Leveraging Staged Growth for Online Learning Infrastructure
When it comes to building a successful online learning ecosystem in higher education, there’s no magic switch to flip — and certainly no one-size-fits-all strategy to follow. For colleges and universities navigating the complex shift to digital, growth isn’t linear. It’s staged. Enter the Good, Better, Best model, one of the most effective techniques an institution can use to grow online.
Unlike blanket approaches that assume every school has the same staff, resources, and readiness level, Good, Better, Best offers a practical, capacity-driven road map — a flexible framework that honors where an institution is while guiding it toward where it wants to go.
At its core, this model isn’t about chasing perfection; it’s about committing to measurable progress over time. “Best” isn’t a static end point. It’s a moving target that evolves alongside the institution’s goals, stakeholders, and capabilities.
At Archer, we view Good, Better, Best not as a ranking system, but as a framework for institutional improvement — one that works only when there’s transparency, alignment, and shared ownership across departments. Whether your institution is just beginning its online learning journey or fine-tuning an established program, Good, Better, Best meets you where you are — and grows with you.
You Might Need a Good, Better, Best Strategy If …
If your institution is experiencing any of the following roadblocks, you may benefit from adopting a Good, Better, Best strategy.
You’re not sure where to start to improve your online operations.
With so many moving pieces — in areas ranging from tech platforms to student support — it can be hard to know what to tackle first. Good, Better, Best helps you identify which areas should be your priority based on capacity, not guesswork.
Your leadership team’s alignment with your long-term goals is unclear.
When leaders aren’t on the same page, it’s easy to spin your wheels. Good, Better, Best creates a common language and plan that fosters alignment across departments and roles.
You’ve outgrown your current partner model and want more control.
If your outsourced solutions no longer fit your evolving needs, Archer’s Good, Better, Best partnership model can help you reclaim ownership of your operational processes with a scalable, strategic framework tailored to your team.
Teams aren’t sure who owns what (and it’s slowing you down).
Role clarity is critical to success. Good, Better, Best surfaces ownership gaps and overlaps so you can streamlineyour operations and empower your teams to move forward confidently.
You have an institutional vision, but no shared plan to execute it.
Ambition is great — but it needs direction. Good, Better, Best turns a vision into action with clear phases, milestones, and accountability across stakeholders.
You’ve made progress, but need a strategy to maintain it and scale it.
Momentum is hard-won, and sustaining it takes intention. Good, Better, Best supports continuous improvement so you can build on your success without burning out your team.
Why Good, Better, Best Matters in Enrollment Strategy
For institutions looking to grow their online programs, knowing where to go next starts with understanding where they are now.
At Archer, we help colleges and universities assess their current state across the core functions that shape the online student experience — from marketing and enrollment to student support and information technology (IT). Our Readiness Assessment is the first step in building a road map rooted in the Good, Better, Best model.
Rather than applying a rigid, one-size-fits-all playbook, we use Good, Better, Best to create a customized path forward for each institution, shaped by its unique capacity and goals. Each department involved in the assessment — whether it’s admissions, advising, IT, or marketing — gets to define what “Good,” “Better,” and “Best” look like for them.
This is what makes the framework so powerful. It’s not prescriptive; it’s practical and flexible, built around what institutions have today and where they want to grow tomorrow.
By anchoring their enrollment strategy in this kind of honest, department-level reflection, institutions can align their efforts, set realistic goals, and build momentum toward long-term success.
The Challenge of Transformation
In today’s competitive higher ed landscape — where enrollment patterns are shifting and online options are expanding — many institutional teams find themselves overwhelmed. They’re trying to do everything at once, often with stretched resources, siloed decision-making, and no clear sense of what should come first.
The result? Progress that feels more reactive than strategic.
But what’s missing isn’t more effort. It’s more structure.
We’ve seen that the most successful institutions don’t attempt to leap straight to “Best” on day one. Instead, they take the time to map out a clear, achievable path forward. That’s where the Good, Better, Best model makes a difference. It gives teams a way to define their current state, envision their future goals, and understand the phased steps required to get there.
This kind of structured transformation allows institutions to move with purpose — prioritizing what matters most, aligning cross-functional teams, and building momentum one phase at a time.
Is Your Institution Ready for Good, Better, Best?
At its core, the Good, Better, Best model isn’t about doing everything at once — it’s about doing the right things, at the right time, with the right people. It’s a strategic framework that meets institutions where they are and guides them forward with clarity and intention.
At Archer, we don’t just help you design your road map — we walk it with you. As your partner in strategy, delivery, and implementation, we’re here to support you as you achieve sustainable, long-term growth that’s aligned with your mission and built for your team’s unique capacity. With Good, Better, Best, progress isn’t just possible. It’s practical.
The Office for Students has found that the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement of the University of Sussex involves breach of two of the relevant OfS Regulatory Requirements in late March 2025, and imposed an unprecedentedly substantial fine. The first of those criticised (OfS Condition E1) concerns the duty to protect freedom of speech and academic freedom:
The provider’s governing documents must uphold the public interest governance principles that are applicable to the provider.
A further OfS Condition (E2) requires that ‘the provider must have in place adequate and effective management and governance arrangements’ so as to ‘operate in accordance with its governing documents’.
On 9 April 2025 the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sussex published a fierce criticism of the unprecedented decision of Office for Students that it had failed to comply with one of its own ‘policies’. The Vice-Chancellor considered that the policy in question was:
a really small statement, of which we have many dozens, if not hundreds, of similar policies and statements. Whereas the governing documents of the university are its charter and statutes and regulations.
There was press coverage about the ensuing uncertainty. UniversitiesUK, as the ‘collective voice’ of universities promised to write to the OfS to ask for clarity as its decision appears to find that it is a ‘failure to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom’ if a university has ‘policies’ to prevent ‘abusive, bullying and harassing’ material or speech.
The University has notified the OfS of its intention to apply for judicial review. Among the grounds Sussex relies on is that the Office for Students did not have powers to treat ‘documents that are not a provider’s “governing documents”’ as creating the public interest governance condition necessary to permit the OfS to seek judicial review. The OfS defines ‘governing documents’ somewhat inadequately as ‘set out in’ its ‘Regulatory Framework’, where ‘the provider’s governing documents must uphold the public interest governance principles that are applicable to the provider. In this case it held:
that the University of Sussex breached ongoing condition of registration E2 because it failed to have adequate and effective management and governance arrangements in place to ensure that it operates in accordance with its governing documents.
The definition of ‘governing documents’ is therefore of the first importance if a precedent is to be set by this OfS decision. The Higher Education and Research Act (2017) s.3(8)(a) protects the autonomy of higher education providers, defining it as ‘the freedom of English higher education providers within the law to conduct their day to day management in an effective and competent way’. Sussex was created among the batch of new universities of the 1960s.
The Act created a new Regulator, the Office for Students, stating that the Regulator ‘must have regard to’ the ‘need to protect the institutional autonomy of English higher education providers’. This requires a fine balance if the OfS is to avoid intrusion upon a provider’s autonomy.
The institutional autonomy of higher education providers gives them control of the drafting of their internal legislation. External authorities may insist on particular points in certain cases. For example medical qualifications set by a provider cannot constitute a qualification to be a doctor unless they are recognised by the General Medical Council. But the right to create its own rules (within the law) largely lies with the provider, who may design them and order them in its own preferred hierarchy. The Office for Students may not interfere.
Nevertheless the creation of ‘governing documents’ must carry certain implications about the source of the internal or external authority to create, review or amend them. It is suggested that ‘Sussex contends that these are matters for our old friend the Visitor, a traditional legal role in UK university governance, who in Sussex’s case is the actual King’, and:
cites longstanding legal authority confirming that the Visitor has exclusive jurisdiction over internal governance questions, including interpretation and application of the university’s own rules, and says that unless Parliament clearly removes or overrides that jurisdiction, external bodies like OfS can’t interfere.
Where the Monarch is not the Visitor it is normally a Bishop.
However a Visitor is not essential to the law-making of a higher education provider. ‘Alternative providers’ may not have Visitors. As eleemosynary bodies their Colleges normally have Visitors of their own but neither Oxford nor Cambridge has a Visitor. Under the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Act of 2023, both Universities create their own Statutes. In Oxford’s case those which are King-in-Council Statutes require the consent of the Privy Council on behalf of the King. In Cambridge all its Statutes require that consent to their creation or modification. Their subordinate legislation, most Regulations in Oxford (some of Oxford’s Regulations may be created by its Council) and Special Ordinances and Ordinances in Cambridge, simply require the consent of their governing bodies, Oxford’s Congregation of over 5000 and Cambridge’s Regent House of over 7000 members.
The rules at the top of a provider’s hierarchies may constitute governing documents but it is far from clear how far down that status applies. For purposes of management ‘procedural or process documents’ explain the required ways of doing things and the processes which must be followed’. Among these are Codes of Practice and ‘Guidance documents’. This seems to be where the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement fits, as approved by the Executive Group in 2018, 2022, 2023 and 2024 and placed under the heading of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion(revised in 2022, 2023 and 2024). Is it a governing document in this lowly position?
Also found relevant by the Office for Students in the Sussex case was the exercise of powers of delegation. It identified ‘a pattern of decisions taken at the university to adopt and/or revise policies without proper delegated authority’, both that its:
Prevent Steering Group approved and adopted the 2021 version of the University’s Freedom of Speech Code of Practice despite not having delegated authority to do so
and also that ‘the 2023 version of the External Speakers Procedure was approved by the University Executive Group, despite that group not having delegated authority to do so’.
