by Robert A. Scott
Novikov Aleksey/Shutterstock
According to a recent tracking report, 83 colleges have closed in the past five years, affecting more than 50,000 students. The same report noted that the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia estimates that another 80 colleges could close soon, affecting more than 100,000 students and 20,000 faculty and staff.
By 2041, there is projected to be 13% fewer high school graduates than this year, a loss of 500,000. This decline in projected college-age students — together with concerns about cost, changing attitudes about the value of higher education, and political interference — should cause concern about the future of higher education.
As a nation, we invest nearly $47 billion a year in federal and state funding for colleges and universities, in addition to family resources, yet the overall results are disappointing. Only one-half of those who enter a four-year college graduate in four years. After six years, about two-thirds graduate. Yet study after study indicates the need for college graduates. Is there a better way? Can we learn from the past to address the needs of the future?
Most of the colleges that have closed were small, with 1,000 or fewer students; high tuition discount rates; low endowments; and little brand recognition beyond their immediate region. Yet some have served their communities for over 100 years and are the major employer in their towns. Some were ranked highly for student success by the prominent college guide, “Washington Monthly.”
A case in point is Fontbonne University in Missouri. In 2024, Fontbonne ranked #17 on “Best Buy for the Buck-Midwest” and closed a year later. Another is Mount Mercy College. Ranked #30 as a stand-alone college last year, it merged with St. Ambrose this year. There are other examples.
To rank colleges based on “value for money,” Washington Monthly uses these criteria:
- Graduation rates.
- Student loan default rates.
- Net cost of attendance after financial aid is applied.
- Median earnings of graduates a few years after completing their degrees.
- Upward social mobility among low-income students.
- Diversity of the student body and faculty as a measure of inclusivity.
In contemplating the future, what models of institutional development should we consider: increasing the size and scale of some institutions to serve additional students or more regions? increasing the use of online and distance learning to reach new populations, although not all students are prepared to succeed in this mode of teaching? merging institutions? or creating networks of institutions with rational allocations of programs and services?
In the 1970s and 1980s, in part prompted by the increasing interest shown by state and federal lawmakers in college access and affordability, the Carnegie Corporation of New York created the Carnegie Commission and Carnegie Council to study the status and future of higher education and its role in society.
We are at a similar place in American history. We need to formulate a new vision for the future.
I recommend that the Carnegie Corporation of New York convene such a study. Among the principles to guide such development is the ideal that colleges and universities give priority to collective commitments on behalf of society as well as to institutional independence.
To guide us, we might consider developments in nonprofit healthcare systems. The paths taken by Kaiser Permanente, Mayo, and Northwell Health can be instructive.
In each case, a single hospital expanded internally by adding specialties and externally by acquiring hospitals in different locations. Consequently, some smaller institutions that might have closed received injections of resources, allowing them to continue serving their region. The corporate structure mirrors, in some ways, that of public universities which have separate foundations.
The main board is responsible for governance, academic program approvals, quality control and risk management, hiring and evaluating the president, finances, and setting the cultural tone. It is part of the trio of shared governance including the board, the president, and the faculty. The foundation board, building on local knowledge, is responsible for external relations, fundraising, and managing the endowment.
One can imagine borrowing from this model to create satellite campuses with separate advisory boards all reporting to the single corporate board in a hub and spoke arrangement.
While there are legitimate concerns about “corporate” healthcare in terms of customer services, and by extension “corporate” higher education, there are lessons to be learned. We should consider what the landscape for college will be in 25 and 50 years and contemplate alternative paths that preserve access and service to the public as well as academic freedom. Even strong colleges can find synergies with competitors that become collaborators. They need to build bridges to the community and other campuses, not walls guarding an ivory tower.
Could Harvard, or a set of wealthy institutions, be the Northwell, Kaiser, or Mayo of higher education, with a hub in each region of the country and spokes throughout? The local institution would give up a measure of autonomy but gain financial stability.
We already have state systems of public colleges and universities in which individual campuses maintain their identities and heritage. They are not perfect, but we know how to improve their governance and results. We also know of public and private institutions with satellite campuses in other countries. Why not conceive of national networks of private institutions as one model for the future? We could save valuable local institutions with historic commitments to their regions and support community and economic development in low-population areas at the same time. Colleges and universities are vital to the nation’s social and economic futures. We need to act now to ensure their continued contributions.
