In 2023, Jonathan Nichols published Requiem for a College, describing the decline and closure of a once-thriving liberal arts college. This first-hand account of a professor at St. Joseph’s College in Rensselaer, Indiana, explores the complex interplay of a financial system that was opaque rather than transparent, educational trends that were changing, and decision making that was ill-informed; all led to the institution’s downfall. There have been more than 50 college and university closures since this college closed in 2017, but this particular story provides intricate details about the impact of dwindling enrollments and reduced funding, exacerbated by an inability to adapt to the digital age and shifting student preferences. Nichols focuses on the role of leadership in the crisis, highlighting how decisions made in isolation from faculty and student needs hastened the college’s demise. Nichols also reflects on the broader implications for higher education, particularly for small, private colleges facing similar challenges. Through interviews with former staff and students and education experts, he paints a vivid picture of the human cost of the closure, from a lost community to interrupted careers and educations. The narrative serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of adaptability, transparency, financial prudence, and inclusive and well-informed decision making in higher education. I call attention to this first-hand account of a college closure as there are many small and medium-sized institutions experiencing financial struggles similar to those of St. Joseph’s. Further, Nichols’ description of the institution’s shortcomings was not unique to his experience. We will explore this situation further.

Historical Foundations of the Operational-Centric Mindset

Higher education in the United States began in 1636 with the enrollment of nine students at what is now Harvard University. Today, there are more than 4,000 degree-granting public and private higher education institutions (NCES) across the country serving just under 19 million students (EdData). I introduce this information to the conversation for two reasons. First, it demonstrates the longstanding importance of higher education in the United States; higher education institutions have been integral components of American society for nearly 400 years. Second, the courses offered at Harvard during its early years are remarkably similar to what we see today at many colleges and universities in the form of core curricula or general educational curricula. This point is emphasized when one considers the archives at Harvard, which list Languages, Rhetoric & Logic, Ethics & Politics, and Arithmetic & Geometry as the institution’s original curriculum, with Algebra, Astronomy, Physics, Metaphysics, and Theology soon to follow (Harvard Library).

Of course, the content associated with these disciplines has evolved, but the core courses provided to students in 1636 continue to be the basis for core curricula and general education requirements in many higher education institutions today. While I do not pass judgment on the state of the modern curriculum, it is essential to recognize how historical approaches to curriculum planning have fostered a mindset that leans heavily on an operational approach leveraging historical precedence. As described in Section 2, operational approaches, over time, encourage adherence to the status quo and do not allow for adjustments reflecting significant changes occurring within and outside of the institution. At this point, I would add that the operational approach has not been used solely for academic activities at institutions; this approach is often used for administrative tasks such as budgeting, course scheduling, and staffing. As I explained in Section 2, longstanding operational approaches lead to incremental decision making and a lack of alignment with the strategic direction set forth by the institution. Despite the historical success of incremental decision making, this approach faces challenges posed by well-documented demographic shifts, economic challenges, and technological advancements, so that a departure from the status quo is demanded. Those familiar with the story of higher education in the United States should not be surprised by this comparison, as there are several recent publications directly addressing this issue. One such publication includes Brian Rosenberg’s recent text describing higher education’s resistance to change. He states:

For years I have pondered the question of why an industry so widely populated by people who consider themselves politically liberal is so deeply conservative when it comes to its own work; why scholars whose disciplines are constantly evolving are so resistant to institutional evolution; why colleges and universities that almost always speak in their mission statements about the transformative power of education find it so difficult to transform themselves; why virtually no fundamental practice within higher education—calendar, tenure process, pedagogy, grading—has changed in meaningful ways for decades, if not centuries. (Rosenberg, 2024)

Taken together, both the curricula and the approach to delivering the curricula in many higher education institutions have changed little over many years, and this has created an ideal environment for maintaining the status quo and, in some ways, led colleges and universities to establish an organizational structure with a strong resistance to change.