Like similar universities Sussex has an Executive Team composed of a Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellors, their deputies, Deans of Schools and Faculties, with senior academic-related staff headed by a University Secretary, a Financial Officer and various Directors. These are not directly responsible for framing its legislation but may have authority to apply it, though not necessarily powers to delegate its application.
The Office for Students could turn to the University’s rules about delegation in framing its criticism. Sussex has given thought to that. Sussex’s Council approved a Scheme of Delegation in March 2018. ‘Responsibility’ may be delegated by the Council except for the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor and President; ‘the variation, amendment or revocation of the Charter or Statutes’; and responsibility for approving the University’s annual audited accounts or the appointment of Auditors. The Scheme of Delegation clarifies where roles and responsibilities are allocated between Council and its Committees, among Committees, and between Council and Senate. The ‘Executive’ and a University Executive Group are described as exercising ‘leadership’ and there is also a University Leadership Team, though ‘leadership’ is undefined.
Sussex has also given thought to overall responsibilities for supervision of the exercise of its internal rules. It has chosen to describe them collectively as ‘policies’. It isrecognised to be ‘important that a clear and consistent approach is taken to drafting and updating policies across the institution’ details the requirements for the creation, approval, review, and updating of policies. However it clarifies the difference between policies and other associated documents, sets out responsibilities relating to policies, and details the requirements for the creation, approval, review, and updating of policies. An overarching Policy on Policies has been agreed by the ‘University Executive Team and Council’. This consists in a Policy on the Creation and Management of University Policies (‘Policy Framework’).
The aim of the University’s Policy Framework is to make clear what a policy is and what policies should be used for, to differentiate between policies and other types of documents (e.g. procedural documents, codes of practice, etc), and to outline the process that should be followed when drafting, reviewing, and updating policies. An outline of where responsibilities lie in relation to policies is also included.
This suggests that if pressed Sussex might take all these to constitute its ‘governing documents’, while recognising distinctions among them.
Nevertheless Sussex distinguishes governance and management. ‘A policy is a high-level statement of principles, requirements or behaviours that apply broadly across the University’ and ‘reflects institutional values’, thus supporting ‘the delivery of the University’s strategy’. It reflects ‘legal and regulatory obligations, sector standards, or high-level operational requirements’. These create obligations.
Among them Sussex lists ‘Regulations’, which must be made ‘pursuant to the Charter’. These contain detailed rules governing a wide variety of actions of, or on behalf of, the University falling under governance but extending into management: staffing procedures, student disciplinary and appeals procedures, the Students’ Union, the composition of Council and Senate, titles of degrees and Schools, roles of Heads of Schools, lists of collaborative institutions, academic titles and dress, the various degree courses awarded by the University, and general University regulations (library, ICT, administrative). These Regulations are updated annually and approved by Council and/or Senate. Next come written ‘Resolutions’ which Council members may choose to approve or not, ‘in accordance with procedures set out in the Regulations’, though amendments to the Charter and the Statutes and certain Regulations require ‘a three-fourths majority’.
For purposes of management ‘procedural or process documents’ going beyond these categories explain the required ways of doing things at Sussex and ‘the processes which must be followed’. Among these are Codes of Practice and ‘Guidance documents’. This seems to be where the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement fits, as approved by the Executive Group in 2018, revised in 2022, 2023 and 2024. placed under the heading of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion. Are they still among ‘governing documents’ with a constitutional role in the University’s governance? An application for a judicial review will take a considerable time to produce a recommendation even if it supports Sussex’s argument
SRHE member GR Evans is Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History in the University of Cambridge.
April 21, 2025, by Dean Hoke: With this profile of Davidson College, I complete the tenth and final entry in my series exploring small colleges across the United States. This journey has deepened my appreciation for the distinct contributions and lasting impact of these diverse institutions. Collectively, these colleges have further strengthened my belief in the diversity, resilience, and enduring importance of American higher education — and reaffirmed the vital role that small colleges continue to play in communities across the country.
Background
Founded in 1837 by Presbyterian leaders, Davidson College is a private liberal arts college located in Davidson, North Carolina, just north of Charlotte. Named after Revolutionary War hero General William Lee Davidson, the college embraces a strong tradition of academic excellence and service. Although it maintains historical ties to the Presbyterian Church (USA), Davidson welcomes students of all faiths and backgrounds. A hallmark of Davidson’s culture is its student-run Honor Code, fostering a climate of trust and integrity. With about 2,000 undergraduates, Davidson remains committed to developing “humane instincts and disciplined, creative minds” through a personalized liberal arts education steeped in tradition, yet responsive to the challenges of a changing world.
Curricula
Davidson College offers a broad and rigorous liberal arts education, exclusively focused on undergraduate learning. Students choose from 37 majors and 39 minors, ranging from traditional fields like English, History, and Biology to interdisciplinary studies like Data Science and Environmental Studies. Through the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies, students can even create personalized majors. All students must complete a comprehensive general education program, emphasizing writing, critical thinking, and exposure to diverse disciplines.
Davidson has an 8:1 student-faculty ratio, which promotes mentorship and in-depth discussion. Faculty, all holding terminal degrees, foster an environment that encourages original research and creative work. Davidson emphasizes experiential learning, with over 70% of students studying abroad and many engaging in faculty-mentored research or community-based projects. Signature programs include the Center for Civic Engagement and Humanities Seminars. The college’s academic culture, shaped by its Honor Code, blends classic liberal arts education with forward-looking innovation, producing graduates who are both intellectually agile and socially responsible.
Strengths
Academic Achievements: Davidson students and alumni excel in prestigious awards. The college has produced 23 Rhodes Scholars (one of the highest totals per capita for an undergraduate institution) and is a top producer of Fulbright Scholars. Students are also competitive for Goldwater, Watson, and Marshall scholarships, reflecting the quality of preparation.
Employment and graduate school placement rates: In the class of 2024, 92% were employed or enrolled in postgraduate education 6 months after graduation. This has been consistent for a number of years.
Selective Admissions: Admission to Davidson is highly competitive (“most selective” according to Princeton Review and U.S. News). For the Class of 2027 entering fall 2023, Davidson’s acceptance rate was ~14.5% (1,068 accepted out of 7,363 applicants) and has a yield rate of nearly 50%. Davidson practices need-blind admissions for U.S. students and meets 100% of demonstrated financial need.
Notable Faculty and Resources: Davidson’s faculty are dedicated teachers and active scholars. Small class sizes and an emphasis on undergraduate research allow students to work closely with faculty on original research or creative works. The college has modern facilities for science and art. Davidson’s NCAA Division I athletics (unusual for a school of its size) also provides school spirit and national visibility, particularly the men’s basketball program.
Financial Strength and Aid: Davidson’s financial position is robust, with an endowment of approximately $1.3 billion as of 2023. This substantial endowment (which has more than doubled in the past decade) underwrites the college’s Davidson Trust, a landmark financial aid program.
Weaknesses
High Cost and Financial Accessibility: The high sticker price of attending Davidson—now over $80,000 annually and rising—remains a barrier for many middle-income families. Students without demonstrated financial need receive little or no merit aid, limiting socioeconomic diversity compared to peer institutions with larger endowments.
Student Diversity Challenges: Davidson College has made significant efforts to diversify its student body, but challenges remain. Black and Hispanic/Latino enrollment continues to lag behind national averages for selective liberal arts colleges. Although Davidson has invested in scholarships, outreach programs, and DEI initiatives, progress has been gradual. Some students and alumni express concern that the pace of change has not fully kept up with the college’s aspirations for a more inclusive campus community.
Faculty Retention Challenges Among Early-Career and Diverse Faculty: While Davidson College enjoys strong overall faculty stability, recent strategic plan updates and DEI committee reports acknowledge challenges in retaining early-career and underrepresented faculty members. Factors such as limited research resources, heavier service burdens for faculty of color, and opportunities at larger institutions have contributed to higher attrition rates within these groups.
Economic Impact
According to the Davidson College Economic Impact Report 2023, produced by Appleseed Inc. (an economic consulting firm specializing in higher education and nonprofit sectors), Davidson College generates nearly $500 million annually for the North Carolina economy, including $430 million for the Charlotte metro region. The college supports approximately 2,300 jobs statewide and contributes around $22 million in annual state tax revenue. Student and visitor spending adds another $18 million annually to local businesses. Beyond economics, Davidson students contribute over 73,000 hours of community service each year, benefiting local schools, nonprofits, and civic organizations. The town-gown relationship is exemplary, with Davidson serving as a cultural, social, and educational hub for the region. Davidson’s strategic proximity to Charlotte opens further opportunities for collaboration, internships, and regional engagement, ensuring that its impact extends well beyond its picturesque campus.
Enrollment Trends
According to the Davidson College FactFile, enrollment has remained steady with a gender balance and a national/international student body.
The college student body represents all states and 57 nations. The domestic student of color population is 28%, and 53% of the students are women.
Degrees Awarded by Major
In the 2023–24 academic year, Davidson College conferred degrees to 504 graduates, of whom 108 had double majors.
Alumni
Davidson College’s alumni impact spans politics, literature, sports, and public service:
Dean Rusk (1931): U.S. Secretary of State under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson; Davidson’s international studies program honors his legacy.
