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 - Greg Pillar

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1 of a three-part series exploring how higher education must confront declining enrollments, financial instability, and outdated academic programs by making bold decisions about which majors to eliminate, reinvent, or realign for the future.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eliminating them, using interdisciplinary approaches, workforce alignment, and innovative program design to revitalize outdated degrees.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boldly confronting this reality, many colleges and universities remain paralyzed by institutional inertia, trapped by outdated structures and traditions that make change nearly impossible.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.