, and technology continue to offer strong financial returns, many humanities and liberal arts graduates struggle to find high-paying positions (Felix, 2025).

This imbalance has led students and families to rethink traditional degree pathways in favor of more cost-effective, career-focused education options.

The Rise of Alternative Credentials and Workforce-Driven Education

As skepticism toward traditional higher education grows, millions of students are turning to alternative education models that provide faster, cheaper, and more targeted career preparation. These non-traditional pathways are reshaping the education-to-career pipeline, offering job-aligned skills without the high cost and time commitment of a four-year degree.

The Decline of Traditional Degree Enrollment and the Shift to Alternative Credentials

Over the past decade, U.S. undergraduate enrollment has seen a significant decline, with nearly three million fewer students enrolling in traditional degree programs between 2010 and 2023 (National Student Clearinghouse, 2024). As student interest in four-year degrees has waned, there has been a dramatic rise in skills-based training programs, coding boot camps, and apprenticeship models, which have surged by 150% since 2018 (Weissman, 2023). This shift signals a fundamental change in how individuals approach education and career preparation.

Today’s job seekers are increasingly prioritizing shorter, more targeted learning pathways that allow them to quickly gain industry-relevant skills. More than 60% of job seekers now favor skills-based certifications over traditional degrees when considering career advancement (Felix, 2025). This preference reflects a growing awareness that many employers are placing greater value on practical skills, industry credentials, and demonstrated competencies rather than academic degrees alone.

This movement is largely driven by changing workforce expectations and the rapid adoption of skills-based hiring among major employers. As companies shift their focus toward competency-based hiring, traditional higher education institutions must adapt or risk becoming increasingly irrelevant in the evolving job market. The decline of degree enrollment and the rise of alternative credentials is not just a trend—it is a paradigm shift that higher education must address head-on.

The Acceleration of Skills-Based Hiring

One of the most significant shifts in the labor market is the increasing adoption of skills-based hiring practices over degree-based qualifications.

Google, IBM, Apple, Tesla, and other major corporations have eliminated degree requirements for many high-paying jobs, instead prioritizing experience, technical proficiency, and job-specific credentials (Sanders, 2023).
A 2023 survey of HR executives found that only 51% believed a four-year degree was essential for hiring, down from 72% in 2017 (Felix, 2025).
Competency-based education (CBE) is rapidly expanding, allowing students to demonstrate mastery of specific skills rather than earning set credit hours (Drozdowski, 2024).

These changes signal a massive shift in how credentials are valued in the labor market, further weakening the appeal of expensive four-year degrees.

Workforce Demand and Alternatives to Traditional Degrees

Many adult learners do not need a full degree and instead seek short-term credentials that align directly with workforce demands. As employers shift toward experience-based hiring, colleges and universities are expanding their alternative credential offerings to remain competitive.

Microcredentials and stackable certificates allow learners to earn job-aligned skills quickly (Felix, 2025).
State and employer partnerships are funding tuition-free training programs in high-demand fields such as cybersecurity, healthcare, and data science (Weissman, 2023).

As the labor market continues to evolve, higher education institutions that fail to integrate workforce-driven education models will struggle to attract and retain students. Institutions that embrace alternative credentials, skills-based education, and employer partnerships will be far better positioned to meet the needs of modern learners and maintain enrollment stability.

How Higher Education Can Restore Public Trust

As public skepticism grows, institutions must take active steps to rebuild confidence in the value of a college degree. This means shifting from one-size-fits-all degrees to more personalized, workforce-aligned education options.

Emphasizing Affordability and Transparency

Colleges must provide clear cost-benefit analyses for students, offering data on expected salaries, employment rates, and debt loads per major (Felix, 2023).
Tuition-free associate degrees and employer-sponsored training programs should be expanded to increase accessibility (Knox, 2024).

Integrating Workforce-Based Learning

Institutions should embed internships, apprenticeships, and real-world experiences into degree programs to increase graduate employability (Carey, 2022).
Co-branded degree programs with employers, where students graduate with both a diploma and industry-recognized certifications, are gaining traction (Sanders, 2023).

Creating Shorter, More Flexible Learning Pathways

Stackable credentials allow students to earn qualifications progressively rather than committing to a four-year program upfront (Drozdowski, 2024).
On-demand learning modules should be developed so students can train for specific skills without enrolling in full degree programs (National Student Clearinghouse, 2024).

Traditional vs. Market-Responsive Thinking

Many institutions cling to outdated academic models, believing that declining enrollment in certain disciplines will eventually rebound if given enough time. This mindset assumes that historical patterns of demand will return, failing to recognize that the higher education landscape is permanently shifting. As Higher Education Doesn’t Need Resilience, It Needs Reinvention argues, the sector cannot rely on resilience alone—colleges must fundamentally rethink how they deliver education and what programs they offer to align with student and workforce needs (Spiva, 2025).

The Flaws in Higher Education’s Assumptions About Academic Programs

Many institutions continue to operate under outdated assumptions about academic programs, believing that declining majors will eventually rebound, faculty expertise will always align with workforce needs, and that their institutional missions can remain unchanged despite shifting student priorities. These assumptions, however, often lead to financial instability, declining enrollments, and missed opportunities to adapt.

One common misconception is the belief that certain majors will experience a cyclical rebound. Colleges frequently resist eliminating underperforming programs, assuming that student interest will naturally return over time (Felix, 2025). However, long-term enrollment data suggests otherwise. Programs such as foreign languages, pure humanities, and some social sciences have seen multi-decade declines with no signs of significant recovery (Knox, 2024). While these disciplines remain valuable, they often struggle to attract enough students to justify their continued existence in their current forms. Institutions that fail to recognize this reality risk maintaining programs that are no longer financially viable or relevant to student career prospects.

Another major challenge is the misalignment between faculty expertise and workforce needs. Faculty members often build their careers around knowledge areas shaped by their graduate education, which may no longer reflect modern industry demands. Meanwhile, labor markets evolve rapidly, and academic curricula often struggle to keep pace. For example, political science programs remain structured around traditional government and policy analysis, while fields like public administration, data-driven governance, and international security studies have surged in employer demand (Felix, 2025). Without intentional realignment, institutions risk producing graduates whose skills do not match workforce expectations, making it harder for them to secure meaningful employment.

Finally, many colleges prioritize preserving their institutional mission over adapting to student expectations. While history, tradition, and academic integrity are important, they must be balanced with the realities of a changing educational landscape. Some institutions remain committed to offering standalone philosophy and history degrees, even as student interest in these majors declines. A small liberal arts college, for example, may take pride in its classical humanities programs, yet without integrating them into interdisciplinary or applied studies, the institution risks declining enrollments and financial vulnerability (Anderson, 2023). Schools that fail to evolve may soon find that preserving their traditions comes at the cost of their long-term survival.

Recognizing these challenges is the first step toward ensuring that academic offerings remain sustainable and relevant. Institutions must take a proactive approach to assessing program viability, aligning faculty expertise with labor market needs, and adapting their missions to meet the expectations of today’s students.

Successful Models of Market-Responsive Thinking

Some institutions have successfully shifted to a market-responsive academic model, integrating employer needs, interdisciplinary education, and flexible degree pathways.

Georgia State University: Uses real-time labor analytics to inform academic realignment efforts, ensuring majors align with economic trends (The Change Leader, Inc., 2025).
Arizona State University: Pioneered adaptive learning technologies and online education expansion to meet student demand for flexible, skills-based degrees (Knox, 2024).
Purdue University Global: Integrated high-demand technical and applied learning pathways into traditional degree offerings, increasing student retention and employability (Drozdowski, 2024).

The Myth of “We Just Need Better Marketing”

Many institutions, rather than making meaningful changes to their academic programs, attempt to solve enrollment declines through marketing and rebranding efforts. This often results in cosmetic adjustments that do little to address underlying structural issues. English departments, for example, might emphasize digital literacy or writing for modern audiences, yet if the core curriculum remains unchanged, these efforts rarely translate into sustained enrollment growth (Cassuto, 2025). Students and employers alike can see through surface-level changes, and without substantive programmatic updates, interest in these degrees will continue to decline.

One of the most common misconceptions is that a short-term boost in enrollment signals long-term program viability. Some universities have rebranded programs to appear more relevant, but without curriculum updates, these efforts only generate temporary spikes in interest (Rosenberg, 2023). A small liberal arts college, for example, rebranded its History major as “Applied History” to attract more students. However, because the coursework itself remained unchanged, students quickly recognized the lack of career integration. Without meaningful connections to workforce skills, experiential learning, or interdisciplinary opportunities, enrollment continued to decline (Anderson, 2023).

Another flawed assumption is that employers prioritize program names over actual skills. While a department may rename a major to sound more modern, hiring managers are less concerned with a degree title and more focused on the skills and experiences graduates bring to the table. A traditional English degree marketed as “Writing in the Digital Age” may sound appealing, but unless the program incorporates practical experiences in UX writing, content strategy, or digital marketing, students will struggle to compete for jobs in those fields (Knox, 2024). Employers increasingly seek graduates with demonstrated experience, not just credentials that sound relevant.

Institutions that successfully reinvigorate their programs do so by making substantive curricular changes rather than relying on superficial branding. The University of Utah, for instance, transformed its Film Studies program into a Digital Media Arts major, integrating coursework in game design, animation, and interactive storytelling. By expanding career-aligned pathways, the program saw a significant increase in enrollments (Drozdowski, 2024). Similarly, Northeastern University pioneered a co-op-based learning model, embedding hands-on work experiences into degree programs. This approach not only improved student employability but also boosted enrollment, as students saw a direct connection between their coursework and career opportunities.

**Marketing alone is not enough—**successful institutions realign their academic programs to ensure relevance, adaptability, and workforce preparation. The schools that thrive will be those that commit to curricular innovation, industry alignment, and experiential learning, rather than relying on rebranding efforts that fail to address deeper enrollment and employment concerns.

The Future of Higher Education: Adapt or Decline

If higher education institutions fail to address shifting student expectations and workforce demands, they risk further declining enrollments, financial instability, and irrelevance. Institutions that embrace alternative credentials, workforce partnerships, and affordability-driven reforms will maintain student interest and public trust. Those that cling to outdated models will continue to see skepticism rise and enrollments fall (Knox, 2024).

Higher education is at a crossroads. The question is no longer whether change is coming—it’s whether institutions will lead that change or be left behind.

A Tale of Two Institutions: Leadership That Saves vs. Leadership That Delays

Higher education faces a moment of reckoning, and the difference between survival and closure often comes down to leadership willing to make bold, proactive decisions versus those who wait until it’s too late. Two institutions—Unity Environmental University and Northland College—both small, environmentally focused colleges, illustrate this divide.

One institution reinvented itself before financial collapse, while the other delayed action until no options remained. Their contrasting trajectories provide a case study in the power of decisive leadership.