Tony Snow (1977): Former White House Press Secretary and noted journalist; exemplified public communication skills rooted in his Davidson education.
Patricia Cornwell (1979:) Best-Selling crime novelist whose forensic thrillers have sold over 100 million copies worldwide.
Elizabeth Kiss (1983): Global educational leader and Warden of Rhodes House at Oxford University; a trailblazer in ethics and leadership education.
Anthony Foxx (1993): U.S. Secretary of Transportation and former Mayor of Charlotte; actively supports Davidson’s civic engagement initiatives.
Stephen Curry (2010, completed 2022): NBA MVP and four-time champion; his legendary NCAA tournament run put Davidson basketball on the national map, and he returned to complete his sociology degree.
Endowment and Financial Standing
Davidson’s endowment has grown significantly, reaching approximately $1.375 billion in 2023. This growth supports its generous need-blind, no-loan financial aid policies and academic initiatives.
The college’s financial management has earned high marks. The 2023 Forbes Financial Grades give Davison a 3.9 GPA and an A letter grade.
Return on Investment (ROI)
According to Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce, Davidson’s 40-year ROI for bachelor’s degrees is $2,689,000—well above the national average of $1,744,000 for private institutions. This places Davidson in the top 75 private college institutions.
Why is Davidson Important?
• Davidson College embodies the best traditions of academic rigor, ethical leadership, and service. Founded in 1837, Davidson forged a powerful model of liberal arts education rooted in critical thinking, moral inquiry, and civic responsibility. The college’s honor code—one of the earliest in the South—still defines campus culture today, emphasizing personal integrity and a community of trust.
• Davidson’s regional and national influence extends far beyond its campus. The college plays a growing role in the economic and civic life of the Charlotte metro area, leveraging partnerships that connect students to real-world opportunities in business, public service, and innovation. Nationally, Davidson alumni have made transformative contributions in government, global affairs, literature, education, and athletics, demonstrating that small colleges can have broad and lasting societal impact.
• Davidson remains a vital force for leadership, diversity, and opportunity. Initiatives like the Davidson Trust, which eliminates student loans from financial aid packages, alongside robust global learning and community engagement programs, show Davidson’s commitment to access and excellence. The college continuously prepares students not only for professional success but for principled leadership in a rapidly changing world.
Summary
Davidson College remains one of America’s premier liberal arts institutions, blending historic tradition with forward-looking innovation. The college exemplifies the transformative power of the liberal arts, producing leaders of conscience and influence. It has long combined academic excellence with ethical leadership and a global perspective, demonstrating that a small college can have a profound national and international impact. Davidson’s commitment to trust, service, and innovation ensures that it continues to shape lives and society for the better.
Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy, and a Senior Fellow with the Sagamore Institute. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean, along with Kent Barnds, is a co-host for the podcast series Small College America.
When you’re looking for research on four-day school weeks or how to teach fractions, or trying to locate an historical document, such as the landmark Coleman Report of 1966, you might begin with Google. But the reason that high-quality research results pop up from your Google search is because something called ERIC exists behind the scenes.
ERIC stands for Education Resources Information Center and it is a curated online public library of 2.1 million educational documents that is funded and managed by the U.S. Education Department. The collection dates back to the 1960s and used to be circulated to libraries through microfiche. Today it’s an open access website where anyone can search, read online or download material. Neither a library card nor login credentials are needed. It is used by an estimated 14 million people a year. (I am one of them.) If you’re familiar with MedLine or PubMed for health care studies, this is the equivalent for the field of education.
This critical online library catalog is supposed to continue operating under a five-year contract that runs through 2028. Initially, ERIC was spared from the department’s mass contract cancellations in February. But according to Erin Pollard Young, the sole Education Department employee who managed ERIC until her job was eliminated in March, the Department of Government Efficiency or DOGE has since refused to approve disbursement of money that has already been authorized by Congress for the upcoming year.
Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.
ERIC is scheduled to run out of money on April 23. After that date, no new documents can be added. “The contract, from my understanding, would die,” Pollard Young said in an interview.
“After 60 years of gathering hard to find education literature and sharing it broadly, the website could stop being updated,” Pollard Young posted on LinkedIn. “Yes, the data are backed up in so many places, and the website will likely remain up for a while. But without constant curation and updating, so much information will be lost.”
Parents, teachers, researchers and education policymakers are all affected. “Defunding ERIC would limit public access to critical education research, hindering evidence-based practices and informed policy decisions vital for the advancement of American education,” emailed Gladys Cruz, a superintendent of a school district called Questar III BOCES outside of Albany, New York, and a past president of the AASA, The School Superintendents Association.
Proposal to halve the cost
Pollard Young said that before she left the Education Department, she was frantically working to comply with a DOGE demand to slash ERIC’s annual budget by half, from $5.5 million to $2.25 million. The cuts were painful. She would have to cut 45 percent of the journals added to the database each year.The public help desk would be eliminated. And Pollard Young had agreed to personally take on the extra task of directly communicating with 1,500 publishers, something that had been handled by AEM Education Services, a vendor that collects, analyzes and manages data for the government.
These proposed cuts did not satisfy DOGE. Pollard Young said she received an email reply in all caps, “THIS IS NOT APPROVED,” with a request for more information. Pollard Young submitted the additional information but never received a response. She lost access to her work email about a week later on March 11, the day that Pollard Young and more than 1,300 other Education Department employees lost their jobs in a mass firing.
Pollard Young was the only Education Department employee who was involved with ERIC on a daily basis. She oversaw a team of 30 contractors at AEM Education Services, which did most of the work. Adding documents to the digital library involves many steps, from determining their importance to cataloging and indexing them. It is the metadata, or descriptive tags, that AEM inserts behind the scenes that allows documents on ERIC to be discoverable and rise to the top on Google searches. But the public can also search directly on the ERIC website.
“Fun fact,” Paige Kowalski, executive vice president of the Data Quality Campaign, an organization that advocates for data-driven decision making in schools, posted on LinkedIn. “Over the 20 years that DQC has been around we’ve had some poorly designed websites with atrocious search functions. I often couldn’t find resources I wrote! But could always find them on ERIC. Huge resource.”
The bulk of the collection consists of academic journal articles. Many are full text PDFs that would otherwise be inaccessible behind paywalls. ERIC also contains books, federal, state and local government reports and doctoral dissertations.
Gray literature
One of its gems is the large amount of “gray literature,” which Pollard Young described as unpublished studies from private research organizations and school district reports that are not cataloged in EBSCO, a private database of academic documents. That’s another reason that Google and AI cannot simply replace this curated ERIC collection. “In education so much research is produced outside of journals,” said Pollard Young. “Big, important RCTs [randomized controlled trials] are in white papers,” or special reports.
In response to specific questions about the future of ERIC, the Education Department responded more broadly about the need to restructure the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), where ERIC is managed. “Despite spending hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds annually, IES has failed to effectively fulfill its mandate to identify best practices and new approaches that improve educational outcomes and close achievement gaps for students,” said Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications, in an emailed statement. “The Department is actively evaluating how to restructure IES with input from existing leadership and expert stakeholders so that the Institute provides states with more useful data to improve student outcomes while maintaining rigorous scientific integrity and cost effectiveness.”
It is still possible that DOGE will approve the reduced budget proposal this week before the money runs out. But there will be no one at the Education Department to oversee it or communicate with publishers. “Best case scenario, ERIC operates at half of its budget,” Pollard Young posted on LinkedIn.
Like other Education Department employees who were fired in March, Pollard Young is on administrative leave until June. But she said she is willing to risk potential retaliation from the administration and speak on the record about the threat to ERIC, which she had managed for more than a dozen years.
“I am aware of what some of the consequences are,” said Pollard Young. “But to me, it is important for the field to know that I am doing everything in my power to save ERIC and also for the country to understand what is happening. As I’m talking to people across the country, it is clear that they don’t fully understand what is happening in D.C. Hopefully we can put some pressure on it so we can keep the funding or bring it back.”
This story about ERIC was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
$390,000 to Jaylon Tyson, a former basketball guard at UC Berkeley, from a group of private donors.
$3,000 to Jordan Chiles, a UCLA gymnast and Olympic gold-medal winner, from Grammarly, an AI writing company.
$390 to Mekhi Mays, a former Cal State Long Beach sprinter, from a local barbecue joint.
These payments — derived from data that public universities provided to CalMatters — were part of “name, image and likeness deals” requiring students to create favorable posts on social media.
Such sponsorship deals were unheard of just four years ago. In 2021, California enacted a law allowing athletes to make these kinds of brand deals. It was the first state to pass such a law, prompting similar changes across the country.
This is the first-ever look at what many California athletes have actually made. University records show that money is flowing, but how much college athletes earn depends largely on the popularity of the sport, the gender and star power of its players and the fanbase of the university. While UCLA gymnasts earned over $2 million in the last three school years, university records show that players on the UCLA women’s water polo team earned just $152 during the same time frame, despite winning the national championship last year.
For companies, these name, image and likeness deals are akin to paying any other celebrity or professional athlete to promote a product. University alumni and sports fans can’t give money directly to a student athlete — at least not yet — but they are allowed to make name, image and likeness deals. Many universities have private donor groups, known as collectives or booster clubs, that offer athletes money, sometimes more than $400,000 in a single transaction, in exchange for an autograph or participation in a brief charity event. Often, those deals are a pretext to send money to top-tier players and discourage them from seeking better deals at other colleges.