Operational Challenges Amid Financial Pressures

In support of this position, I suggest that the long-term consistency in curricular offerings and the minimal effort needed to plan and budget for coursework delivery have limited the capacity of higher education institutions to innovate and meet the needs of today’s learners. Not only is this reflected in the academic nature of the institution, but it is also found in the way supplies and services designed to serve the higher education industry are provided and priced. For example, many commercial information systems from vendors such as Ellucian, Oracle, and Workday include a course schedule rollover function that allows institutions to begin their planning using the same course schedule each year and adjust on the margins where necessary. Budgeting processes are similar in that each unit typically receives the previous year’s budget as it begins planning and continues with minimal discussion regarding the addition or deletion of faculty lines, administrative staff, travel allowances, and other components. Other enablers of operational-centric planning in higher education include a rigid academic calendar, a perceived linear progression of students from first year to graduation, and an expectation that employers will continue to require traditional degrees as a gateway to securing a job. Although the operational approach and incremental planning may have been effective in the past, I am convinced that these processes are no longer the best ones for higher education institutions or the communities they serve; rather, a shift to a greater emphasis on informed decision making, a change in leadership, and more effective strategic planning approaches is required. Figure 3.1 lists pros and cons the reader may consider when discussing the advantages and liabilities of implementing an operational approach with an emphasis on incremental budgeting.

Figure 3.1 Pros and Cons of Incremental Planning

Emphasis on Informed Decision Making

Historically, institutions have received financial support from state and federal appropriations and grant programs, annual tuition increases have been widely implemented and accepted, international students have been willing to pay a premium to enroll in schools in the United States, and student loans have been readily accessible and subsidized by the federal government. This robust set of revenue streams has led to an operational-centric higher education industry that relies upon incremental budget processes, across-the-board cuts when revenue streams miss targets, and a proliferation of academic programs that have outlived their usefulness. As described previously, a key problem with this approach is that it does not always take into consideration changes that may occur to existing programs, such as changes in enrollment, forms of external funding, costs of instruction, and external contributions to the institution’s endowment. Decision making and resource allocation must evolve from this operationally focused approach to a more strategic mindset that relies on accurate information reflecting the current relationship between revenues and expenses, and how they impact the institution’s ability to fulfill its mission.

Key Points

• The way in which higher education in the United States has developed has fostered a mindset that encourages operational planning and incremental resource allocation.

• A resistance to change has led to a reliance on traditional practices in curriculum delivery and administrative procedures.

• The sector faces challenges resulting from demographic shifts, economic pressures, and technological advancements.

• There is a critical need for a strategic shift toward informed decision making and adaptability.

Exercises for the Provost

In an ever-evolving educational landscape, it is crucial for higher education institutions to periodically assess their academic offerings. I have learned that many institutions have maintained detailed historical records of the academic programs and courses they have offered. I would encourage the provost to sit down with the academic affairs team and review these records and then to consider how the team would participate in the following activities:

Analyze the Core Curriculum or General Education Offerings: Identify and list the core curriculum or general education offerings with their start dates and any revisions made to each one since it was added to the core curriculum or general education requirements. Once you have done this, attempt to answer the following questions:

What is the breadth (number of courses) and diversity (covered fields) of courses within your core curriculum or general education offerings?

How many required credit hours are involved? What have been the enrollment trends of these courses over the past 10 years?

What revisions have been made to these courses over the past 10 years, if any?

What percentage of credit hours produced for the home academic department is attributed to these courses?

Evaluate New Academic Programs: Review all new academic programs implemented over the past 10 years and analyze how well they have met the initial projections for them used during the proposal process.

How have these programs fared in terms of the pro forma estimates or projections?

Do the results give you confidence in the current academic program proposal process?

Why or why not?

Assess Discontinued Courses and Programs: List all courses and programs that have been sunset over the past 10 years.

How does the number of these courses and programs compare with the number of new courses and programs introduced over the same period?

What conclusions can you or your team draw from this comparison?

By thoroughly examining these key areas, you can gain invaluable insights into the effectiveness and relevance of your institution’s academic programs, ensuring they meet the evolving needs of students and the broader educational landscape.