Unity Environmental University: Proactive Innovation

Facing severe financial instability and declining enrollment, Unity Environmental University (formerly Unity College) had a choice: continue trying to revive a struggling residential model or boldly pivot to a more sustainable and scalable structure. Under the leadership of Dr. Melik Peter Khoury, Unity chose reinvention over stagnation, transforming from a traditional campus-based institution into a national leader in online and hybrid environmental education (Pillar, 2025).

Key Strategies That Led to Unity’s Success:
✅ Shifted away from a traditional residential model, transitioning to hybrid and distance learning, which expanded student access beyond a fixed geographic region (Khoury, 2023).
✅ Reorganized academic programs into Sustainable Educational Business Units (SEBUs), allowing for financially independent program management to reduce inefficiencies (Pillar, 2025).
✅ Eliminated excessive tuition discounting in favor of a simplified, transparent pricing structure that made education more affordable and scalable.
✅ Saw enrollment surge from 800 to over 7,000 students, proving that institutions willing to innovate aggressively can reverse their trajectory (Khoury, 2023).

Unity’s transformation was not without resistance—faculty and alumni expressed concerns over losing the institution’s historic identity. Yet, as Unity’s enrollment and financial health rebounded, it became a model for adaptive leadership in higher education (Pillar, 2025).

Unity’s approach demonstrates that proactive leadership means making difficult choices before financial instability forces them. By redesigning its academic model, embracing modern delivery methods, and expanding access to a wider pool of learners, Unity not only survived but thrived.

Northland College: The Cost of Delayed Action

Northland College, another environmentally focused institution, faced similar financial challenges but took a very different approach. Instead of radical restructuring, Northland engaged in years of temporary fixes and emergency measures—an approach that ultimately proved unsustainable.

Key Factors That Led to Northland’s Closure in 2025:
❌ Operated at a deficit for nearly a decade, relying on emergency fundraising rather than structural financial reform (Moody, 2025).
❌ Failed to pivot to a sustainable business model—while Unity pivoted to online and hybrid education, Northland tried to preserve a traditional residential model that was no longer viable (Meyerhofer, 2025).
❌ Attempted a last-minute downsizing strategy, planning to reduce its budget by $7 million, but these changes came too late to stabilize the institution (Unglesbee, 2024).
❌ Lacked alignment between leadership and faculty, leading to internal disputes about whether to double down on environmental studies or broaden academic offerings (Meyerhofer, 2025).
❌ Struggled with student retention, as uncertainty about the institution’s future pushed students to transfer elsewhere, accelerating its decline (Moody, 2025).

Despite these challenges, Northland had opportunities to reinvent itself. At various points, the institution considered reducing its residential footprint, forming strategic partnerships, and diversifying its academic offerings. However, faculty, leadership, and trustees struggled to align on a vision, leading to delayed decision-making and reactive leadership (Unglesbee, 2024).

The Leadership Lesson: Change Must Be Proactive, Not Reactive

The difference between Unity and Northland wasn’t just their missions—it was their leadership approach. Unity made bold, proactive decisions before financial instability forced its hand, while Northland delayed action until there were no viable options left. This contrast illustrates a stark reality: colleges and universities that fail to adapt in time will not survive. Institutions that allow faculty resistance, governance inertia, or nostalgia for outdated models to dictate decision-making will find themselves struggling to remain relevant. The traditional model of slow, incremental change no longer aligns with financial realities, workforce shifts, and evolving student demands. As Rosenberg (2023) states, “If higher education remains stuck in a culture of self-preservation, we will simply see more institutions collapse.”

The universities that will thrive in this new era are those that take decisive action to restructure their governance models, modernize faculty roles, and align programs with economic and workforce trends. They will be the ones that:
✅ Adapt shared governance models to allow for strategic agility.
✅ Restructure tenure policies to encourage cross-disciplinary teaching and applied learning.
✅ Use financial and enrollment data to guide program realignment and faculty hiring.

In an era of economic and enrollment challenges, faculty resistance is not just an obstacle to change—it is a direct threat to institutional survival. Institutions that fail to modernize will face continued enrollment declines, financial shortfalls, and, ultimately, closure.

From Reactive Crisis Management to Strategic Policy Reform

While institutional leadership plays a crucial role in shaping a college’s future, broader policy changes at the state and federal levels are also necessary to ensure higher education remains sustainable. Colleges cannot make these changes alone—policymakers must enact structural reforms that support workforce-aligned education models, streamline credit transfer systems, and expand funding for non-traditional learners. Without these interventions, even the most innovative institutions will struggle to maintain enrollment and financial stability.

To support higher education’s transformation, the following policy recommendations can help institutions remain viable while expanding opportunities for students:

Expand Pell Grant eligibility for short-term credentials to ensure non-traditional students—especially adult learners—have access to affordable workforce training programs.
Create state and federal incentives for employer-university partnerships to drive enrollment in programs that directly align with industry needs.
Develop a national credit transfer system to remove barriers for adult learners and ensure that previously earned credits apply to degree and credential programs (Weissman, 2023).

Colleges and universities that embrace these changes will be better positioned to attract and retain students, respond to workforce demands, and remain financially sustainable. Those that fail to act will find themselves increasingly marginalized in a higher education landscape that is rapidly evolving.

Final Thoughts

The Need for Bold Leadership

The future of higher education will be determined by bold, strategic decision-making. Institutions must move beyond sentimental attachments to outdated programs and make data-driven choices about which degrees to phase out and which to reinvent. Colleges that act proactively can reinvest in growth areas, ensuring long-term viability and student success. Those that fail to do so will eventually face closures dictated by financial crises rather than proactive leadership.

Leadership must be proactive, not reactive. The difference between institutions that thrive and those that collapse is often the willingness to act before financial instability becomes irreversible. While some programs should be eliminated, many have the potential for reinvention—but these choices must be made before an institution’s future is no longer in its own hands.

What’s Next? From Elimination to Transformation

Not every struggling major needs to disappear. The real challenge for higher education is not just determining which programs to cut, but identifying which can be redesigned for the future. Institutions that take an innovative, interdisciplinary approach can turn underperforming programs into high-impact, workforce-aligned degrees.

🔹 How can colleges transform struggling programs into future-proof, interdisciplinary degrees that attract students and employers alike?
🔹 What role does collaboration between academic disciplines, industry partners, and technological advancements play in revitalizing programs?
🔹 How can institutions strike a balance between market-driven program redesign and their broader educational mission?

In Part 2 of this series, we’ll explore how struggling majors can be restructured into dynamic, future-focused programs that meet both student expectations and workforce needs. This is not just about survival—it’s about creating the next generation of high-impact academic programs.

The future of higher education will belong to institutions willing to reimagine, reinvent, and lead.

References

Anderson, J. (Host). (2023, November 9). Higher Education’s Resistance to Change [Audio podcast episode]. In Harvard EdCast. Harvard Graduate School of

Cassuto, L. (2025). The future of the humanities: Adapting to an evolving higher education landscape. Chronicle of Higher Education.

Carey, K. (2022). The great enrollment crash: How demographics are reshaping higher education. Higher Ed Policy Review, 32(4), 15-28.

Donadel, M. (2025). Higher education closures: The financial and demographic realities facing small colleges. Higher Ed Dive.

Drozdowski, M. (2024). The enrollment crisis: Understanding the decline in U.S. college students. National Center for Higher Education Analytics.

Felix, J. (2023). The changing role of social sciences in a data-driven world. Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 41(2), 78-92.

Khoury, M. P. (2023). An Uncommon Success Story: Unity Environmental University, President and CEO, Dr. Melik Khoury. (2023, September 26). InGenioUs Podcast. Retrieved from YouTube.

Knox, T. (2024). Demographic decline and higher education: Strategies for adapting to a shrinking student pool. American Journal of Higher Education Policy, 48(1), 12-29.

Lederman, D. (2024, June 17). Alverno declares financial exigency; will cut programs and jobs. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/06/17/alverno-declares-financial-exigency-will-cut-programs-and-jobs

Meyerhofer, K. (2025). Northland College’s last stand: What went wrong? Wisconsin Public Radio.

Moody, J. (2025). When small colleges collapse: The slow-motion crises behind institutional closures. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Moody, J. (2024, June 7). A rough month for campus cuts. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/business/cost-cutting/2024/06/07/rough-month-campus-cuts

National Student Clearinghouse. (2024). Some college, no credential: A growing population in need of degree completion pathways. Washington, D.C.: National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.

OpenAI’s DALL-E. (2025). Conceptual illustration of Stop resuscitating dead programs – Why some programs need to die for higher ed to thrive. [AI-generated image]. Retrieved from https://labs.openai.com

Pillar, G. (2025). Leading change in higher education: A case study on Unity Environmental University’s bold approach to modern learning. Innovative Higher Education Professional.

Rosenberg, B. (2023). Whatever it is, I’m against it: Resistance to change in higher education. Harvard University Press.

Sanders, K. (2023). Shifting perceptions of higher education: The growing debate on value and ROI. Pew Research Center.

Spiva, M. (2025). Higher education doesn’t need resilience—it needs reinvention. Journal of Higher Education Transformation, 52(1), 21-38.

Stocker, G., & Hendricks, M. (2025). College financial health and viability: A data-driven approach to assessing institutional sustainability. Perspective Data Science.

The Change Leader, Inc. (2025). Academic realignment and organizational redesign: Strategies for financially sustainable higher education institutions.

Unglesbee, B. (2024). After a brush with closure, Northland College unveils plan to downsize—but is it too late? Higher Ed Dive.

Weissman, S. (2023). Re-envisioning financial aid and policy for today’s college students. Higher Education Policy Journal, 47(2), 34-50.

West Virginia University. (2024). WVU’s academic transformation: Navigating budget cuts and program closures. Morgantown, WV: WVU Press.

Beyond the Tenure Track: How Generative Mentoring of Adjunct Faculty and Department Chairs Enhances Institutional Quality and Student Success

gregpillar on March 1, 2025

In higher education, mentorship is often regarded as a fundamental component of faculty development. However, traditional mentorship models tend to prioritize tenure-track faculty while neglecting adjunct instructors and department chairs. These two groups play crucial roles in institutional success but often lack the structural support necessary for professional growth.

Furthermore, traditional mentor-mentee models are often inconsistent and may not include structured check-ins or points of reflection on how well the relationship is progressing. Many of these mentoring arrangements, while well-intentioned, tend to fizzle out over time without a sustained framework to ensure longevity and effectiveness. This is not to say that successful mentorships do not exist—many flourish—but the inconsistency in traditional models presents a challenge that institutions must address.