CalMatters reached out to every public and private university in the state with Division 1 teams, where the potential for profit is typically highest, and requested data that shows how much money each of its student athletes have made since 2021. State law requires all student athletes to report to their school any compensation they receive from their name, image and likeness, and public universities are required to disclose certain kinds of data upon request. Private universities, such as Stanford University and the University of Southern California, are not required to disclose any data about their students’ earnings.
All of the public Division 1 universities responded to CalMatters’ inquiry, though they did not all provide the same degree of transparency. San Jose State and Cal State Northridge said they had no records of any deals.
There’s no consequence for students who fail to report what are known as NIL deals, so the data from public institutions may be incomplete. Still, certain trends emerge:
College athletes at the state’s public universities received millions of dollars from collectives or booster clubs. At four University of California schools, around 70% or more of all compensation came from these collectives, according to university records. That’s just below national trends, according to a report by Opendorse, a tech company that tracks students’ deals.
Male basketball players earned the most. While football is more popular and lucrative, nationally, many public Division 1 schools in California lack a football team. The football data may also be incomplete. For instance, all football players at UC Berkeley reported making a total of just over $113,000 since 2021 — less than what all San Diego State players made — even though Berkeley is in a more prominent conference.
For high-profile football or basketball players in particular, it’s becoming more common for students to transfer multiple times, often in search of better name, image and likeness deals. Some California institutions, such as UC Davis and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, have seen top athletes transfer colleges or threaten to transfer in order to attain better compensation elsewhere.
Except for a few star players, such as Chiles, most female college athletes made very little, according to the data provided to CalMatters.
Collectively, athletes at UCLA and UC Berkeley earned more than double what those attending other UC and California State University campuses made. Some donors, such as those supporting Sacramento State and UC San Diego, have rapidly raised money to compete, while at other schools, athletic directors say they’ll never be able to guarantee such high-dollar deals.
Schools often removed any information that could identify an individual student. While UCLA generally did not provide the individual names of its athletes, the school was more transparent than most and shared the date of each transaction, the name of the brand or company, the amount of money it gave, and the sport. In February, a UCLA gymnast reported receiving $250,000 from the beverage company Bubbl’r. Since then, Chiles has promoted that brand, repeatedly. In May, a UCLA gymnast reported receiving $210,000 from the cosmetic brand Milani for “social media” — just a few months before Chiles posted a video on Instagram, promoting its makeup. One or more members of the UCLA gymnastics team have also reported deals with the food company Danone for $300,000 and with the health care company Sanofi for $285,000.
Fresno State shared less information. In the 2021-22 academic year, the Fresno State women’s basketball team raked in over $1.1 million from multiple name, image and likeness deals, but the university did not disclose which players were involved or how many were paid. After influencers and former basketball players Haley and Hanna Cavinder transferred to the University of Miami in April 2022, the number and dollar amount of deals for the Fresno team diminished. In the 2023-24 academic year, the team made just over $1,000 from 10 different deals.
Money from boosters or collectives is the hardest to trace. In May, for example, a group of UCLA donors gave an undisclosed football player $450,000 for “social media.”
While private universities are not required to disclose students’ earnings, market estimates from On3, a media and technology company focused on college sports, say the highest-earning Stanford University athlete, basketball player Maxime Raynaud, could collect $1.5 million in the next 12 months. The top USC athlete, football player Jayden Maiava, could make $603,000 in the next year, according to the same estimates. These numbers are based on an algorithm that uses aggregate deals from college athletes across the country. Nationwide, the Opendorse report estimates that college athletes will earn $1.65 billion in the 2024-25 academic year.
Soon, college athletes may make even more. A high-profile class-action lawsuit will likely allow schools to pay athletes directly, while still classifying them as students, not employees. If the proposed settlement agreement goes into effect, students could see payouts as early as this fall.
If a school pays a student directly, the money should be divided roughly proportional to the number of male and female athletes, the Biden administration said in a U.S. Department of Education fact sheet issued in January. The page no longer exists.
In the last few months, attorneys have rescinded federal labor petitions asking that USC and Dartmouth College student athletes be reclassified as employees, but new cases are likely on the horizon, said Mit Winter, an attorney who specializes in name, image and likeness law: “I do think at some point — two years, five years, whatever it is — at least some college athletes will be employees.”
A Times Square billboard reads: NIL has begun
For decades, college sports have been a big business, though most of the money flowed to universities, not students. Nationally, Division 1 universities reported $17.5 billion in athletic revenue in 2022, according to the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). That’s more than the gross domestic product of 83 countries. For schools with top-performing football programs, such as UCLA and Berkeley, broadcast deals and other kinds of marketing represent over a third of total revenue.
Before California’s law went into effect, college athletes weren’t allowed to profit off their sport, though they frequently received scholarships equal to the cost of college tuition. On July 1, 2021 the new law took effect, and Haley and Hanna Cavinder were the first to benefit, signing deals with Boost Mobile, a cell phone company, and Sixstar, a nutrition company, just after the stroke of midnight. A Times Square billboard proclaimed they were the first such deals in the country.
Over the past four years, other California college athletes have signed advertising deals with clothing brands such as Crocs, Heelys and Aeropostale and food brands such as Liquid I.V. and Jack in the Box. FTX, the now-bankrupt cryptocurrency exchange, signed contracts with at least six players on the UCLA women’s basketball team in 2021. In 2022, the Biden campaign gave a UCLA gymnast $7,000, but public records did not disclose the purpose of the transaction. No other politicians appeared in any university’s data.
But much of the money for students’ name, image and likeness doesn’t come from brands at all — it’s from private donors. Philanthropist and entertainment lawyer Mark Kalmansohn has given nearly $150,000 in 12 different transactions to athletes on UCLA’s volleyball, softball and women’s basketball teams since 2022, according to the data, which runs through May of last year. In an interview with CalMatters, Kalmansohn said he’s given more than $175,000 since May. “Women’s sports were almost always treated in a second-hand nature and given inferior resources,” he said, adding that his philanthropy is about “women’s rights.”
In exchange for money, he asks each recipient to issue a free license of their name, image and likeness to a nonprofit organization that’s relevant to the athlete’s sport. But he said that’s not the norm. “In men’s football and men’s basketball, it’s pretty obvious that money is not for an ‘appearance’.” Instead, he explained that it’s a way to support the player and keep the team competitive.
Most donors give money to specific athletes through a collective, where the donors’ identities are largely hidden. At UCLA, public data through the 2023-24 academic year shows that a collective known as the Men of Westwood channeled nearly $2 million in private donations to the football, basketball and baseball teams. At Berkeley, collectives gave over $1.3 million to athletes since the 2022-23 academic year — the vast majority of which went to the men’s basketball team.
Supporting ‘elite talent’ at UC and Cal State
For years, NCAA rules made it difficult for college athletes to transfer schools, but in 2021, right around the time that California started to allow name, image and likeness deals, the NCAA eased those rules. The number of students who transfer suddenly jumped in 2021 and has ticked up each year since, according to NCAA data. In practice, the new rules means that a well-endowed collective can lure athletes who want to make more money.
This year, over 11% of all Division 1 football players have tried to transfer colleges, an increase from the previous year, said Matt Kraemer, whose organization, The Portal Report, uses social media posts and tips from insiders to gauge college athletes’ transfer activity. Quarterbacks are even more likely to try to transfer, Kraemer said.
For institutions like UC Davis, the threat of losing a top athlete can be costly. Late in the 2023-24 academic year, donors from other universities promised top athletes lucrative deals if they agreed to transfer, so UC Davis formed a collective, Aggie Edge, to make counter-offers, said Athletic Director Rocko DeLuca. “It’s a means to retain elite talent here at Davis.”
DeLuca said the collective gave men’s basketball guard TY Johnson $50,000 and UC Davis running back Lan Larison $25,000. Those transactions were for “social media, appearances, autographs,” according to the university’s data.
So far, all other UC Davis athletes — more than 700 students over 25 sports — have reported just under $19,000 in deals since 2021. A few other athletes received products, such as a free cryotherapy session or a commission based on sales.
In December, former UC Berkeley quarterback Fernando Mendoza transferred to Indiana University, where he later signed a name, image and likeness deal with a collective for an undisclosed amount. UC Berkeley then recruited former Ohio State quarterback Devin Brown the day after he won a national championship. It’s not clear if the Berkeley collective offered Brown a deal, since the university’s data doesn’t name Brown.
Justin DiTolla, Berkeley’s associate athletic director, said the university is “not affiliated with the collective” and that the university provides “equal support to all student athletes.” “We recognize that there is a difference in NIL support,” he said, “But it isn’t under our scope or umbrella.” The Berkeley collective, California Legends, declined to comment.
At Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, some football players sought more money through a name, image and likeness deal by transferring to another school, but they didn’t all succeed, said Don Oberhelman, the university’s athletic director. “That’s the dirty little secret of all of this: the number of kids who blow an opportunity.”
This fall, nine football players at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo announced their intention to transfer, he said. Six of them found a new university, he said, including University of Texas El Paso, San Diego State, Stanford, and Washington State — but three of them never received an offer from another school.
Oberhelman said that his football coach begins recruiting a replacement the moment a player announces his intention to transfer. If that student doesn’t end up transferring, he may lose his spot on the football team and the entirety of his athletic scholarship, which can be up to $30,000 a year.
