Elite universities across the country are in crisis. The Department of Education in Washington, D.C., redefined diversity, equity and inclusion programs as discriminatory. Funding for research is under threat with grants suspended and an effort to reduce the financial such funding brings to campuses. Several government agencies suspended $400 million in funding for Columbia University, noting: “This is only the beginning.” Columbia’s subsequent capitulation to various demands from the Trump istration sets a chilling precedent. Core assumptions about the independence of universities are now in question. Major sources of funding on which universities rely now appear to be contingent on ideological fidelity with the istration in Washington. Where does higher education go from here? Universities must innovate now to protect their ability to thrive in the future.
The current crisis is decades in the making. While executive orders from the White House are the proximate cause, the distal cause of the present circumstance is an erosion of public trust in higher education. One of the few things Americans agree on in a deeply polarized era is their loss of confidence in higher education. Cost is a major factor in societal criticism of higher education. Polls show that Americans think that a university education is too expensive, and over one in four Americans has student loan debt, with a median debt of over $20,000. Another source of distrust is the college ission process, which is largely seen as opaque and capricious. Beyond questions of cost and access, public concerns extent to discrimination on campus. Some prominent universities are accused of failing to suppress antisemitism, and indeed this is the stated rationale for suspending $400 million in funding for Columbia University. Taken together, the result of these trends is an overall decline in trust in our universities and a perception that these institutions are increasingly expensive, exclusionary and discriminatory.
How might our universities innovate to thrive in a changing environment?
Universities can make the ission process more transparent. issions practices need to be demystified for students and their families in ways that reassure society of their fairness. How might this be accomplished? A standard practice in ission involves quantifying the various components of the ission application, thereby generating an overall score that combines standardized testing, grade point average and numerical values assigned to extracurricular engagement, recommendations, essays, etc. These internal practices could be made visible to would-be students to rebuild trust.
Universities can rethink the duration of undergraduate education and reduce time-to-degree to three (or fewer) years. With “early college” programs in many states, more and more students graduate from high school having already earned substantial credit toward a college degree. Arriving in college with credits already accrued is one way to shorten time-to-degree and lower costs, and these programs warrant expansion. Another option would be to reconsider the academic calendar, which remains unchanged since the 19th century. The goal should be to open up options for students, shorten time-to-degree, and lower the cost of education.
Universities can develop alternative means of for research to supplement or replace government funding. In the present system, the vast majority of external funding for university-based research comes from the federal government. To create alternatives, philanthropic foundations can band together and coordinate their giving. Groups of universities can gather individual donors into collectives to pool their resources and foster discovery. Corporate partnerships can also be explored in new ways consistent with academic values.
Universities can lower their operating costs through greater collaboration. Competition is foundational to the American system of higher education, but it may be that competition in all things is counterproductive. In general, each university is an island unto itself, developing internally every capacity internally. A shared services approach would be a useful alternative, pooling functions that offer no competitive advantage. istrative partnerships of this nature could potentially achieve massive economies of scale.
The question universities leaders must ask themselves is: What can be changed to ensure the continuity of the things that must never change? Many of the ideas above challenge long-standing practices within universities, but some of those practices are habits more than values. Some are traditions created in the 19th century and ed down from generation to generation without scrutiny. Each university should examine its practices and structures with the same rational skepticism they expect of the academic work conducted by faculty and students alike. Whether change comes in the forms suggested above or by other means, American universities and colleges must innovate to secure their futures.
Robison is vice dean of the University of Southern California Rossier School of Education, where he is also professor of clinical education and history. He lives in Los Angeles.