Drawing on concepts from Hope Circuits (Riddell, 2024), this article explores how mentorship can be reframed as generativity, focusing on sustaining faculty development through systemic mentorship structures. By incorporating mentorship constellations (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023) and reverse mentoring (O’Connor et al., 2025), institutions can create faculty support systems that enhance professional resilience, institutional belonging, and student success. These models provide a structured framework that ensures persistent and consistent mentoring relationships, preventing mentorships from fading over time due to lack of structure or engagement.

The Institutional Gaps in Faculty Mentorship

The Problem with Faculty Development Models

Faculty development programs often cater primarily to tenure-track faculty, with adjunct instructors and department chairs receiving little to no structured support (Pillar, 2025; Faculty Focus, 2024; Pearson & Kirby, 2018). Without dedicated mentorship, these groups struggle to navigate institutional expectations, contributing to burnout and disengagement (Cain et al., 2024; Zarrow, 2013).

At smaller institutions, department chairs juggle administrative, instructional, and leadership responsibilities, yet many receive no formal training in mentorship or institutional leadership (Pillar, 2025). Similarly, adjunct faculty, despite comprising nearly 50% of the academic workforce (AFT, 2022), often find themselves excluded from professional development initiatives (Gibson & O’Keefe, 2019). Addressing these disparities is critical for fostering institutional effectiveness and faculty retention.

Moreover, many traditional mentorship programs lack formal structures for ongoing evaluation and reflection, leading to relationships that gradually diminish in effectiveness. Without regular touchpoints, mentor-mentee relationships can drift apart, leaving mentees without continued guidance and mentors disengaged. Reverse mentoring and mentoring constellations provide structured avenues to embed accountability and sustained engagement into mentorship programs. By fostering mentorship as a continuous cycle of learning and growth, these models help maintain active and meaningful relationships rather than allowing them to fade over time.

The Overlooked Needs of Adjunct Faculty

Adjunct instructors play a significant role in student learning but often lack job security, access to resources, and inclusion in governance structures (Pillar, 2025). Studies show that institutions that integrate adjuncts into structured mentorship networks report improved faculty engagement, instructional effectiveness, and student outcomes (Pillar, 2025).

One approach to addressing these issues is mentorship constellations, in which adjuncts have access to multiple mentors who provide guidance in teaching, career advancement, and institutional navigation (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023). Such models foster a sense of belonging and professional identity, countering the isolation many adjuncts experience. Additionally, research highlights the need for institutions to systematically integrate adjunct faculty into institutional governance and leadership pathways (Pillar, 2025). Ensuring that adjuncts have access to career progression through mentorship programs enhances their engagement and retention (Defining Mentoring, Elon University, 2024).

For adjuncts teaching online—particularly those who are fully remote and physically distant from their institution—mentorship becomes even more critical. Studies indicate that online adjunct faculty often feel isolated and disconnected from institutional culture, which impacts their effectiveness and retention (Pearson & Kirby, 2018; Puzziferro-Schnitzer & Kissinger, 2005). Strong mentoring programs tailored for online adjuncts, such as virtual mentoring models and structured peer networks, provide a way to mitigate this isolation while enhancing teaching quality (Puzziferro-Schnitzer & Kissinger, 2005). Programs that include ongoing, interactive professional development and structured mentorship relationships have demonstrated success in retaining online adjuncts and improving student outcomes (Pearson & Kirby, 2018a).

Riddell’s Hope Circuits (2024) provides a framework for enhancing adjunct mentoring by emphasizing systemic support structures that foster continuous engagement, professional identity formation, and institutional belonging. By integrating trauma-informed mentoring practices and emphasizing long-term faculty resilience, institutions can create sustainable, meaningful mentorship experiences for adjunct faculty regardless of their instructional modality.

The Hidden Labor of Department Chairs

Department chairs often serve as institutional linchpins, balancing faculty needs, administrative directives, and student concerns. Yet, their role is frequently under-supported, and, due to lack of guidance, mentoring, and/or training, a significant period of time may pass where chairs find themselves working harder, not smarter. Many chairs do not immediately recognize the operational efficiencies and collaboration opportunities available to them, which could streamline their workload and enhance their effectiveness (Pillar, 2025). Without clear mentorship structures, new chairs may struggle with unnecessary burdens, leading to stress and inefficiency.

Institutions must rethink how they support department chairs as both mentees and mentors. Reverse mentoring—where chairs learn from adjuncts and early-career faculty—can foster a collaborative culture and ensure chairs remain attuned to faculty and student needs (O’Connor et al., 2025; Cain et al., 2024). Reverse mentoring has also been shown to break down traditional hierarchies in academia and foster institutional learning at multiple levels (Seeing Behind the Curtain, Cain et al., 2024). Additionally, mentorship constellations can be particularly effective in providing guidance for chairs, especially in institutions where experienced faculty members have successfully navigated the role before (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023). By establishing structured mentoring networks where former chairs provide insights into administrative efficiencies and leadership strategies, institutions can better equip new department heads for success.

Riddell’s Hope Circuits (2024) offers a model for fostering resilient leadership through structured mentorship. By integrating systems of peer learning, guided reflection, and institutional knowledge-sharing, department chairs can transition more smoothly into leadership roles while maintaining their effectiveness as both administrators and mentors to faculty. Institutions that intentionally cultivate mentorship ecosystems for department chairs will ultimately strengthen faculty governance, improve leadership sustainability, and create a culture of collaborative support.

Mentorship as Generativity – A New Approach

What is Generative Mentorship?

Generative mentorship moves beyond the traditional, hierarchical mentor-mentee relationship and shifts toward a reciprocal, growth-oriented model (Riddell, 2024). This approach fosters mentorship as a dynamic, evolving process, rather than a static, one-directional transfer of knowledge. Generativity in mentorship ensures that mentorship relationships remain sustained, meaningful, and adaptable, addressing the ever-changing needs of faculty members at various career stages.

By embedding mentorship in institutional structures, generative mentorship builds long-term resilience and faculty well-being (Riddell, 2024). Instead of relying on sporadic or informal interactions, a generative approach cultivates mentorship ecosystems where faculty members engage in ongoing reflection, knowledge exchange, and professional growth. This model also reinforces the value of mentorship across faculty ranks, ensuring that adjunct faculty, department chairs, and early-career academics receive equitable support in their professional journeys.

Rethinking Mentorship through Constellation and Reverse Models

Mentorship Constellations

Mentorship constellations emphasize that no single mentor can meet all of a faculty member’s professional and personal development needs. Instead of a one-to-one model, mentorship constellations create a network of mentors that faculty can rely on for different areas of growth (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023). This approach is particularly beneficial for adjunct faculty, who often lack a clear institutional support system, and for department chairs, who face multifaceted leadership challenges.

By leveraging multiple mentors with diverse expertise, faculty members gain access to specialized knowledge, institutional insights, and cross-disciplinary perspectives (Mentoring Constellations in Global Contexts, 2024). These networks also provide social and emotional support, fostering a sense of belonging that is often lacking in academia. For adjunct faculty, this model helps bridge the disconnect they may feel from full-time faculty and institutional culture (Pearson & Kirby, 2018b).

Studies have shown that institutions implementing mentorship constellations report higher faculty retention rates, improved teaching outcomes, and stronger interdisciplinary collaboration (Research Overview, 2024). Faculty who engage in mentorship networks also experience greater job satisfaction and professional fulfillment, as they are less isolated and better equipped to navigate institutional complexities (Defining Mentoring, Elon University, 2024).

Reverse Mentoring

Reverse mentoring flips the traditional mentorship model by positioning early-career faculty or adjunct instructors as mentors to senior faculty or department chairs. This model facilitates intergenerational learning, ensuring that faculty at all levels stay informed about evolving student needs, technological advancements, and inclusive teaching strategies (O’Connor et al., 2025).

For department chairs, reverse mentoring can be transformational, as it provides fresh insights into faculty experiences, student engagement strategies, and institutional blind spots (Seeing Behind the Curtain, Cain et al., 2024). This model also fosters equitable knowledge exchange, challenging traditional hierarchies in academia and creating space for diverse voices in institutional decision-making.

Institutions that integrate reverse mentoring programs have observed improvements in faculty collaboration, leadership adaptability, and institutional responsiveness to emerging challenges (O’Conner et al., 2025; How Reverse Mentoring Helps Co-Create Institutional Knowledge, 2024). Reverse mentoring also contributes to higher faculty engagement and morale, as it validates the expertise of early-career faculty while encouraging senior faculty to remain adaptive and open to change (Mentoring Constellations in Global Contexts, 2024).

Institutional and Personal Impact

The impact of structured mentorship models extends beyond institutional outcomes to personal and professional faculty growth. At an institutional level, mentorship constellations and reverse mentoring contribute to:

Higher faculty retention by creating structured, sustained mentorship relationships that foster belonging and engagement (Pillar, 2025; Pearson & Kirby, 2018a).
Enhanced teaching and learning by facilitating cross-generational knowledge exchange and instructional innovation (Gibson & O’Keefe, 2019).
Stronger leadership pipelines by equipping department chairs and adjunct faculty with the guidance and skills they need to navigate their roles successfully (Riddell, 2024).
Increased faculty collaboration by fostering networks of shared expertise and interdisciplinary connections (Pearson & Kirby, 2018a).

On a personal level, mentorship fosters professional confidence, leadership growth, and career satisfaction. Faculty members who participate in mentorship constellations experience:

Greater career clarity as they receive diverse perspectives and tailored professional guidance (Pearson & Kirby, 2018b).
Reduced feelings of isolation, particularly for adjunct faculty and online educators who may otherwise feel disconnected from their institutions (Pearson & Kirby, 2018a: Puzziferro-Schnitzer & Kissinger, 2005).
Higher resilience and adaptability as mentorship relationships offer strategies for navigating career challenges and institutional demands (Riddell, 2024).
Stronger work-life balance, as faculty who have robust mentorship support report lower stress levels and greater career satisfaction (Mentoring Constellations in Global Contexts, 2024).

By integrating mentorship constellations and reverse mentoring models, institutions can ensure that faculty members not only thrive in their roles but also contribute meaningfully to institutional transformation and student success. The personal and institutional benefits of structured, generative mentorship models make a compelling case for higher education institutions to prioritize mentorship as a central pillar of faculty development.

Practical Strategies for Institutions

For mentorship programs to be effective, institutions must move beyond informal or ad-hoc approaches and develop structured, intentional mentorship frameworks. A well-designed mentorship program should be embedded within faculty development initiatives and aligned with institutional goals for faculty success, retention, and leadership development (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023).

A key component of intentional mentorship structures is ensuring broad participation across faculty ranks, including adjuncts, department chairs, and early-career faculty. Institutions that implement structured mentorship initiatives—such as faculty mentoring circles, formal mentor-mentee pairings, and ongoing professional development programs—see higher engagement and faculty satisfaction (Research Overview, 2024). Furthermore, institutions must provide administrative support and resources to sustain these mentorship programs, including incentives, mentorship training, and time allocation for faculty mentors (Pillar, 2025).