“There’s raw emotion involved in these kinds of decisions,” he said. “I don’t think that’s how we would operate, but I can see a lot of people say, ‘You broke up with us.’”
Oberhelman said he doesn’t know what happened to the three players from the football team who failed to transfer. “For me, it would boil down to: Did we promise that money to someone else? Did we find another transfer or a high school person to replace you? If we did, that would put your future financial aid with us in jeopardy.”
Small-town name, image and likeness deals
Outside of top football and men’s basketball programs, many of California’s college athletes vie for smaller name, image and likeness deals, often with local businesses, lesser-known clothing or athletic brands, or anything else they can find.
Former Berkeley softball player Randi Roelling got $50 from one woman to give a pitching lesson to her daughter. In July 2023, chiropractor Lance Casazza started giving out free sessions to at least one Sacramento State football player in exchange for social media posts.
Annika Shah, a basketball player at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, got her first deal through a local restaurant, Jewel of India, which occasionally has a pop-up tent outside the college gym. “I just said, ‘Hey I can market you. Let’s think of a cool slogan to put out.’” Customers who ask to “swish with Shah” at the checkout counter get a discount on their meal, she said. Shah doesn’t get any money, she said, but she does get free food whenever she visits.
“It was just a cool relationship and connection that I made with this family and the owners of Jewel of India, where they just want to help me out and I want to help them.”
Walking around campus, friends jokingly refer to Shah as their own “Jewel of India” and she likes it. “It’s such a marketable slogan now, and it kind of identifies who I am.”
Many Division 1 schools have their own websites where customers can buy gear with an athlete’s name on it, but last fall, no such platform existed at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, said Shah, so she created her own. She partnered with a company, Cloud 9 Sports, and launched her own apparel brand. It’s brought in about $2,000 in sales so far, but after the university and Cloud 9 Sports take a cut, Shah said she’s left with about $800.
Shah said she was never told to report any of her monetary or in-kind contributions. After CalMatters asked, Oberhelman, the athletic director, said the school is now requiring it. “We haven’t done a great job following up because we’re just not going to have student athletes that are getting even five-figure deals,” he said.
Oberhelman said he only knew of eight deals, each for $2,000, all to the men’s football team from a group of private donors.
Fresno State provided more data than Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, but it did not designate which deals came from its collective, known as Bulldog Bread. On its website the collective says it has raised more than $690,000 in corporate donations for Fresno State. At the top tier, that includes money from former Fresno State quarterbacks David and Derek Carr, property developer Lance Kashian, and construction company Tarlton and Son, Inc. The collective recently launched a vodka brand in partnership with a distillery, where a portion of all proceeds support students’ name, image and likeness deals.
Athletes at UC Santa Barbara have reported $1,800 from their collective, Gold & Blue, but many other transactions reported by the school provide few details. According to the school’s data, an unnamed person or group made 15 deals with one or more members of the UC Santa Barbara men’s basketball team, totaling over $50,000 in “appearance fees” for an event last August associated with Heal the Ocean, a local environmental nonprofit.
The organization’s executive director, Hillary Hauser, said the nonprofit made no such contribution and had no events in August. University spokesperson Kiki Reyes said it’s “possible” that a collective made those payments, but she refused to respond to CalMatters’ questions regarding Hauser’s statement the event never occurred.
From August 2023 to August 2024, male basketball and baseball athletes at UC Santa Barbara reported roughly $500,000 in compensation for appearance fees related to various charities. Over the same time frame, all other athletes reported receiving free products, sales referrals, and cash payments totaling about $1,000.
At UCLA, the CEO of the Men of Westwood collective, Ken Graiwer, is listed in university records as the “point of contact” for a $450,000 contribution, distributed over six transactions in the 2023-24 academic year, to the men’s basketball team for “public appearances.” For each of those transactions, the university’s data lists the Team First Foundation, a sports nonprofit, as the vendor. Neither UCLA nor the Team First Foundation responded to questions about who made the payment.
A few months before those transactions, the Men of Westwood posted a few photos on its Instagram account, showing UCLA men’s basketball players on the court with smiling children from the Team First Foundation programs. In the post, the Men of Westwood said it was “NIL outreach.”
California universities try to ‘stay competitive’
Since becoming legal in 2021, the market for name, image and likeness compensation has exploded. Sports commentators, attorneys, and athletic directors say the landscape is a kind of “wild West” or “gold rush”: The money is pouring in, but the regulations are sparse or evolving.
CalMatters has partial data from the 2024-25 academic year, but early indicators suggest that even more cash will soon flow to players. In September, a group of Sacramento State alumni, including some state lawmakers, said they raised over $35 million in one day for name, image and likeness deals. Cal State Bakersfield and UC San Diego recently formed their own collectives too.
Last year, former Democratic Sen. Nancy Skinner of Berkeley — one of the co-authors of the watershed name, image and likeness law — proposed a new bill to gather more data about spending by collectives and its impact on women’s sports. Newsom vetoed the bill, saying “Further changes to this dynamic should be done nationally.”
Initially, the NCAA tried to prevent colleges from directly assisting athletes with deals, but the association has eased those regulations recently, blurring the lines between universities and the private collectives that support them. Many states have passed laws explicitly allowing universities to make deals directly with students. In October, Skinner and former Democratic Sen. Steven Bradford wrote a letter to California universities, encouraging them to do the same.
“I strongly urge California schools to make full use of (the watershed law) to stay competitive in college sports, especially now that other states are copying California and allowing their schools to make direct NIL deals with their student athletes,” said Skinner in a press release about the letter.
This spring, California District Judge Claudia Wilken is expected to approve a settlement between athletes and the NCAA that would further expand the ways universities can pay their players. In the proposed settlement, a college could directly spend up to a combined $20.5 million per year on payments to all of its athletes. The spending limit would grow over time.
Regardless of the settlement, athletic directors at many of California’s public institutions, such as Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and Cal State Bakersfield, said they don’t plan on giving any more money directly to students because their athletic programs lack the cash. “They’re already on full scholarship, so there aren’t any more existing dollars we can really offer that person,” said Oberhelman, with Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Even if the university did have the money, he said he’s concerned about the legal implications of paying students directly. “Are they going to get a W-2 now? Are we paying workers comp? Nobody seems to have answered a lot of these questions.”
DiTolla, at Berkeley, said the university will start paying its athletes once the settlement is finalized. UC San Diego joined Division 1 sports last year, and Athletic Director Earl Edwards said it is “seriously considering” paying its athletes too “if that’s what we need to do to be competitive.” UCLA refused to comment on the proposed settlement.
USC Senior Associate Athletic Director Cody Worsham said the university will “invest the full permissible $20.5 million in 2025-26.” Stanford refused to answer any questions.
While no Division 1 school in California has shared details about how it plans to pay its athletes, experts, such as attorney Mit Winter, say the proposed settlement is unlikely to change the current disparities in college sports, especially within the four most lucrative and dominant athletic conferences, known as the Power Four. Stanford, USC, UC Berkeley and UCLA are all in the Power Four.
For female rowers like Anaiya Singer, a freshman at UCLA, the disparities among men’s and women’s sports — and between football, basketball and everyone else — are no surprise. “Those big sports do bring in the most revenue, and they’re the most watched,” she said, while acknowledging that other athletes, such as fellow rowers, “deserve much more than we’re getting.”
Singer said she’s been working on building her social media brand and has nearly 3,000 followers on TikTok and just over 1,300 on Instagram. A few “very small companies” reached out to her through TikTok about promoting beauty products, but none of the brands felt like a good fit, she said. She has yet to agree to any deals or receive any funding from a collective.
Neither have most of her peers. The UCLA women’s rowing team has reported less than $500 in name, image and likeness compensation since 2021.
In the proposed settlement, each school will each be able to independently determine how to distribute their funds, but Winter said universities will likely follow their peers. “If you’re in UCLA, Berkeley….you’re in the Power Four and you’re going to have to stay competitive in recruiting,” he said.
“Most of the Power Four schools have all sort of landed on a similar way they’re going to pay that money out,” he added: 75% to the football team, 15% to the basketball team, around 5% to women’s basketball, and 5% to all other sports.
Patricia McGuire has always been an outspoken advocate for her students at Trinity Washington University, a small, Catholic institution that serves largely Black and Hispanic women, just a few miles from the White House. She’s also criticized what she calls “the Trump administration’s wholesale assault on freedom of speech and human rights.”
In her 36 years as president, though, McGuire told me, she has never felt so isolated, a lonely voice challenging an agenda she believes “demands a vigorous and loud response from all of higher education. “
It got a little bit louder this week, after Harvard University President Alan Garber refused to capitulate to Trump’s demands that it overhaul its operations, hiring and admissions. Trump is now calling on the IRS to rescind Harvard’s tax-exempt status.
The epic and unprecedented battle with Harvard is part of Trump’s push to remake higher education and attack elite schools, beginning with his insistence that Harvard address allegations of antisemitism, stemming from campus protests related to Israel’s bombardment of Gaza following attacks by Hamas in October 2023.
Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education.
Garber responded that “no government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue” — words that Harvard faculty, students and others in higher education had been urging him to say for weeks. Students and faculty at Brown and Yale are asking their presidents to speak out as well.
Many hope it is the beginning of a new resistance in higher education. “Harvard’s move gives others permission to come out on the ice a little,” McGuire said. “This is an answer to the tepid and vacillating presidents who said they don’t want to draw attention to themselves.”
