The question of how many small colleges will close has become something of a cottage industry over the past decade, and the intensity and frequency of these predictions only increased during the pandemic. But as Chronicle reporter Lee Gardner recently pointed out, a catastrophic die-off of small colleges has been predicted for well over a decade, and has not come to pass.
The more pressing question is how small colleges are managing ongoing austerity, and how they are using new approaches — some of them risky or controversial — to meet difficult circumstances. There is more to be learned from how these campuses are coping with their challenges than there is from post-mortems of closed institutions.
What is the state of the small college today? Like other institutions, they are grappling with issues like disengaged students, a Great Resignation of academic staff, and faculty burnout. But small institutions, by which I mean those with fewer than 5,000 students, have distinct challenges as well. As president emerita of a small university, I now work as a consultant to campus leaders and policymakers, and over the past few years I have noticed seven emerging trends that are having an outsize effect on these institutions. Some of these trends are beyond the control of academic leaders, and some are strategies employed to meet the changing environment. They are all key to understanding the new reality of the small college today.
1. Demographic headwinds aren’t waiting for 2026.
Demographics are not destiny, but small colleges must watch them closely. The economist Nathan D. Grawe has predicted a “demographic cliff” coming for colleges, especially for less selective institutions in the Northeast and Midwest, set to arrive in 2026. The pandemic suppressed student demand a full five years ahead of schedule. There is a large concentration of small institutions in the hard-hit geographic areas, and the students who apply to these institutions are more likely to be first generation, to have high financial need, and to have a more diverse racial and ethnic profile than in the past — all of which only raises the stakes. As a result, even those institutions that planned well for the demographic changes, by diversifying their program options, developing distinctive pedagogies, and targeting their outreach, are scrambling to meet enrollment goals.
2. Net tuition revenue is eroding.
Finances at most small tuition-dependent colleges are quite stressed. Austerity budgets were generally in place even before the pandemic, and rising discount rates and stagnant net tuition revenue has only amplified the problem. Many institutions sought to rapidly grow their programs in the years prior to the pandemic; post-pandemic, some of those envisioned revenue streams have still not materialized in a meaningful way. Some leaders sought to adapt by diversifying revenue streams, expanding popular programs, adding more online and graduate programs, and pursuing new high-demand majors. For example, Adrian College, in Michigan, added a robust 20 new majors over the last three years, more than offsetting other headwinds. However, for most campuses, while new programs provided some revenue, the graduate market quickly became very crowded, and suddenly every campus in the nation was capable of online education, making these programs less distinctive than hoped for.
The Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund helped stabilize these institutions during the pandemic. While essential, these Heerf funds have further confused budgets and planning, and a high percentage of them were earmarked for student support. Many small colleges are now left with a significant number of students whose financial support was initially subsidized by Heerf funds, and those colleges are now assuming the responsibility for ongoing aid until the students graduate. The result is an even higher discount rate and a further erosion of net tuition revenue. These changes have added to the stress on budgets; even institutions that traditionally run in the black may have experienced a year or two without a balanced budget. They also make planning difficult, as the past three years are not reliable predictors of the needs or patterns for either the next year, or the long term.
3. Curricula are adapting to the needs of the modern student.
Students are increasingly interested in disciplines like computer science, data analytics, nursing, education, criminal justice, and exercise science — fields that offer a linear path to employment. Most of these disciplines are not in the traditional liberal arts. This puts pressure on colleges with a strong liberal-arts mission, especially those which lack a large endowment or elite reputation.
The result is that many institutions are restructuring their curricula around best practices in student learning to improve retention and recruitment of contemporary students. The American Association of Colleges and Universities offers a list of evidence-based “high-impact” practices that includes things like capstone courses, ePortfolios, first-year seminars, and community-based learning. Drawing on such research, campuses like Hartwick College, Agnes Scott College, and my own former institution, Dominican University of California, redesigned curricula to ensure all students, regardless of major, had access to programs and activities that would improve retention, enhance educational quality, and provide distinction in the job market. Such curricular change does not necessarily entail program reduction, but it does require an unwavering focus on the needs of contemporary students.
The essential question small colleges must contend with is whether they can evolve effectively enough and rapidly enough to adapt, rather than be lost amidst the changes.
Another approach to curriculum revision involves combining or revising programs in areas with low student demand (often programs in the liberal arts) and adding new programs in areas of higher demand, often in STEM fields or the health sciences. This is the approach Alverno College has taken by adding growth programs (including public health and data science) and redesigning programs that should be more viable by updating (including business, psychology, and communication) and scaling down or sunsetting programs that are not determined to be viable (in Alverno’s case, these included sociology and an associate degree in arts and sciences).
Curricular change can be a vexing process at best. Institutional history, mission, faculty lines, and faculty expertise are often not aligned with the changing needs of the modern student. The campuses that are the most successful in this area manage to balance the tension between market demand (which shifts over time) and institutional mission (which rarely changes). They are also able to honor shared governance while moving quickly enough to implement changes necessary for sustainability, and sometimes simply for survival.