Incentivizing Mentorship Participation

Encouraging faculty to participate in mentorship requires institutions to recognize and reward mentorship contributions. Many faculty members, particularly adjuncts and department chairs, already manage heavy workloads, and adding mentorship responsibilities can seem burdensome without appropriate incentives (Gibson & O’Keefe, 2019).

Institutions can promote mentorship participation by offering course releases, stipends, or recognition in promotion and tenure processes (Puzziferro-Schnitzer & Kissinger, 2005). Additionally, mentorship engagement should be formally acknowledged in annual faculty evaluations, awards, and institutional leadership programs (Pearson & Kirby, 2018a). Structured mentorship pathways that offer clear career benefits, such as professional development funding or administrative leadership training, further enhance faculty engagement (Hope Circuits, Riddell, 2024).

Integrating Mentorship into Faculty Onboarding

Mentorship should be embedded into faculty onboarding processes to ensure new faculty—especially adjuncts and department chairs—receive structured guidance from the outset. Institutions that pair new faculty members with mentors early in their careers see higher retention rates and stronger professional engagement (Pearson & Kirby, 2018b). However, effective onboarding should not be a one-time event but rather a continuous developmental process throughout the academic year. New faculty need sustained support to adapt to institutional expectations, instructional challenges, and evolving student needs.

A comprehensive onboarding mentorship program includes orientation sessions, peer mentoring, and structured faculty development plans. While an initial orientation is valuable for introducing faculty to institutional policies and expectations, ongoing mentorship ensures that faculty continue to receive guidance as they encounter real-world challenges in their roles. Regular follow-up meetings, structured check-ins, and opportunities for professional development allow faculty to build confidence, refine their teaching and leadership skills, and integrate fully into the academic community.

Reverse mentoring can also play a key role in onboarding, allowing early-career faculty and adjuncts to share student-centered perspectives and emerging pedagogical innovations with senior faculty and administrators (O’Connor et al., 2025). Additionally, mentoring constellations provide multiple points of support for new faculty, ensuring they have access to a network of experienced colleagues who can offer diverse perspectives and expertise (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023). By designing onboarding programs that extend beyond the first semester and into the full academic year, institutions foster an environment where new faculty feel supported, engaged, and prepared to succeed.

Expanding Professional Development for Adjuncts

Adjunct faculty often lack access to institutional resources and professional development opportunities, making targeted mentorship programs essential for their career success and institutional integration (Defining Mentoring, Elon University, 2024). Strong mentorship initiatives help adjuncts develop effective teaching practices, engage in institutional governance, and explore career advancement opportunities (Pearson & Kirby, 2018b).

Online adjuncts, in particular, face unique challenges related to institutional isolation and lack of engagement with full-time faculty. Virtual mentorship models, such as online mentoring communities, structured peer support, and interactive professional development workshops, have proven effective in improving online adjunct retention and engagement (Pearson & Kirby, 2018a; Puzziferro-Schnitzer & Kissinger, 2005). By offering dedicated mentoring programs for online faculty, institutions ensure equitable professional development opportunities for all faculty members, regardless of instructional modality (Pearson & Kirby, 2018b).

Building Sustainable Leadership Development for Chairs

Department chairs play a critical role in faculty leadership and institutional governance, yet many receive little formal preparation for their responsibilities. Structured mentorship programs for department chairs help them develop strategic leadership skills, operational efficiencies, and faculty support strategies (Pillar, 2025).

Mentorship constellations provide peer networks for department chairs, allowing them to learn from experienced leaders and gain insights into effective administrative practices (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023). Reverse mentoring also plays a role in leadership development, as chairs benefit from early-career faculty perspectives on student engagement, emerging pedagogies, and institutional challenges (Seeing Behind the Curtain, Cain et al., 2024).

By incorporating mentorship into department chair training and leadership development programs, institutions strengthen faculty leadership pipelines and promote long-term institutional stability (Hope Circuits, Riddell, 2024).

Final Thoughts

Structured, generative mentorship is essential for faculty development, retention, and leadership sustainability. By embracing mentorship constellations and reverse mentoring, institutions can build dynamic faculty support networks that foster continuous learning, collaboration, and professional growth.

Mentorship programs should be intentional, incentivized, and embedded in faculty development initiatives, ensuring that adjuncts, department chairs, and early-career faculty receive the support and guidance necessary for long-term success (Vandermaas-Peeler & Moore, 2023).

By prioritizing mentorship as a core institutional value, higher education institutions can create inclusive, engaged faculty communities that drive academic excellence and student success. The principles outlined in Hope Circuits (Riddell, 2024) underscore the need for systemic mentorship ecosystems that cultivate resilience, adaptability, and institutional belonging—ensuring that faculty at all levels thrive in an evolving academic landscape.

References

AFT. (2022). State of adjunct faculty in higher education. American Federation of Teachers.

Cain, L., Goldring, J., & Westall, A. (2024). Seeing behind the curtain: Reverse mentoring within the higher education landscape. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(5), 1267-1282. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2129963

Defining Mentoring. (2024). Mentoring in meaningful relationships. Elon University. https://www.elon.edu/u/mentoring-relationships/ace-report/defining-mentoring/

Faculty Focus. (2024). An online mentoring model that works. Faculty Focus. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/an-online-mentoring-model-that-works/

Gibson, A., & O’Keefe, P. (2019). Faculty development and adjunct faculty success. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 41(3), 233-249. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1569234

How Reverse Mentoring Helps Co-Create Institutional Knowledge. (2024). THE Campus: Learn, Share, Connect. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/how-reverse-mentoring-helps-cocreate-institutional-knowledge

Mentoring Constellations in Global Contexts. (2024). Center for Engaged Learning. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/mentoring-constellations-in-global-contexts/

O’Connor, R., Barraclough, L., Gleadall, S., & Walker, L. (2025). Institutional reverse mentoring: Bridging the student/leadership gap. British Educational Research Journal, 51(1), 344-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2025.009475

OpenAI’s DALL-E. (2025). Conceptual illustration of Beyond the Tenure Track: How Generative Mentoring of Adjunct Faculty and Department Chairs Enhances Institutional Quality and Student Success [AI-generated image]. Retrieved from https://labs.openai.com

Pearson, M. J., & Kirby, E. G. (2018a). An online mentoring model that works. Faculty Focus. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/an-online-mentoring-model-that-works/

Pearson, M. J., & Kirby, E. G. (2018b). Best practices for training and retaining online adjunct faculty. Magna Publications. https:// www.facultyfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Best-Practices-for-Training-and-Retaining-Online-Adjunct-Faculty.pdf

Pillar, G. (2025). From margins to mainstream: Elevating adjunct faculty for academic excellence. Innovative Higher Education Professional.

Pillar, G. (2025). The unsung leaders: Navigating department chair responsibilities at smaller private institutions. Innovative Higher Education Professional.

Puzziferro-Schnitzer, M., & Kissinger, J. (2005). Supporting online adjunct faculty: A virtual mentoring program. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(2), 39-42. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v9i2.1785

Research Overview. (2024). Center for Engaged Learning. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/mentoring-matters/research-overview/

Riddell, J. (2024). Hope circuits: Rewiring academia for resilience and transformation. University Press.

Seeing Behind the Curtain. (2024). Reverse mentoring within the higher education landscape. Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2022.2129963

Vandermaas-Peeler, M., & Moore, J. L. (2023). Mentoring constellations in global contexts: A new framework for faculty development. Center for Engaged Learning.

Zarrow, S. E. (2018, August 23). How tenured and tenure-track faculty can support adjuncts (opinion). Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

The Unsung Leaders: Navigating Department Chair Responsibilities at Smaller Private Institutions

gregpillar on February 7, 2025

I always appreciate reading pieces in The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed about leadership and administration in higher education. However, one must always consider the institutional context of the author. Is the author writing from a large public research institution, a for-profit online university, a small private religious college, or an elite liberal arts institution? The institution can heavily influence the applicability and relevance of the points made in the article. However, these articles often reflect perspectives from institutions that differ significantly from those where I have worked. Kevin Dettmar’s recent Chronicle column, The Job Keeps Changing and I Can’t Keep Up, caught my attention because it addresses an issue that resonates with many department chairs: the increasing administrative burden of the role. While there are valuable insights in his piece, I found much of his experience did not align with my own or with what I have observed at my institutions. Some of his concerns about the growing administrative burden on chairs are well-founded, but the reality for smaller private institutions with modest budgets and endowments requires a more nuanced discussion. The challenges we face—limited staff support, resource constraints, and a need for chairs to take on multiple roles—differ significantly from those at wealthier institutions with greater financial flexibility.

To contextualize my perspective, I have served as a department chair for six years, a program director for two years (Honors Program), and an assistant/associate provost for eight years at two small private universities. Both institutions, with enrollments ranging from 1,700 to 3,200 students, are NCAA Division I schools with modest endowments. Unlike at Pomona College—where Dettmar works, and where the institution enjoys a $2.8 billion endowment—the financial and administrative structures of smaller private universities present different constraints and opportunities.

This article is not about institutional differences but rather about expanding the conversation on the role of department chairs and program directors in higher education. Specifically, I want to highlight the leadership strategies that can help chairs navigate their roles more effectively, drawing from my own experiences, existing literature, and new perspectives on leadership (Dettmar, 2025).