Harvard paved the way for other institutions to stand up to the administration’s demands, Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, noted in an interview with NPR this week.
Stanford University President Jonathan Levin immediately backed Harvard, noting that “the way to bring about constructive change is not by destroying the nation’s capacity for scientific research, or through the government taking command of a private institution.”
Former President Barack Obama on Monday urged others to follow suit.
A minuscule number of college leaders had spoken out before Harvard’s Garber, including Michael Gavin, president of Delta College, a community college in Michigan; Princeton University’s president, Christopher Eisgruber; Danielle Holley of Mount Holyoke; and SUNY Chancellor John B. King Jr. Of more than 70 prominent higher education leaders who signed a petition circulated Tuesday supporting Garber, only a handful were current college presidents, including Michael Roth of Wesleyan, Susan Poser of Hofstra, Alison Byerly of Carleton, David Fithian of Clark University, Jonathan Holloway of Rutgers University and Laura Walker of Bennington College.
Speaking out and opposing Trump is not without consequences: The president retaliated against Harvard by freezing $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to Harvard.
Many higher ed leaders think it’s going to take a bigger, collective effort fight for everything that U.S. higher education stands for, including those with more influence than Trinity Washington, which has no federal grants and an endowment of just $30 million. It’s also filled with students working their way through school.
About 15 percent are undocumented and live in constant fear of being deported under Trump policies, McGuire told me. “We need the elites out there because they have the clout and the financial strength the rest of us don’t have,” she said. “Trinity is not on anyone’s radar.”
Some schools are pushing back against Trump’s immigration policies, hoping to protect their international and undocumented students. Occidental College President Tom Stritikus is among the college presidents who signed an amicus brief this month detailing concerns about the administration’s revocation of student and faculty visas and the arrest and detention of students based on campus advocacy.
“I think the real concern is the fear and instability that our students are experiencing. It is just heartbreaking to me,” Stritikus told me. He also spoke of the need for “collective action” among colleges and the associations that support them.
The fear is real: More than 210 colleges and universities have identified 1,400-plus international students and recent graduates who have had their legal status changed by the State Department, according to Inside Higher Ed. Stritikus said Occidental is providing resources, training sessions and guidance for student and faculty.
Many students, he said, would like him to do more. “When I’m around students, I’m more optimistic for our future,” Stritikus said. “Our higher education system has been the envy of the world for a very long time. Clearly these threats to institutional autonomy, freedom of expression and the civil rights of our community put all that risk.”
Back at Trinity Washington, McGuire said she will continue to make calls, talk to other college presidents and encourage them to take a stronger stand.
“I tell them, you will never regret doing what is right, but if you allow yourself to be co-opted, you will have regret that you caved to a dictator who doesn’t care about you or your institution.”
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
What if colleges started applying to you instead of the other way around?
The anxiety-inducing college admissions game is changing. With declining birth rates and growing skepticism about the value of a degree, higher education is facing an enrollment cliff, set to hit hard in 2026. That’s 18 years after the Great Recession, when many American families stopped having babies.
As competition for students intensifies, more states desperate for workforce talent and schools dependent on tuition dollars are turning to direct admission – a system in which students receive college acceptance offers and scholarships before they even apply.
Marykate Agnes was directly admitted to Western New England University, and also got a significant amount of financial aid. Credit: Kirk Carapezza
In this episode, hosts Kirk Carapezza and Jon Marcus break down how we even got to the point at which the traditional college admission process required students to spend time and money with no guarantee of success. And they ask whether direct admission is the solution colleges and students need, or a Band-Aid on a bigger enrollment crisis.
In the basement of the Student Center at Western New England University in Springfield, Massachusetts, students play pool and ping pong. At a table in the back, Ndilei Lukulay is taking a break from her studies. She tells me her mother came to the U.S. from Sierra Leone. Growing up in Springfield, Lukulay felt nervous about applying to college.
[Ndilei Lukulay] I was definitely feeling the pressure of being that my mom is an immigrant. She’s very big on going to college and making sure that you get a good career and complete all your studies and so I didn’t know where to start and I was very stressed out about the whole thing.
[Kirk] Then this university in her hometown emailed to say she was admitted and would get a scholarship and she hadn’t even applied. So she was skeptical.
[Ndilei Lukulay] I was, like, is this a scam? Is this real?
[Kirk] It was real. Western New England, a private university with about 2,000 students, offered to admit her and more than 2,000 other students before they even applied. The university tells me the goal is to make college more accessible to low-income students, like Lukulay, who make up about a third of the school’s population.
This is called direct admission, and we’re seeing a lot more schools doing this as they confront a steep decline in the number of 18-year-olds, something economists call the demographic cliff. That’s going to mean a lot fewer college students — or potential customers.
[Jon] And, Kirk, schools in areas of the country like western Massachusetts are the hardest hit.
Here’s how it works. The college tells students they’d get in based on a handful of criteria, like their GPA or intended major. For students like Ndilei Lukulay, that means getting to skip writing essays, going to interviews, and getting letters of recommendation.
[Ndilei Lukulay] I think I received direct admissions offers from about 12 to 15 schools and I was actually very shocked. I just never heard anything about it and I’m like, is that easy?
[Jon] This is College Uncovered, a podcast pulling back the ivy to reveal how colleges really work. I’m Jon Marcus with the Hechinger Report. …
[Kirk] … and I’m Kirk Carapezza with GBH News. Colleges don’t want you to know how they operate, so GBH …
[Jon] … in collaboration with the Hechinger Report, is here to show you.
In this season, we’re standing on the precipice of the demographic cliff and exploring the changing higher education landscape. And one of the major changes is how people are getting into college. Applying to schools is really stressful. But what if all that went away and colleges applied to you?
Today on the show” Tag, You’re In!”
[Kirk] Direct admission is now used by hundreds of schools across the country. And more than a dozen state systems do this, too, including Oregon, Minnesota, and Connecticut. Idaho was the first state to create a direct admissions program.
[Jennifer Delaney] In Idaho, it was actually the president of the flagship who tried to apply to his own college and found it really hard.
[Kirk] Jennifer Delaney teaches higher ed policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and she studied the direct admissions program in Idaho, where every public institution in the state participates, as well as two private colleges.
[Jennifer Delaney] It was about how do we simplify, how do think about increasing, as a state, overall college enrollment. So every kid in a public high school in Idaho gets a letter. You’re either in everywhere in the state if your GPA is high enough, or you’re into all the open-access institutions, which is every community college plus two public four-years.
[Jon] This is a major shift, Kirk, in how colleges do business. For students, it helps ease the stress of the college search by letting them know they’re in before they even apply. For colleges desperate for students, it’s a way to fill their classroom.
[Kirk] Yeah, and for states, Jon, it’s a way to keep talent close to home and develop a more educated workforce. Susan Makowski is director of admission at Rider University in New Jersey. We heard from her in our first episode this season.
[Susan Makowski] The cliff is coming, so we just will have less students.
[Kirk] At a college fair in Edison, New Jersey, she told me Rider was already admitting nearly 80 percent of those who applied when it decided to offer direct admission to students who’ve uploaded their applications through the Common App. That’s a single application accepted by more than 1,000 schools. So somebody applying to the University of Michigan suddenly gets accepted to other schools, like Rider.
[Susan Makowski] These direct admission programs run the gamut of different ways that a student gets admitted. I may alert them that they look like a great fit for Rider, but they still need to decide — do they feel that way? Whereas the other options, really, I think, sometimes worry students. Like, is this real?
[Jon] Interesting. But does direct admission really help colleges like Rider boost enrollment? And what if a college tags you? We’ll have more on that in a moment, so stay tuned.
But first, how did we get to this point where the college admissions process requires students to spend a ton of time and money with no guarantee of success? And how did the whole process become so anxiety-inducing?
[Kirk] Well, Jon, it wasn’t always this way.
[Archival newsreel sound] There were a group of congressmen with long memories who were in the last war. They knew that when a man gets out of the Army or Navy or Marines, he’s worried most about a job, an education, and a home. And that’s why Congress, led by the president, passed the law, the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, better known as the G.I. Bill of Rights.
[Kirk] Some quick history. After World War II, most of the students applying to college applied to a single school. And by the 1970s, it was maybe two schools. Today, one in three students applies to seven or more places. That shift has created a lot of uncertainty for colleges hoping to fill their seats and a lot anxiety for students and their families. To get a sense of why colleges push this system, I reached out to a long-time admissions insider.
[John Burdick] My name is John Burdick. I was, until 2023, the vice provost for enrollment at Cornell University in New York.
[Kirk] Burdick was in the game for nearly four decades. Since he left Cornell, he’s been working on international college access in Africa. So technically he’s still in the game. I asked him what drove us here?
[John Burdick] This is basically just a classic arms race. The more rejection letters we can send, the more prestige we have, the more likely people will be willing to spend money on our services. And then students follow along behind that by a year or so and say, ‘I don’t know that I’m going to get in there or the other nine, 10, 19 prestigious places that I am applying to. So I better apply to all of them.’
[Kirk] Burdick says everybody in the game has a perverse incentive — students to increase the number of applications they send, and colleges to increase the number of applications they get.
[John Burdick] Now the Ivies will by and large say, ‘Oh, we don’t want more applications. We’re already only admitting 5 percent and it’s terrible and we’d just as soon not see applications.’ They’re lying through their teeth. They would freak out if they suddenly weren’t among the most selective universities on the planet.