4. DEI efforts are being democratized.
For many years diversity, equity, and inclusion work was typically led by a single office — on small campuses, often a single person — and had limited influence or scope. Often this office was responsible for policy implementation and enforcement, and perhaps served as an informal but understaffed resource for the campus community.
That is changing. Many small colleges are now emphasizing campuswide discussion, awareness, and commitment to student success and inclusion. While institutions still appoint a chief diversity officer to lead these efforts, the wider distribution of responsibility, often through an elected advisory board, provides greater reach. Programs, departments, and offices review their own policies and practices and turn to an advisory board for feedback and professional development. One example of this is Augsburg University’s Equity and Inclusion Committee. Campuses are also more deliberately strengthening their relationships with their local communities. The University of the Pacific, for instance, now has targeted summer programs to create a pipeline of more diverse students within their region.
Of course, DEI conversations can still be challenging and emotional. The success of any approach is highly dependent on the commitment of the president and other campus leaders and requires an openness to self-reflection, personal and institutional humility, and a willingness to engage in difficult conversations.
5. Amid a contentious national discourse, small colleges’ intimacy can magnify conflict.
The national political and cultural dialogue has become more heated and more divided over the past few years, and higher education is increasingly at the center of it. For small colleges, the stress of change and threats to survival add an intensity to the mix. The issues listed above, from budget challenges to curricular changes to DEI work, are difficult under any circumstances. Today, they play out in a context of distrust, uncertainty, and fear. Small campuses are by their nature highly personal, interactive spaces. This can be a great strength, but such intimacy can also magnify conflict. The result has been more votes of no confidence, increased unionization, and pressure on our models of shared governance. The campuses that are most successful at navigating this difficult environment honor disparate voices without fracturing the institutional culture. Their leaders recognize the pain and uncertainty of the present moment and also envision a more hopeful future based on a shared sense of purpose, meaning, opportunity, and direction.
6. Small colleges are partnering with each other — and outside vendors — to expand their capabilities.
While much attention has been given to mergers and acquisitions for struggling institutions, a less explored and highly active space is emerging around creative partnership approaches — particularly as campuses seek to add new academic offerings via technology. A collaboration between the Lower Cost Models Consortium (a coalition of private institutions) and Rize Education links small campuses to high-demand majors by providing online access to the additional courses necessary for a degree in, for example, computer science. The participating institution provides all foundation courses, and their faculty serve as guides and mentors for the online portion of the degree. Institutions are also increasingly able to use technology for course-sharing arrangements with peers, or through national organizations such as the Council of Independent Colleges.
Other institutions are using technology to coordinate back-office functions and increase efficiency. These types of relationships are growing in number and scale, sometimes through partnerships around specific programs, such as the recent announcement of an affiliation between Salus University, in Pennsylvania, which specializes in health sciences, and Drexel University.
Still other campuses are coming together to seek mission alignment but program differentiation. Otterbein and Antioch Universities have aligned around education for democracy while preserving their status, respectively, as an undergraduate campus and a graduate online institution. Several other primarily residential campuses have developed partnerships with graduate online institutions, for example, Rowan University and Fielding Graduate University. Much more than transfer agreements, these arrangements integrate many administrative services and support functions. They are designed to provide seamless experiences for students between types of programs and educational delivery modes, while allowing the campuses to maintain fidelity to their missions.
Also, many small colleges are using online program managers like 2U, Academic Partnerships, Noodle, and Coursera to expand to new markets in ways their existing infrastructure would not otherwise allow. Hawaii Pacific University, for example, is working with external partners to offer online and limited residency programs that capitalize on its stunning location while providing more flexibility for students.
7. Strategic plans are getting shorter.
Traditional strategic plans have often been wish lists of potential investments for building on existing strengths or adding new programs over a seven- to10-year time frame. Many small colleges are now using a different model, developing strategic plans with broad themes that last three to five years. These theme-based plans are often developed to support innovation, and their fluidity provides room for adjustment as campuses learn in the midst of change. California Lutheran University’s plan provides a good example of this approach, which builds around a core set of themes and efforts with a five-year horizon.
Shorter plans can provide clarity and a sense of momentum as campuses attempt to move beyond the current state of austerity and anxiety to a more hopeful future. In a more sobering vein, shorter theme-based plans may be developed in response to the expectations of the governing board for fast and comprehensive change, and reflect the reality of shorter presidential tenures.
The pandemic may not have been to the small college ecosystem as the meteor was to the dinosaur, but most small colleges do face tremendous challenges. The essential question they contend with is whether they can evolve effectively enough and rapidly enough to adapt, rather than be lost amidst the changes. Small colleges are agents of opportunity and anchor institutions for communities. Their campuses are deeply committed to student success and serve a vital role in American higher education. Their challenges are real. So, too, is their creativity and their centrality to the lives of thousands of students, faculty, and staff.