Department Chairs as Middle Managers and Leaders

Dettmar and others characterize the department chair as a middle management position, and I agree—but this is not a recent development. For at least the last two decades, chairs have operated as intermediaries between faculty and administration, tasked with leading their departments while also managing increasing administrative responsibilities (Dettmar, 2025). These responsibilities include:

Faculty Supervision and Development – Chairs oversee faculty recruitment, hiring of full-time and adjunct faculty, mentorship, evaluations, and professional development. They ensure faculty receive the necessary support while also upholding institutional and accreditation expectations. Additionally, chairs help faculty navigate promotion and tenure processes, guide new faculty members, and facilitate professional growth opportunities through workshops and conferences.
Assessment and Accreditation – One of the most time-consuming tasks, assessment requires chairs to ensure that faculty develop measurable learning outcomes, conduct assessments, and document results for accreditation bodies. This includes working with institutional research offices, maintaining updated documentation, and coordinating faculty to ensure compliance with regional accreditation standards.
Retention and Student Success Efforts – Chairs play a significant role in student retention by fostering strong advising structures and ensuring curricular alignment with students’ academic and career goals. Chairs also often handle student complaints, mentor struggling students, and work with student affairs to ensure students receive the support they need.
Curriculum Management and Innovation – Beyond maintaining course schedules, chairs must ensure that their department’s curriculum remains relevant, rigorous, and aligned with institutional priorities. This involves overseeing curriculum revisions, integrating new pedagogical methods, and working with industry experts to maintain up-to-date academic programs.
Recruitment and Enrollment Management – Many chairs now engage in outreach efforts to prospective students, participating in open houses, responding to inquiries, and working with admissions offices to promote their programs. Enrollment declines have made this task even more critical, requiring chairs to develop strategic recruitment plans and build partnerships with high schools and community colleges.
Budget Management – The extent of budget responsibilities varies widely by department. Some chairs oversee substantial budgets that require careful oversight of operational expenses, faculty salaries, lab materials, and department-specific initiatives. Others manage smaller budgets with limited discretionary funds, making financial planning even more critical. Regardless of the budget size, chairs must ensure that resources are allocated strategically to support student success and program sustainability. In today’s financial climate, where institutions are facing tightening budgets, every dollar must be used effectively. Chairs must make difficult decisions regarding which programs, events, and initiatives to fund—often prioritizing those that benefit the greatest number of students or have the highest impact on student learning outcomes. Additionally, chairs should engage in long-term financial planning, seeking alternative funding sources such as grants, external partnerships, or alumni contributions to supplement departmental needs. Effective budget management requires a combination of fiscal discipline, strategic investment, and advocacy for resources that align with both departmental and institutional priorities.
Unique Departmental/Disciplinary Demands – Some departments have specialized needs beyond standard academic management. Chairs in nursing and health sciences may oversee clinical placements, while STEM chairs must manage lab safety and equipment. Fine arts chairs may coordinate galleries and studio spaces. Each discipline carries its own set of logistical challenges requiring dedicated leadership and administrative oversight. Some chairs manage significant budgets that require careful financial oversight, while others oversee smaller budgets with limited discretionary funds. Chairs must navigate fiscal constraints, prioritize spending, and ensure that departmental resources align with institutional goals. They must navigate funding limitations while ensuring that their departments have adequate faculty, technology, and materials.

These are not extraneous tasks; they are core functions of a department chair. While administrative support varies by institution, many of these responsibilities fall squarely on the chair, making time management and delegation essential.

The Importance of Delegation: Empowering Faculty and Building Capacity

One key issue that often goes unaddressed is the underutilization of delegation. Many department chairs believe that effective leadership means taking on every task themselves. However, research and leadership studies suggest that the opposite is true—effective leaders know how to delegate strategically, empowering others while maintaining oversight (Garcia & Fisher, 2023). Delegation is not simply about offloading work but about developing faculty leadership capacity, distributing responsibilities equitably, and ensuring the long-term stability of the department (Pillar, 2024a). While some chairs believe they must handle every responsibility themselves, many of these tasks can—and should—be distributed across the department. Faculty observations, assessment activities, recruitment initiatives, and mentoring should not rest solely on the chair’s shoulders (Pillar, 2024a).

At both institutions where I worked, I observed that chairs who effectively delegated responsibilities were not only less overwhelmed but also cultivated stronger, more engaged departments. Garcia and Fisher (2023) emphasize that leadership in modern organizations, including higher education, must be collaborative rather than hierarchical. Delegation fosters an environment where faculty members feel ownership over department initiatives, creating a culture of shared responsibility and innovation. By involving faculty in key departmental functions, chairs can create a leadership pipeline, preparing faculty members for future administrative roles while strengthening institutional governance (Garcia & Fisher, 2023). For instance, having senior faculty conduct peer observations fosters a culture of continuous improvement and collegiality. Assigning faculty members to lead assessment efforts allows for more meaningful engagement in curricular decisions. When departments share recruitment responsibilities, it fosters a collective investment in student success.

The key is to establish clear expectations within the department and work with the Dean or Provost’s office to formalize these roles where necessary, whether through load releases, service expectations, or structured faculty development plans (Pillar, 2024b). Moreover, effective delegation does not mean relinquishing responsibility; it means creating structured processes where accountability remains intact. Leaders must ensure that those taking on delegated responsibilities have the resources, training, and support to succeed (Chu, 2023).

Another critical factor in successful delegation is recognizing the strengths and expertise of faculty members. Chairs should be intentional about assigning roles that align with faculty members’ skills and professional development goals. For instance, faculty with experience in accreditation processes may be well-suited to lead assessment initiatives, while those with strong community ties could contribute significantly to recruitment and outreach efforts (Garcia & Fisher, 2023).

Finally, Garcia and Fisher (2023) argue that in today’s evolving leadership landscape, chairs must move beyond transactional delegation—simply assigning tasks—and embrace transformational delegation. This approach involves mentoring faculty, fostering leadership development, and creating an adaptable departmental culture where faculty feel valued and invested in the long-term success of the institution. By implementing strategic delegation, chairs not only reduce their workload but also build stronger, more resilient departments prepared for the challenges of the future.

The New Leadership Model: Moving Beyond Best Practices

Garcia and Fisher’s The End of Leadership as We Know It (2023) challenges traditional leadership models, arguing that best practices are often outdated, too rigid, or unsuitable for evolving organizational landscapes. Their key argument—that successful leadership today requires adaptability, collaboration, and purpose-driven vision—directly applies to the challenges faced by department chairs (Garcia & Fisher, 2023).

Adapting to Change Rather Than Relying on “Best Practices”

Higher education is inherently complex, and what works for one institution may not work for another. Instead of following prescribed best practices, chairs should embrace a more agile leadership style that allows them to adjust strategies based on real-time feedback and shifting priorities (Garcia & Fisher, 2023).

Chairs must be able to navigate institutional changes, including fluctuating enrollment trends, shifting budgetary constraints, and evolving accreditation standards. Agility in leadership means anticipating challenges rather than reacting to them. Leaders in higher education must develop a mindset of continuous learning, seeking feedback from faculty, students, and stakeholders to refine departmental strategies. According to Garcia and Fisher (2023), leaders who embrace change effectively tend to foster stronger organizational resilience and improve team cohesion during times of uncertainty.

Leading with Purpose and Vision

A strong sense of purpose helps leaders navigate uncertainty. Chairs must align their leadership with both institutional missions and departmental goals, fostering faculty buy-in and student success (Garcia & Fisher, 2023).

Purpose-driven leadership is particularly important in the academic environment, where faculty and staff are deeply invested in the success of students and the intellectual rigor of their disciplines. Department chairs must articulate a compelling vision for their programs that resonates with both faculty and students. According to Garcia and Fisher (2023), effective leaders understand how to connect day-to-day responsibilities to a broader institutional purpose, which in turn strengthens morale and commitment within a department. Chairs should emphasize the long-term impact of their department’s work, ensuring that faculty see themselves as part of a mission-driven academic community rather than just a collection of individual contributors.

Collaborative Leadership and Shared Responsibility

Chairs should work to flatten traditional hierarchies by empowering faculty to take ownership of key departmental initiatives. Encouraging collaboration strengthens institutional buy-in and enhances overall effectiveness (Garcia & Fisher, 2023).

Shared governance is a hallmark of higher education, yet many department chairs still operate within outdated leadership models that centralize decision-making authority. The modern chair must facilitate an environment where faculty feel empowered to contribute to the strategic direction of the department. This requires creating opportunities for faculty to take on leadership roles within committees, research initiatives, and student mentorship programs. Garcia and Fisher (2023) argue that by distributing responsibility and fostering a collaborative culture, leaders create more innovative and adaptable organizations. Chairs who engage faculty in problem-solving and strategic planning cultivate stronger teams and ensure the long-term success of their departments.

Leading in the Digital Age

Technology is playing an increasingly central role in higher education, requiring chairs to develop digital literacy and lead in a tech-enhanced academic landscape (Garcia & Fisher, 2023). From online course development to data-driven decision-making, department chairs must ensure that faculty are equipped with the necessary tools and training to excel in a digital learning environment.

According to Garcia and Fisher (2023), successful leaders in the digital era prioritize technological integration and ensure that their teams are comfortable navigating digital platforms for instruction, assessment, and student engagement. Chairs should foster a culture of technological adaptability, providing professional development opportunities and encouraging faculty to experiment with new digital teaching tools.

Emotional Intelligence and Leadership in a Post-Pandemic Era

Garcia and Fisher (2023) emphasize that emotional intelligence is a critical skill for modern leaders, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Higher education has undergone significant disruptions, and department chairs must navigate faculty burnout, student mental health concerns, and shifting work expectations.

Chairs must develop strong interpersonal skills to support faculty through these transitions. This includes active listening, demonstrating empathy, and fostering an inclusive departmental culture. Leaders who recognize the emotional and psychological needs of their teams are better equipped to maintain morale and engagement during challenging times.

Final Thoughts: Rethinking Leadership Without Resistance

I deeply respect the significant time and effort required to develop and deliver excellent teaching, as well as the time needed for scholarship and service activities—including administrative tasks that faculty members take on as part of their broader professional responsibilities. Faculty time is the most valuable resource, and I am acutely aware of the importance of ensuring that faculty have the space and support necessary to focus on their core academic pursuits. However, taking an adversarial approach to addressing administrative burdens is not the most effective way forward.

This is something I’ve seen reflected in how institutions have evolved in their expectations of scholarship. Many institutions now recognize and accept the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) alongside traditional disciplinary research when evaluating faculty for tenure and promotion. This shift illustrates that institutions are capable of integrating responsibilities in a way that does not require faculty to find the nonexistent 25th and 26th hour of the day. Similarly, we must approach administrative and leadership responsibilities with a mindset of collaboration and efficiency, rather than resistance, to maximize time and resources.

Dettmar (2025) concludes his piece with a call for the “Rise of the Resistance”, arguing that department chairs must push back against increasing administrative burdens to reclaim their time for teaching and research. While I understand the frustration that leads to this sentiment, I strongly disagree that resistance is the best—or only—solution. Instead of resorting to adversarial approaches, we should focus on strategic adaptation, collaboration, and problem-solving to drive meaningful change.

The reality is that higher education is not a static entity; it is a constantly evolving landscape where institutions must balance financial constraints, accreditation requirements, and shifting student expectations. The role of department chairs is undeniably demanding, but solutions exist that do not require an us-versus-them mentality.

Exploring Untested and Underutilized Solutions Rather than engaging in resistance for resistance’s sake, department chairs can explore proactive strategies to alleviate administrative burdens. This might include:

Advocating for better workflow management tools or more efficient administrative processes.
Strengthening faculty governance structures to distribute responsibilities more equitably.
Working with administration to develop clear expectations for chairs, ensuring they are not simply absorbing new responsibilities without appropriate compensation or support.

Leadership Through Partnership, Not Opposition Instead of positioning administration as an adversary, chairs should seek to engage deans, provosts, and institutional leadership as partners in problem-solving. Change within academia rarely comes through outright resistance, but rather through incremental improvements and strategic negotiations (Garcia & Fisher, 2023). Chairs should approach leadership discussions with data-driven arguments that illustrate how their time is being consumed and offer collaborative solutions for improvement.
The Power of a Forward-Thinking Leadership Mindset The perspectives shared in The End of Leadership as We Know It (Garcia & Fisher, 2023) emphasize the importance of agility, innovation, and emotional intelligence in leadership. If chairs embrace these qualities, they can push for institutional changes without resorting to combative measures. Instead of resisting, they can adapt, strategize, and lead from within—reshaping their roles and influencing institutional policies in a way that benefits faculty, students, and the institution alike.