[Kirk] And on this planet, most colleges — 80% — admit more than half the students who apply. Still, selective or elite college admission drives the national narrative.
Jon, you’ve reported on the fact that it’s getting easier to get into college and with the demographic cliff coming it’ll only get easier at certain schools, right?
[Jon] Yeah, not at Princeton and Yale, but despite public perception, and for the first time in decades, acceptance rates at most colleges and universities are going up.
[Kirk] Where are acceptance rates going up the most?
[Jon] Well, Bucknell, George Washington, Marquette, Oberlin, Gonzaga, Brigham Young — the list goes on and on. These universities want you to think it’s impossible, or at least hard, to get in. But the fact is, on average, universities are admitting a larger proportion of their applicants than they did 20 years ago. In fact, the median acceptance rate at four-year universities was about 8 percentage points higher in 2022 than it was in 2012.
[Kirk] Many students think it’s increasingly hard to get into college, and they see the whole process as a mystery. Even as you gather up your transcripts and test scores and then add some final touches on your personal essays, the question remains: Exactly what happens after your application goes out into the unknown? At the college fair in New Jersey, I asked high school juniors Masiambou Saysay and Harmony Roundtree what they think happens behind closed doors.
[Masiambou Saysay] They just have a lot of applications, they’re like, declined, oh yeah, I don’t know.
[Harmony Roundtree] I feel like a big pile of letters being stacked on top of each other and you just gotta pick, yeah.
[Kirk] And what do you think it looks like?
[Harmony Roundtree] Hmm. Like, a million emails and then, like, three different computers
[Kirk] I got a glimpse into one of those computers and the black box that is the admissions process — the mystery of who gets in, the secrets of what really matters. After I reached out to a bunch of schools, the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester agreed to give me access and a behind-the-scenes look at the admissions processes. Full disclosure, Jon, I’m a graduate of Holy Cross.
[Jon] Oh, really, Kirk? You never mention it. So the only school that would let you in is the only school that would allow you to observe the process?
[Kirk] That’s pretty much how this went down. The college let me sit in on one early decision committee meeting. Behind closed doors, inside a tiny conference room, I saw how the process historically went down.
[Woman’s voice] Nice program, good testing.
[Man’s voice] Yeah, a lot to like.
[Woman’s voice] People like him?
[Kirk] What’s most surprising is how quickly the committee reviews the candidates, spending about two minutes on each before deciding whether to accept, hold, or deny. To speed things along, the committee uses a lot of jargon, like LBB — that’s ‘late blooming boy’ — and RJ for ‘rejection.’
[Woman’s voice] Academically has everything. I wonder if a counselor call might be enlightening.
[Woman’s voice] I mean, honestly, it sounds like maybe he could work on it or be cognizant of it. I mean I don’t know, and he’s strong academically, I think he’s okay.
[Man’s voice] I think his classmates would bring him down to reality.
[Jon] Kirk, that’s just one small private college. So to get a broader sense of the admissions landscape and how it’s changing, we reached out to Jeff Selingo.
[Kirk] Yes, Selingo teaches higher ed leadership at Arizona State University, and he’s author of the book Who Gets In and Why. For his research, he spent a year inside three college admissions offices at Emory in Atlanta, Davidson in North Carolina, and the University of Washington in Seattle. So I asked him, how did he end up at those schools?
[Jeff Selingo] In some ways, it’s a lot like admissions. I approached 24 schools and asked them to get inside their admissions process. And most said no. And only three said yes. So it’s kind of like I applied to 24 schools. I only got into three.
[Kirk] And what do you think people imagine it’s like inside a college admissions office and what’s it actually like?
[Jeff Selingo] First of all, I think they think that the admissions officers are spending a lot more time with college applications than they really are. Emory had something like 40,000 applications. And so as a result, they’re like looking at these applications sometimes in just a couple of minutes. Probably the most they would take with an application might be 12 or 13 minutes. And meanwhile, you know, these kids are putting their heart and soul into it for years.
[Kirk] Selingo says the biggest change in the college admissions game is the lack of signals around what it takes to get in. Schools that used to require test scores, for example, have gone test-optional since the pandemic.
[Jeff Selingo] You know, some colleges have gone back, But that lack of a signal, like, if I got a 1400 or 1300 on the SAT, I kind of knew where that would place me in a class and I would not even apply to most of these schools. But now with test optional, it gave me the opportunity to potentially apply and get in. And so every year now you see just increasing number of applications again to these highly selective schools. And then you hear stories, ‘Oh, I didn’t, you, know, my kid didn’t get in or my cousin didn’t get in,’ and so the following year, kids get really nervous. And what do they do? They apply to not only those same set of schools, but then they apply to five more at the same time. And so you just see this vicious circle that just keeps going around and around again, particularly around these top schools.
[Kirk] How do you think the demographic cliff and the shortage of 18-year-olds will change this game?
[Jeff Selingo] I think the competition for student is going to intensify. And so you’re seeing that already. You see programs like direct admission, where students are getting accepted to colleges without even applying. You’re going to see a lot more marketing to students even earlier than they do now, in terms of buying their names and sending them information. The other thing, though, is on the financial aid side. I think the discounts and the merit aid that [colleges] are going to give, I think they’re just going to lean even more into that. And you’re just going to see more and more money flowing to students to try to persuade them to come to school X instead of school Y.
[Kirk] How else are these colleges handling these seismic shifts, and what’s the tone inside of the admissions office now? Is there a sense of desperation?
[Jeff Selingo] It’s interesting around enrollment. Even though we’ve known this cliff has been coming forever, admissions is really, like, especially at most of these schools that are tuition dependent and are really enrollment driven, it’s about butts in seats tomorrow, not a year from now. So, I mean, they’re kind of short sighted. They haven’t been doing very much to prepare for this. No, they haven’t, because they basically think ‘I just need to, I need to make this class for next year. I need to come in on budget. I need to. Make enrollment.’ They’re not really worried about two years down the road.
[Kirk] You mentioned direct admission. What do you make of this trend, and do you think we’ll see more schools and states adopt it?
[Jeff Selingo] Oh, I think you will, because there’s something in admissions where everybody kind of follows the leader. I’m a little skeptical of direct admission. Well, what happens when more and more schools adopt direct admissions and suddenly, now, Kirk, you’re getting, instead of, like, one or two direct admissions offers, now you’re get eight or nine, right? Like, how does that really help you, at the end of the day, make a decision, or from the college’s point of view, know who’s really interested and who’s coming?
[Jon] So Jeff Selingo is pretty skeptical of direct admission. But does it help colleges boost enrollment?
[Kirk] Well, sometimes, says Jennifer Delaney. She’s the researcher we heard at the top of this episode who looked at the first-in-the-nation program in Idaho.
[Jennifer Delaney] It’s not always able to move the needle on the enrollment side of things.
[Kirk] Delaney’s research found direct admission helped to increase full-time undergrad enrollment by at least 4 percent, and it boosted in-state enrollment by at least 8 percent.
[Jennifer Delaney] Having a bird in the hand in Idaho meant that you stayed in Idaho for school, and you didn’t go out of state.
[Kirk] And what about low-income students?
[Jennifer Delaney] Admission isn’t enough. You’ve got to be admitted and be able to pay for it.
[Kirk] And that’s why more schools are adding direct financial aid offers up front, too.
[Jon] Kirk, to compete, more and more community and four-year colleges are offering — quote, unquote — free tuition. We have a whole episode about that called “The Real Cost of Free.” You can find it in our second season.
At Western New England University, Marykate Agnes says she accepted the direct admission offer, but not before she reached out to increase her financial aid award. Agnes was admitted through direct admission, and she also received generous financial
[Marykate Agnes] I got the $32,000 scholarship, then I got another $2,000 for early action, and then I asked for more money and I got it. So I think I’m paying around $10,000. I think that it’s just an awesome thing, and it takes stress off of the students.
[Jon] Agnes says she doesn’t worry about attending a less selective school.
[Marykate Agnes] I don’t think it reflects the value of the education at all. I mean, at the end of the semester, I have more work than my friends at more selective schools do, and it’s harder, more rigorous, and the professors are absolutely amazing, and it is so personable. And I think that’s what you’re not getting at the more selective schools.
[Kirk] All of this change is putting pressure on colleges to develop a strategy. That’s where people like Kathy Ruby come in. She works with colleges to shape financial aid strategies to help them compete with other schools for students.
[Kathy Ruby] It’s a competitive market, and it’s going to get more competitive depending on where you are and the type of institution you are. I think not all institutions will experience the cliff in the same way.
[Kirk] Ruby says families are more cost-conscious than ever. Students and parents are more averse to debt, so schools are trying to make themselves seem cheaper. The goal is to attract middle-income families who don’t qualify for federal and state but also don’t have the means to pay the full price.
[Kathy Ruby] Certainly institutions are starting to focus on what can we do for those middle students, because that also can often be a good place to build. But it can be more expensive for the institution, because there’s no federal dollars to help.
[Kirk] Schools are focusing on scholarships that are offered up front and meet more students’ financial needs. Ruby’s advice to students and families? Shape a college list with your reach, target and safety schools, but also understand what that means for you.
[Kathy Ruby] Because if you’re a very bright student and your likely schools might be actually still pretty selective and not offer much in the way of merit aid, you have to do your homework on understanding what the college actually offers. Use their website, use their net price calculator, talk to people.
