The hidden failure of higher education

Key points:

• Non-negotiable parameters and guidelines are needed for closures
• 7 higher-ed leadership priorities
• More than 36M students have some college but no credential
• For more news on the future of higher ed, visit eCN’s Campus Leadership hub

In recent months, the focus on higher education has centered around issues of student rights, free speech, and the challenges of diversity that have sadly resulted in increased incidents of antisemitism and Islamophobia on college campuses and in communities.  These are critical issues with no easy solutions that too often distort the overwhelming good provided by this country’s colleges and universities.

Despite the occasional rant about the lack of value in a college degree or the overused examples of the few who achieved great success (usually monetary success) without completing a degree, the literature is replete with objective and comprehensive studies providing the clear and irrefutable benefits of college degrees to economic, social, and personal success for individuals and communities.

Unfortunately, while the overall value and success of higher education is demonstrable (despite what congressional committees like to attack), small colleges and universities are failing too many students. The failure is related to the increased number of small institutions, primarily less selective colleges and universities, that have closed or intend to close soon.

There is no disputing the need for almost all of these institutions to close.  Perhaps stronger leadership might have saved some, but declining enrollment, increasing discount rates (this year reaching over 56 percent), and increased operational and deferred maintenance costs have contributed to the inevitable decision to try to merge with another institution or to close completely. 

The hidden failure of this reality needs to be exposed and addressed.  According to a recent study published by the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center and the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, the number of closures has increased significantly in the past few years.  And it is estimated that as recently as 2022, 40 percent of all colleges and universities are at risk.

But here is the even more alarming and tragic reality described by the above cited study: 

“Once booted from their would-be alma mater, only 47% of students enrolled at another higher education institution. Just over a third of those students earned a credential. In the end, only 17% of the students that originally attended the closed institutions have graduated—a far cry from the 62% average six-year graduation rate”.

 Not all colleges and universities are created equal.  The institutions that are closing and face a fragile future are admitting more first-generation students, more low-income students, and more at-risk students who need support and assistance to be successful.  For these women and men, a college degree is transformational.  And sadly, we are failing too many of them. 

The data reported by the National Student Clearinghouse Research is staggering:

“While most students impacted by closures were white, Hispanic and Black students were less likely to re-enroll elsewhere, according to the report. About 56% of Hispanic students and 57% of Black students re-enrolled post-closure, compared to 62% of white students. Between 28% and 34% of Black, Asian, Hispanic and Native American students stopped-out for more than a year before they returned to higher education, compared to only 19.5% of white students.”

What is the solution?  In a recent and well–written article by the Editorial Board in the Boston Globe, the authors applauded the 2018 merger between Wheelock College and Boston University.  This merger is clearly an ideal with between 90-95 percent of the former Wheelock students graduating from BU on time.  The transition of faculty and staff was also handled well.

But most of the accounts of closures include failed merger attempts, challenging teach-out plans, and most unfair to the students, announcements of impending closures only a few months or weeks before the locks are put on the door. 

The Boston Globe article describes the role played by the state Board of Education.  Clearly states and the federal governments could be more timely and more active.  But the real solution to this embarrassing failure of the higher education community rests more directly with two bodies and the desperately needed guidelines for closure.

The greatest failure resides with the lack of intervention on the part of accrediting bodies.  There are a number of regional accrediting bodies in the United States.  They all use the same rhetoric and hyperbole.  For example, NECHE (New England Commission of Higher Education) describes itself as:

“ … a voluntary, peer-based, non-governmental membership association which promotes educational excellence and quality assurance…”

In reality, regional accreditation commissions are hardly “voluntary.”  To not engage in regional accreditation is to risk eligibility of receiving federal financial aid for students.  No institution can risk or afford this.  So we all “volunteer.”

 But the most disingenuous and suspect part of this statement is that these Commissions “promote … quality assurance.”  Certainly, the result of mandatory evaluations, reports, and site visits serve the goal of maintaining some levels of standards of educational quality.

But is not “quality assurance” the right of every admitted student?  And this should mean a safe and nurturing environment, appropriate educational opportunities, and the ability to earn a degree.  If this is true, the accrediting bodies are failing too many students.

Specifically, these Commissions should use the plethora of data they collect, the unending reports they require, and the frequent site visits to more proactively oversee their members regarding the risks of imminent failure.  In too many cases, accrediting bodies affirm the demise of an institution at a point when resuscitation is impossible.  Even more discouraging, especially for students, these Commissions are rarely proactive nor do they oversee the necessary plans to ensure that students will have realistic and desirable opportunities to graduate.

The second entity that needs to be held responsible are the college and university Boards of Trustees.  Many of these Boards are populated by alumni/ae who have deep emotional attachments to their alma maters.  This makes these decisions very personal. But almost all of these Boards recruit successful women and men from the business world and community leaders who should be able to read a balance sheet, analyze data trends, etc., and also act objectively.

Where is their leadership in confronting these declines that will eventually and inevitably lead to merger and closure?  How long does the Board wait to bring in new leadership, engage necessary and appropriate consultants, and demand accurate long-range plans and options/solutions?  Would these leaders be this passive about their own businesses and professional interests?  I doubt it.

Mergers take a long time to negotiate.  Closures need to be thoughtfully planned.  And in both cases, the priority should be the students.  Regardless of the ultimate results, students will be impacted in many ways.  When they were recruited and admitted, many promises were made.  This rhetoric must be resolved in a reality that supports and protects every student.

Finally, there need to be non-negotiable parameters and guidelines for closures.  Simply stated, students should be allowed to graduate from the institution they have chosen to attend, where they paid tuition, and whose mission and goals they supported.  Teach-out plans should not be defined as simply agreements with other institutions.  Transferring could be an option if this is the student’s choice.

But if these traumatic events of closure or merger are an inevitable reality, then teach out plans should guarantee the option of completing the three, two, or one year(s) required to complete the degree they chose–and were offered–at their chosen institution.  It’s a necessary part of these decisions to stop admitting new students.  A true and fair teach-out plan will be expensive.  But if we believe in the integrity of our missions, our values, our institutions, then we should do the right thing … the best thing for our students.

I am reminded of the words spoken forcefully by Nelson Mandela: “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”  We desperately need the next generation of educated graduates.  We need to be better in ensuring their education.  This is our responsibility.  This is our promise.  This is our legacy.