Empowering Chairs for Institutional Change

Don Chu (2023) argues that department chairs hold the key to real institutional transformation but are often underprepared and under-empowered. He highlights that the traditional bureaucratic model in higher education often separates policy creation at the administrative level from the faculty who must implement it. As a result, chairs become messengers rather than leaders, lacking the training, resources, and authority needed to drive meaningful change (Chu, 2023).

To professionalize and empower department chairs, Chu suggests:

Providing structured leadership training to ensure chairs are prepared for the multifaceted demands of their roles.
Granting greater decision-making authority to chairs in budget allocation, hiring, and curriculum development.
Offering longer-term leadership continuity so that chairs can lead sustained departmental progress.

By rethinking how institutions position their chairs, colleges can transform them from temporary placeholders to true academic leaders who bridge the gap between administration and faculty (Chu, 2023).

References

Chu, D. (2023). Chairs hold the key to higher ed’s success. Inside Higher Ed.

Dettmar, K. (2025). The job keeps changing and I can’t keep up. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Garcia, S., & Fisher, D. (2023). The end of leadership as we know it: What it takes to lead in today’s volatile and complex world. Wiley.

OpenAI’s DALL-E. (2025). Conceptual illustration of The Unsung Leaders: Navigating Department Chair Responsibilities at Smaller Private Institutions [AI-generated image]. Retrieved from https://labs.openai.com

Pillar, G. (2024a). Leading from the heart of higher education: Empowering mid-level leaders to drive transformation and student success.

Pillar, G. (2024b).Breaking Through the Middle Manager Paradox: Practical Approaches to Middle Leadership in Higher Education.

Degrees, Jobs, and Realities: Bridging the Gap for Recent Graduates

gregpillar on January 28, 2025

Finding a job after graduation is no easy task. As highlighted in the CNN article, “Degree in Hand, Jobs Out of Reach” (Jaramillo-Plata, 2025), many recent graduates struggle to secure employment despite their degrees, internships, and seemingly strong resumes. While this is a valid concern, attributing the problem primarily to the growing number of degree holders oversimplifies a deeply complex issue. The reality is that challenges faced by new graduates, particularly in 2024 when hiring slowed significantly for the first time in years, are shaped by a confluence of political, economic, and cultural factors. Addressing these challenges requires a nuanced understanding of the underlying causes and a collaborative approach to solutions.

Yes, as was reported by NACE (National Association of College and Employers) hiring of new graduates was expected to, and did decrease in 2024 (and seen below). A recent press release from the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) notes that hiring for the class of 2025 is projected to increase by 7.3% (NACE, 2025). However, this optimistic forecast is contingent on a variety of factors, including political stability, economic trends, and even global events. The 2024 slowdown in graduate hiring was likely influenced by inflation, post-pandemic economic shifts, and geopolitical instability. To suggest that competition among graduates alone accounts for these challenges ignores the broader systemic forces at play not to mention previous years of positive hiring behaviors.

Additionally, the CNN article implies that employer expectations have shifted suddenly, which is not entirely accurate. Employers’ growing demand for “durable skills”—such as critical thinking, communication, and emotional intelligence—has been a steady and persistent evolution. Generational differences between recent graduates and their supervisors exacerbate this mismatch. Older generations value traits such as resilience, punctuality, and long-term commitment, while younger workers prioritize flexibility, work-life balance, and purpose-driven careers. This divergence creates friction, and navigating this landscape often falls on the graduate. Additionally, as noted by the NACE 2025 Job Outlook Report (nace-2025-job-outlook-v1) most employers use skills-based hiring practices and are willing to hire graduates with majors that fall outside the realm of their industry thus supporting the argument that it isn’t necessarily the major that is critical in your undergraduate experience/degree, rather, what you are able to show case on a transcript and CV to support that degree.

This leads me to argue that if a recent graduate did not spend time in school developing essential skills and experiences and if their institution did not work to provide the necessary opportunities and supportive measures, then either they missed substantial opportunities or their institution failed them or both. Higher education institutions are indeed under scrutiny, and rightfully so. The stakes are high: universities must demonstrate that they can deliver not just intellectual growth but also career readiness.

Accountability in Higher Education: A Necessary Shift

Institutions of higher education are facing growing scrutiny to prove their value. This scrutiny is entirely justified. Colleges and universities must show that their missions extend beyond lofty ideals to encompass practical outcomes. They should prepare students not only for prosperous careers but also for noble, spiritually fulfilling lives as civically engaged and compassionate and contributing members of society.

Some critics argue that emphasizing career preparation undermines the liberal arts mission of higher education. I disagree. Preparing students for meaningful careers and maintaining a liberal arts focus are not mutually exclusive goals. A well-rounded education can—and should—include career readiness.

Investing in career development services, integrating internships into curricula, and building stronger employer partnerships are practical steps universities can take to address these concerns. Institutions like Northeastern University and Drexel University, with their successful co-op programs, offer models worth emulating or taking notes. For smaller schools, there are institutions that require internships across all majors or have required career prep courses either through general education or as a degree requirement. These programs seamlessly blend academic learning with real-world work experience, ensuring students are ready to hit the ground running after graduation.

Solutions for Universities: A Multi-Faceted Approach

There is no single solution to the challenges facing higher education. However, universities can take several actionable steps to address the concerns surrounding the immediate value of a four-year degree and its return on investment (ROI).

Career Development Investment: Robust career centers should be the norm, offering comprehensive services that go beyond resume reviews. These centers must provide mentorship programs, career fairs, networking opportunities, skill-building workshops, and individualized coaching.
Mandatory Internships: Requiring students to complete at least one internship before graduation ensures they gain real-world experience and begin building professional networks. Institutions should also help students find meaningful internship opportunities.
Career Development Curriculum: Embedding career preparation courses into graduation requirements ensures all students develop essential skills, such as communication, teamwork, and problem-solving. These courses can also cover professional etiquette and industry-specific knowledge.
Post-Graduation Employment Guarantees: Some institutions are experimenting with employment guarantees, where they commit to helping graduates secure jobs within a set timeframe or offer a benefit such as refund part of their tuition, provide a discount on graduate tuition, receive additional career coaching, direct assistance with internship placement, etc. . This bold approach signals confidence in the value of their degrees. If you look carefully, the schools that have these offers, do require students to put in effort during their time in school to build the necessary skills and due to their investment in career development their placement rate 6 months and 1 year post graduation is usually already in the low to mid 90% anyway!
Employer Relationship Development: Building strong partnerships with local and national employers can create pipelines for internships, co-ops, and entry-level roles. They can also help to invigorate curricula with case studies, projects, and real-world skill development. Universities should actively seek feedback from employers to better align curricula with industry needs.
First Destination Reporting: Transparent reporting of post-graduation outcomes builds trust with prospective students and their families. Schools should publicize data on employment rates, starting salaries, and graduate school placements.
Alumni Networking: Leveraging alumni networks can provide recent graduates with mentorship, advice, and job opportunities. Universities should create formal programs to connect current students with successful alumni.

Each of these initiatives requires significant investment and coordination, but they directly address criticisms about the relevance and value of higher education.

Diverse Perspectives: Where Responsibility Lies. A look at the Comment Section

The CNN article and specifically the comments section reveal a spectrum of viewpoints on who bears responsibility for the challenges recent graduates face. These can be grouped into several categories:

Responsibility of Universities

Many argue that universities prioritize profits or amenities over education, failing to adequately prepare students for the workforce. Critics suggest that institutions should be held accountable for job placement, with some proposing partial tuition refunds for graduates who remain unemployed. Others advocate for mandatory internships, better advisement on choosing employable majors, and greater transparency about career outcomes. While Universities have responsibility to bear, and yes, it doesn’t look good when a school misuses funds or opens what looks like a facility of luxury vs one of learning. Students still need to act and perform on the opportunities provided to them. The credit for effort argument is a whole separate article!

Responsibility of Students

Some commenters place the onus on students, arguing that they need to take greater initiative. I think these comments come from my fellow Generation X friends. As my bias and initial reaction agrees a lot with putting the responsibility here. This includes utilizing career center resources, seeking internships, and networking. Seeking out unique co-curricular opportunities, extra-curricular opportunities, and other changes to grow and build your CV/transcript to support your career dreams. Students who choose impractical majors and fail to develop essential skills are often criticized for their lack of foresight. Institutions can put safeguards on some programs by making their curriculum more multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary.

Responsibility of Employers

Employers also play a role in the job-market mismatch. Unrealistic expectations for entry-level hires, outsourcing, and automation are frequently cited as barriers to employment for recent graduates. Companies must invest more in training and mentorship to help bridge the gap between academia and the workforce.

Broader Social and Economic Issues

Systemic challenges, such as economic inequality, globalization, and the decline of manufacturing jobs, contribute to the difficulty graduates face. Automation and artificial intelligence are also seen as threats to traditional career paths, creating uncertainty about the future of work.

Misaligned Expectations

Unrealistic expectations from both students and their families exacerbate the issue. Higher education is often viewed as an investment, not a guarantee, and graduates may need to adjust their expectations, starting in entry-level positions or pivoting to adjacent fields.

Need for Specialized Programs

Work-integrated learning models, such as co-op programs, receive widespread praise for preparing students for the workforce. These programs provide not only practical experience but also confidence and clarity about career paths.

Final Thoughts: Bridging the Gap

The challenges facing new graduates require collaboration among universities, employers, and students. Higher education must evolve to align more closely with workforce needs while maintaining its commitment to intellectual growth and civic engagement. Employers must recognize their role in training and developing talent, rather than relying solely on perfectly “work-ready” hires. Finally, students must take ownership of their education and career preparation, leveraging every opportunity to build skills and networks.

Recommendations for Improvement

I am by no means an expert journalist. I’m an environmental chemist turned higher education administrator and now part-time blogger. I am finding some of the articles on mainstream media sites lacking some back journalistic rigor. To further strengthen this article, the following steps could have been taken:

Include Additional Data: Incorporate statistics from reputable sources, such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics or NACE to provide context on graduate employment trends.
Highlight Successful Models: Explore case studies of universities with innovative programs and don’t just focus on the mega-schools.
Discuss Long-Term Trends: Analyze how factors like AI and automation are likely to reshape the job market in the coming decades.
Address Global Comparisons: Compare the U.S. higher education system and graduate outcomes to those in other countries.
Expand on Skills: Provide examples of “durable skills” and how they can be cultivated during college.

By weaving these elements into the article, it would offer a more comprehensive analysis and provide actionable insights for all stakeholders.

References

Jaramillo-Plata, N. (2025, January 26). Degree in hand, jobs out of reach: Why recent grads are struggling in a competitive market. CNN. https://www.cnn.com

National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2025). Job Outlook 2025 nace-2025-job-outlook-v1

Celebrating Resilience in Scholarship at Smaller Institutions

gregpillar on January 9, 2025

After nearly two decades in higher education and in day 4 of my first career change in 18 ½ years, I find myself reflecting this week on the unique challenges and extraordinary rewards of working in this field. My journey has taken me from the classroom as a faculty member to various administrative roles, providing a broad perspective on the dynamics of teaching, research, and institutional support. My career is rooted in my discipline and is fundamental to my identity, which is environmental chemistry, but I’ve had the privilege of teaching across geology, environmental science, and chemistry, often integrating research into undergraduate courses and mentoring students through meaningful scholarly projects.

For example, I embedded a project where students measured levels of BPA and BPS from thermal paper used in cash register receipts in an analytical chemistry course. In another project in the same course, we measured levels of metals from the surfaces of toy cars, and in one other project in an environmental science course, we developed a method to analyze soil in the highway median for common car pollutants/contaminants. This dual focus on teaching and research, particularly in settings with limited resources, has offered invaluable insights into the resilience and creativity required to meet scholarship expectations in the sciences. By sciences, I am including the natural, physical, health, and social sciences and specifically referring to smaller institutions. Additionally, I am focusing on institutions that, although they may have some graduate programs—even doctoral programs—they are limited, and thus most faculty have to either rely on conducting independent research or research with undergraduate students. This isn’t easy as undergraduate students are less experienced, require more guidance, and thus are more likely to make more mistakes, costing more resources, time, and money to complete the work necessary to produce publishable results. However, just because results may not be “publish quality” doesn’t mean that learning hasn’t occurred or that learning outcomes haven’t been met. Thus, these challenges provide a unique opportunity to help students address academic gaps or deficiencies, equipping them with the skills needed for future success.

Innovation Through Scarcity: The Strength of Smaller Institutions

One of the defining characteristics of smaller institutions is the ability to thrive despite resource constraints. Faculty members often carry heavy teaching loads, making it challenging to dedicate significant time to conduct research. These pressures are compounded when institutions expect faculty to produce scholarly work for tenure, promotion, or annual performance reviews. Unlike larger universities with graduate students who bring advanced skills to research projects and can perform much of the “leg work,” faculty at smaller institutions frequently mentor undergraduates who are just beginning to explore scholarly work. Thus, it requires more work to mentor them or the faculty have to do a lot of it themselves. Yet, these challenges cultivate a unique environment where innovation flourishes.

In my experience, faculty at smaller institutions excel at integrating research into their courses and creating opportunities for summer research programs. These efforts provide students with hands-on experience that goes beyond the traditional classroom setting. The research posters that line the hallways of science buildings at these institutions tell stories of ambitious and high-quality projects that rival those at larger research universities. They reflect not only the dedication of the faculty but also the determination and potential of the students. In many cases, the students have much more ownership of the work than students at larger institutions who may have simply done smaller portions of the work.

It should be noted that often, faculty can score SoTL publications. SoTL, or Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, is scholarship focused not necessarily in their discipline but in or on teaching. Often (though not always), smaller schools will accept SoTL scholarship towards tenure and promotion, and faculty should jump on those opportunities. However, institutions should understand that faculty should still be afforded time to complete some disciplinary scholarship. Just because the institution accepts SoTL work doesn’t mean their tenure portfolio should only consist of it. I think faculty should have a healthy balance of disciplinary scholarship and SoTL scholarship. Although SoTL scholarship may not require the time or financial resources as the disciplinary scholarship requires, institutions should still work to try to provide or support the faculty in obtaining the financial resources (and time) to support the disciplinary scholarship.

Addressing Learning Gaps Through Research Opportunities

Lately, there has been growing concern that high school students are entering college less prepared than in previous years. Only 21% of the class of 2023—a group that started high school during the first year of the pandemic—was ready to succeed in core college-level courses, according to ACT data (Manno, 2024). This decline in college readiness is compounded by years of high school instruction that emphasizes standardized test performance over critical thinking, communication, and problem-solving skills (Manno, 2024). Additionally, the rise of remedial coursework in college highlights the disconnect between high school preparation and postsecondary success, with over six in ten first-year college undergraduates taking remedial courses in math or reading (Newton, 2024).

Smaller institutions, with their focus on personalized education and mentorship, are uniquely positioned to address these gaps. Faculty can use research opportunities—whether embedded in courses, part of summer programs, or featured in capstone experiences—to help students develop critical skills that bridge these deficiencies. Through these hands-on experiences, students are not only exposed to content knowledge but also encouraged to think critically, communicate effectively, and solve real-world problems. As Busteed (2024) notes, integrating real-world work into the academic curriculum can make education more engaging and relevant for students, fostering both academic growth and career readiness.

These opportunities also build soft skills, such as professionalism, organization, and resilience, which many employers find lacking in recent graduates (Greene, 2024). For students who lack initiative or motivation, tailored interventions and additional support can help them develop these traits over time. The transformative power of these experiences is undeniable, equipping students with the problem-solving and critical thinking skills necessary to thrive in their post-graduate endeavors.

The Transformative Power of Undergraduate Research

Undergraduate research is a transformative experience for students, offering them a glimpse into the world of inquiry and discovery. It can really ignite a passion for curiosity and life-long learning. Even when the outcomes of a research project do not result in publishable data, the process itself is invaluable. Engaging in research teaches students how to approach problems methodically, analyze results critically, and adapt when experiments do not go as planned. These lessons are foundational and mirror the realities of professional work, where not every effort leads to immediate success, but every effort contributes to growth.

For many students, the skills developed through research are far more significant than the final outcome. These include technical abilities like data analysis, lab techniques, or fieldwork methodologies, as well as transferable skills such as resilience, time management, and collaborative teamwork. Even when projects fail to yield publishable results, the learning outcomes often surpass those achieved in traditional classroom settings.

Additionally, such experiences help students develop grit and problem-solving abilities. They learn how to troubleshoot setbacks, iterate on ideas, and persevere in the face of challenges—qualities that are highly sought after in graduate school and the workforce. Research also provides opportunities for students to engage in meaningful mentorships with faculty, building relationships that enhance their confidence and professional development.

The tough part is that when the outcome does not result in publishable results, the faculty member may still need something to use for the purpose of tenure and/or promotion. This is where turning the work into a SoTL project can be helpful and/or into an artifact that the institution may accept, such as a peer-reviewed presentation or other publication in a trade journal or a methods article. This can be a fine line between what meets and doesn’t meet scholarship/creativity standards.

In fact, one of the most significant benefits of undergraduate research is the opportunity it gives students to reflect on and refine their goals. The process helps students discover what excites them about their field, as well as areas they may want to avoid. This self-awareness is invaluable as they make decisions about their careers or graduate studies. Therefore, even in the absence of publishable outcomes, the experience of engaging in research provides substantial, long-lasting benefits that prepare students for future success.

Expanding the Conversation: Institutional Challenges and Opportunities

While the achievements of students and faculty are worth celebrating, it’s important to acknowledge the structural challenges that many institutions face. Limited financial resources, aging facilities, and a lack of adequate staffing are common hurdles, even for institutions with a strong commitment to academic excellence. These challenges often force faculty to work under immense pressure, balancing heavy teaching loads, research expectations, and service commitments. However, these same challenges can also serve as catalysts for innovation, collaboration, and advocacy when approached strategically.

Financial Strategies

Institutions can explore creative solutions to overcome financial barriers. For example:

Building Cross-Institutional Collaborations: Partnering with nearby colleges, universities, or research centers to share facilities and expertise can expand research capabilities without requiring significant capital investment.
Engaging Alumni Networks and Private Donors: Leveraging alumni relationships to fundraise for specific programs or facilities can bring targeted resources to underfunded areas.
Pursuing Grant Opportunities: Developing dedicated grant-writing offices or training faculty in grant writing can help institutions secure external funding for research, facilities, and academic programming.

Modernizing Infrastructure

Aging facilities not only hinder research and teaching but can also impact the recruitment of both students and faculty. Institutions should prioritize:

Flexible Learning Spaces: Investing in multi-use spaces that accommodate research, teaching, and community engagement activities.
Sustainable Upgrades: Partnering with environmental organizations to modernize facilities in ways that improve energy efficiency and reduce costs.
Digital Infrastructure: Enhancing IT systems and providing cutting-edge software tools to support research and virtual collaborations.

Advocating for Faculty and Student Support

Advocacy is critical for creating policies that address institutional challenges:

Workload Equity: Faculty workload policies should better reflect the demands of balancing teaching, research, and service. Institutions should explore course release programs or time allocations for faculty engaged in research. This can be really challenging and both faculty and administrators need to understand the give and take that needs to come with this work. Additionally, faculty need to understand that there may be some disciplinary differences that make true equity across the entire faculty difficult. The key goal is transparency and providing, to the degree possible, time and financial support to faculty for scholarship and creative work. Emphasis should be placed on scholarship and creative work that includes undergraduate students and achieves specific student learning outcomes.
Research Mentorship Programs: Pairing early-career faculty with successful faculty who have balanced SoTL with disciplinary scholarship and course-embedded scholarship can accelerate their success.
Student-Centered Funding: Allocating funds for student stipends, travel grants, and project supplies can enhance access to research opportunities, particularly for students from underrepresented backgrounds.

Transparency in Research Opportunities

Students and families are often unaware of the rich research opportunities available at smaller institutions. To attract students who value hands-on mentorship, institutions should:

Showcase Success Stories: Publicize examples of undergraduate research projects, graduate school acceptances, and post-graduation employment outcomes.
Streamline Access to Research: Develop centralized databases or platforms where students can easily find available research opportunities, faculty mentors, and funding options.
Engage the Community: Host research symposiums, open houses, or public exhibitions to celebrate faculty and student achievements.

Leveraging Institutional Strengths

Smaller institutions can position themselves as leaders in areas such as personalized education, interdisciplinary research, and community engagement. By doubling down on these strengths, institutions can not only overcome challenges but also distinguish themselves in the competitive landscape of higher education.

Lessons Learned in Higher Education

Reflecting on my time in higher education, I am struck by the resilience and adaptability of the communities I’ve been a part of. Faculty members find creative ways to balance teaching, research, and service, often going above and beyond to support their students. Students, in turn, rise to the challenge, demonstrating grit and determination as they pursue their goals. This reciprocal relationship between faculty and students is a cornerstone of the success seen in smaller institutions.

Celebrating Success in Unique Ways

These experiences have also highlighted the importance of celebrating success in ways that resonate with smaller institutions’ missions and values. While larger, better-resourced universities may garner national recognition, smaller institutions excel at creating environments where individual accomplishments are recognized and deeply felt. For example:

Showcasing Individual Contributions: Institutions can regularly spotlight the achievements of students and faculty through their websites, social media, newsletters, awards, or dedicated events.
Institutional Traditions: Building traditions that celebrate research and teaching excellence can instill a sense of pride and continuity within the campus community.
Alumni Engagement: Sharing the post-graduate success stories of alumni can serve as a source of inspiration for current students and reinforce the impact of the institution’s mission.

The Value of Intentional Mentorship

One of the most critical lessons learned is the power of intentional mentorship. At smaller institutions, where relationships between faculty and students often flourish, personalized guidance has consistently helped students overcome challenges, refine their goals, and develop confidence. This mentorship often extends beyond academics, helping students navigate personal challenges, develop professional networks, and identify long-term career aspirations. For faculty, this kind of mentorship also strengthens their sense of purpose and reinforces the value of their work.

Institutions that foster a culture of mentorship can see significant outcomes, such as:

Improved Retention and Graduation Rates: Students who feel supported are more likely to persist through challenges and complete their degrees.
Career-Readiness: Students who work closely with mentors are better prepared to enter the workforce or pursue graduate studies, often with a clearer sense of direction.
Expanded Research Opportunities: Faculty mentors who involve students in their research not only advance their own scholarship but also provide students with transformative, hands-on learning experiences.

Fostering Resilience in Students

A unique strength of smaller institutions is their ability to help students cultivate resilience. Many students arrive with academic gaps or personal obstacles, but through intentional support systems, they leave equipped to handle the complexities of the professional world. Institutions that emphasize adaptability and problem-solving in their teaching and mentorship help students:

Build Confidence: Overcoming initial setbacks in research or coursework builds perseverance and self-efficacy.
Navigate Uncertainty: Students develop the ability to manage ambiguity and tackle open-ended challenges—skills highly valued in today’s workforce.
Engage Holistically: By integrating personal, academic, and professional development, students leave with a well-rounded sense of achievement.

Opportunities for Faculty Growth

While mentorship benefits students, it also enriches the experiences of faculty. Through their mentoring relationships, faculty develop their ability to communicate complex ideas, refine their teaching practices, and gain personal fulfillment from helping students succeed. Institutions that support faculty mentorship with professional development opportunities, workload accommodations, or recognition programs create a virtuous cycle that benefits the entire campus.

Lessons on Equity and Inclusion

Smaller institutions also offer unique opportunities to address equity and inclusion. By creating programs that prioritize access to research opportunities, institutions can ensure that historically underrepresented students gain the skills and confidence needed to excel. Lessons learned here include:

Proactive Outreach: Intentional efforts to engage underrepresented students in mentorship and research create a more equitable academic environment.
Cultural Competency Training: Supporting faculty in understanding the diverse experiences of their students enhances the quality of mentorship and teaching.
Inclusive Pedagogy: Incorporating diverse perspectives into research and curriculum ensures that all students see themselves reflected in their academic journey.

Building a Legacy of Impact

Smaller institutions may not have the financial resources or scale of larger universities, but they excel at fostering individual growth, building meaningful relationships, and producing graduates who go on to make a difference in the world. This legacy of impact is something to be celebrated and continuously built upon. By reflecting on these lessons, institutions can refine their approaches to teaching, mentorship, and community engagement, ensuring that their contributions remain significant and far-reaching.

Looking Ahead

As I continue my journey in higher education, I am more committed than ever to advocating for the recognition and support of institutions that foster resilience and innovation. The challenges they face are real, but so are the opportunities. By celebrating their successes and addressing their needs, we can ensure that they continue to play a vital role in shaping the future of education.

Looking ahead, institutions must focus on several critical areas to remain relevant and impactful in a rapidly changing educational landscape. Among these are aligning student outcomes with workforce needs, providing equitable access to high-impact educational practices, and building sustainable models for growth. Smaller institutions, in particular, have the potential to excel in these areas by leveraging their intimate campus environments, close-knit communities, and ability to innovate in teaching and research.

Aligning Education with Workforce Needs

The landscape of higher education and employment is shifting rapidly, with employers increasingly seeking graduates who possess not only technical skills but also critical thinking, adaptability, and emotional intelligence. Smaller institutions are well-positioned to meet this demand by:

Embedding Experiential Learning in Curricula: Expanding opportunities for internships, co-op programs, and research projects that connect academic theory with real-world applications.
Building Stronger Industry Partnerships: Collaborating with local and regional businesses to ensure that students gain hands-on experience and develop skills directly aligned with workforce needs.
Fostering Lifelong Learning: Creating pathways for alumni to return for upskilling and reskilling programs as industries evolve.

Equitable Access to High-Impact Practices

Equity in education must remain a priority as institutions look to the future. High-impact practices such as undergraduate research, study abroad programs, and community-based learning must be made accessible to all students, regardless of their financial or social backgrounds. Institutions can:

Expand Financial Support for Research: Offering stipends and grants to ensure that students from underrepresented backgrounds can participate in research opportunities without financial hardship.
Promote Inclusive Pedagogies: Encouraging faculty to incorporate diverse perspectives and inclusive practices into their teaching and mentoring.
Prioritize First-Generation and Nontraditional Students: Developing targeted programs that address the unique challenges these students face and ensure their success.

Building Sustainable Models for Growth

The future of higher education depends on creating sustainable models that balance growth with institutional stability. Smaller institutions, often operating with limited resources, must focus on:

Investing in Technology: Adopting tools that streamline administrative processes, enhance teaching, and expand access to online and hybrid learning opportunities.
Strengthening Alumni Engagement: Leveraging alumni networks not only for fundraising but also as mentors, internship providers, and advocates for the institution.
Diversifying Revenue Streams: Pursuing new revenue opportunities such as certificate programs, executive education, and community partnerships to reduce dependency on tuition.

Leading Through Interdisciplinary Approaches

The growing need for interdisciplinary approaches presents a unique opportunity for smaller institutions to lead. By fostering collaboration across departments and breaking down traditional academic silos, they can prepare students to tackle complex, real-world problems with creativity and innovation. For example:

Interdisciplinary Research Centers: Creating hubs where faculty and students from diverse disciplines can collaborate on pressing societal issues, such as climate change or public health.
Problem-Based Learning Models: Structuring curricula around real-world challenges that require students to integrate knowledge from multiple fields.
Encouraging Cross-Departmental Teaching: Facilitating team-taught courses that bring together faculty from different disciplines to provide students with a broader perspective.

Leveraging Institutional Strengths

Smaller institutions have inherent strengths, such as close faculty-student relationships, flexible academic structures, and strong ties to their communities. Looking ahead, these strengths can be leveraged to:

Develop Regional Partnerships: Working with local governments, nonprofits, and businesses to address regional challenges while providing students with experiential learning opportunities.
Enhance Community Impact: Strengthening the institution’s role as a cultural and intellectual hub through events, workshops, and outreach initiatives.
Amplify Storytelling: Sharing compelling narratives about student success, faculty achievements, and community engagement to build a strong institutional identity.

Adapting to the Future of Work

The rise of automation, artificial intelligence, and a rapidly evolving global economy underscores the importance of preparing students for an unpredictable future. Smaller institutions can adapt by:

Focusing on Human Skills: Developing curricula that emphasize creativity, emotional intelligence, and collaboration—skills less likely to be automated.
Incorporating Emerging Technologies: Offering courses and research opportunities in areas such as AI, data science, and cybersecurity to prepare students for high-demand fields.
Teaching Adaptability: Encouraging students to embrace lifelong learning and view education as a continuous process.

Higher education is not a monolith; it’s a tapestry of diverse institutions, each with its own strengths and challenges. The resilience and creativity I’ve witnessed throughout my career remind me of the transformative power of education and the importance of investing in its future. By focusing on these key areas and embracing a culture of innovation and inclusivity, smaller institutions can not only survive but thrive in the evolving landscape of higher education.

Final Thoughts

Smaller institutions hold a unique and vital place in the landscape of higher education, serving as hubs of resilience, creativity, and transformative learning. These institutions thrive on their ability to nurture close-knit communities, foster personalized mentorship, and provide opportunities for both students and faculty to achieve meaningful success. However, the path is not without its challenges—for students or faculty.

Faculty at smaller institutions often face a delicate balancing act. Heavy teaching loads, research expectations, and service commitments create a demanding environment, further compounded by the expectations of tenure and promotion. Unlike larger institutions with graduate students who contribute advanced skills to research, faculty at smaller institutions must guide undergraduate students who are just beginning their scholarly journeys. Research projects may not always result in publishable outcomes, yet they represent significant learning experiences for students and require considerable effort and ingenuity from faculty. Institutions must recognize this and embrace a more expansive view of scholarship. Peer-reviewed presentations, methods articles, trade publications, and SoTL work are critical contributions that deserve to be valued in tenure and promotion processes.

For students, these challenges translate into unparalleled opportunities. Undergraduate research at smaller institutions is transformative, teaching students how to navigate complexities, overcome setbacks, and refine their problem-solving skills. These experiences demand grit, resilience, and a commitment to excellence, often pushing students beyond what they thought possible. The mentorship they receive from faculty—who themselves are navigating significant professional challenges—further equips them with the confidence, adaptability, and technical expertise they need to excel in graduate school, professional programs, or the workforce.

This reciprocal relationship between faculty and students lies at the heart of smaller institutions’ success. Faculty invest in students’ growth through intensive mentorship and innovative teaching, even as they work to meet their own professional goals. In return, students rise to the challenge, demonstrating that rigorous academic and research experiences at smaller institutions can rival those found at larger, better-resourced universities. Together, they create a culture of resilience and achievement that is both inspiring and impactful.

Ultimately, the legacy of smaller institutions is built on this dual commitment to faculty and students. By addressing the structural challenges that faculty face, celebrating diverse forms of scholarship, and continuing to provide students with rigorous, transformative research opportunities, these institutions ensure their continued relevance and impact. They may not always dominate national headlines, but their influence is profound, shaping lives, advancing knowledge, and preparing students and faculty alike to thrive in an ever-changing world. It is this quiet but enduring legacy that makes smaller institutions a cornerstone of higher education’s future.

References

Busteed, B. (2024, February 21). The growing discontent with American education. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/brandonbusteed/2024/02/21/the-growing-discontent-with-american-education/

Greene, P. (2024, October 2). Neither college nor career ready. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2024/10/02/neither-college-nor-career-ready/

Manno, B. V. (2024, May 28). Are high school graduates ready for college? Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/brunomanno/2024/05/28/are-high-school-graduates-ready-for-college/

Newton, D. (2024, December 29). Five education predictions for 2025. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereknewton/2024/12/29/five-education-predictions-for-2025/