[Jon] And, as we always say on this podcast, ask questions and understand what your financial aid package might look like, even if you can’t get an exact figure.
[Kirk] The reality is there are tons of solid schools and programs out there. So try not to worry so much about that bumper sticker on the back of your neighbor’s SUV. And remember, getting into those bumper-sticker schools is often not about you. It’s about the college’s agenda. Factors like building a class, budgets and yield. You know, whether a student will even enroll if they’re accepted. Students and parents have a lot to gain if they change their perspective on what really qualifies as a quote,unquote good college.
[Jon] That’s right, Kirk. It’s easy to think a degree from a selective institution is the best insurance policy you can buy for your kid’s future. And if they’re not accepted, they’ll end up on the wrong side of this country’s economic divide.
But as we approach the demographic cliff, in many ways, that is simply not true. For many students, it’s a buyer’s market now.
[Kirk] This is College Uncovered. I’m Kirk Carapezza from GBH. …
[Jon] … and I’m Jon Marcus from the Hechinger Report.
[Kirk] This episode was produced and written by Jon Marcus …
[Jon] … and Kirk Carapezza, and it was edited by Jonathan A. Davis.
Our executive editor is Jennifer McKim.
[Kirk] Our fact checker is Ryan Alderman.
Mixing and sound design by David Goodman and Gary Mott.
All of our music is by college bands. Our theme song and original music is by Left Roman out of MIT.
The demographic cliff was set to sound for us by James Trayford of the Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation at the University of Portsmouth in England.
Mei He is our project manager. And head of GBH Podcasts is Devin Maverick Robbins.
[Jon] College Uncovered is made possible by Lumina Foundation. It’s produced by GBH News and The Hechinger Report, and distributed by PRX.
Thanks so much for listening.
More information about the topics covered in this episode:
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
Most Americans would probably rather forget the Great Recession that began in 2007. But as long ago as it may seem, it triggered something that is about to become a big problem: Americans started having fewer babies, and the birth rate hasn’t recovered since.
That means a looming decline in the number if 18-year-olds. Since those are the traditional customers for universities and colleges, enrollment is projected to fall dramatically and campuses to close.
In this episode, we tell you the surprising benefits of this for students and their parents — and the scary prospects for the economy, which will suffer shortages of workers just as baby boomers retire.
Brody Scully is a high school student looking at colleges. “There’s a lot of pressure on me. I have to decide in these next two years that I’ve got to go to a specific college,” he says.
Come with us to a college fair where recruiters line up to compete for applicants, and hear from enrollment consultants, economists, and the president of a school that has already closed.
[Kirk] This is College Uncovered. I’m Kirk Carapezza.
[Jon] And I’m Jon Marcus. We’re going to start this brand-new season of the podcast by taking you back to a time most Americans would probably rather forget.
[Archival news footage] Monday, Sept. 15, 2008. Lehman Brothers files the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history, precipitating the global financial crisis. … The Dow tumbled more than 500 points.
[Jon] What we now call the Great Recession started in 2008, and it left the world’s economy reeling.
[Archival news footage] More than two million prime mortgages, traditional loans for people with good credit, are now delinquent.
[Jon] The Great Recession did a lot of damage at the time, but it also caused something else most people haven’t noticed, and that’s about to affect us all.
[Archival news footage] Birth rates in the USA have dropped to their lowest annual levels in three decades, falling for nearly every group of women. … It changed the game when it comes to job security, and it led many young adults to delay marriage and kids.
[Jon] People stop having babies during economic downturns. That was a major but almost unseen impact of the Great Recession 18 years ago. And that means we’re about to run out of 18-year-olds. This is being called the demographic cliff.
Hey Kirk, help me explain the deal with this demographic cliff.
[Kirk] Yeah, so the demographic cliff is this big dropoff that’s about to hit the number of traditional-age college students. And the reason experts call it a cliff is that the number of students is going to go down, like you’re tumbling down a mountain and it never comes back up, Jon.
[Jon] The demographic cliff is pretty much the focus of our new season of this podcast. There’s some surprising good news that we’ll tell you about for students and their families, and for the parents of prospective college students. But this demographic cliff is also a big, big problem in ways most Americans don’t realize yet, for colleges and universities — and for economy.
[Nicole Smith] We are looking ahead down the road to circumstances, dire circumstances where we just can’t fill the jobs that are opening up.
[Wes Butterfield] We are at the, I’m going to call it the crossroads. You know, we’re at the cross roads for many campuses where they’re going to have to think creatively.
[Rachel Sederberg] We’re going to see issues across every occupation and every industry. There is going to be no one spared of this pain.
[Jon] Those are the voices of some experts whose job it’s been to watch this coming crisis. Like the lookouts with binoculars on the deck of the Titanic.
[Telephone ringing] Pick up, you bastards!
Yes, what do you see?
Iceberg! Dead ahead!
[Jon] So forgive us for the mixed metaphors and come with us as we help you cross these icy seas and this pivotal crossroads. We’ll show you how the demographic cliff will affect you.
[Kirk] This is College Uncovered, from GBH News and The Hechinger Report, a podcast pulling back the ivy to reveal how colleges really work. I’m Kirk Carapezza with GBH. …
[Jon] And I’m Jon Marcus of The Hechinger Report.
[Kirk] Colleges don’t want you to know how they operate, so GBH …
[Jon] … in collaboration with The Hechinger Report is here to show you.
[Kirk] In our fourth season, we’ll be looking at the many dramatic ways that college is changing right now and what it all means for you. Today on the podcast: “The Demographic Cliff.”
[Sound from college fair] Hi, guys, welcome to the college fair. If you’d like a bag…
[Kirk] To get a sense of what the demographic cliff looks and sounds like on the ground, I went to a national college fair in Edison, New Jersey.
[Sound from college fair] Students, make sure you have your barcode ready so the colleges can scan your barcodes.
[Kirk] Inside a massive convention and exposition center in an industrial park, a bunch of juniors and their families anxiously waited in the lobby before passing through turnstiles, and then they mingled with college representatives.
[Sound from college fair] And do you have one of the scan cards so I can get your information?
[Kirk] It’s kind of like speed dating, with most of the colleges here selling themselves.
[Sound from college fair] What’s cool about it is that we’re currently building our brand new college of business building that’s a lot of these that will be the biggest academic building on campus, so honestly your degree is going to work tenfold by the time that you end up coming to FSU.
[Kirk] There’s rows and rows of colleges. In some of those rows, it seems like there are more colleges than students.
[Sound from college fair] And we’re 10 minutes from London Heathrow Airport as well, so for international students getting on is great.
[Kirk] After the initial rush, the crowd thins out and those turnstiles stop turning.
Welcome to a new era of college admissions.
As you come to a fair like this, what are you looking for exactly?
[Brody Scully] I’m looking for environmental sciences and eco-engineering.
[Kirk] Brody Scully is a junior from West Milford, New Jersey. He says he knows exactly what he wants in a college: someplace where he can be active and maybe ski, and someplace small.
[Brody Scully] Because I definitely learn where there’s probably a smaller group of people, so I’m looking for that.
[Kirk] Is it anxiety-inducing for you guys, going through this process?
[Brody Scully] I would say yeah, definitely, and, like, time intensive.
[Kirk] Why is it so stressful?
[Brody Scully] There’s a lot of pressure on me. I have to decide in these next two years that I’ve got to go to a specific college.
[Kirk] But Brody may be in luck, because in the college admissions game, he was born at the right time: in 2008, just as birth rates in the U.S. started to decline. Remember Jon, that means there will be fewer 18-year-olds applying to college over the next few years. And except at elite schools like Harvard or Stanford and a few dozen other most selective colleges, the odds of getting in are going up. Eight out of 10 applicants to public universities and 7 out of 10 at private colleges are accepted now. That’s nearly 8 percentage points higher than 10 years ago.
Brody was surprised and thrilled when I told him this. In fact, his eyes widened.
[Brody Scully] I’m not aware of that at all and I’m kind of happy now that you told me that.
[Kirk] As the fair winds down, college reps, some standing alone in the back of the convention center, keep smiling, making eye contact, and hoping for just one more student to come by.
I mean, the reality is, this is a competitive landscape for many colleges, and for students, it’s increasingly a buyer’s market.
Take Rider University, which is trying really hard to stand out in this sea of schools. Its reps are simply telling potential students what the school is all about. and where it is.
[Susan Makowski] It is a small private school in Lawrenceville, New Jersey, which is about 15 minutes south of Princeton.
[Kirk] Susan Makowski is director of admissions at Rider, and for the past 20 years, she’s helped organize this fair.
This seems like organized chaos.
[Susan Makowski] I think that’s a great way to describe it.
[Kirk] This year, there are about 300 schools here looking for applicants. Colleges pay about $700 just to rent a booth. They think it’s worth it for a chance to connect with some of the nearly 3,000 registered students. And, of course, to scan their barcodes so they can follow up with endless reminders and marketing materials.
[Sound from college fair] I think I’m all good, but I’m making some…
Do you have one of the scans?
Uh, yes I do.
[Kirk] This year, Makowski tells me, Rider University is trying something a little different.
[Susan Makowski] Tonight, to be honest, I’m in New Jersey school at a New Jersey fair. I bought two booths. That’s how I’m standing out physically tonight so that you see that I’m here, right? You can’t miss me.
[Kirk] So you expanded your footprint.
[Susan Makowski] Yes, I did.
[Kirk] You can’t just walk, you can’t blow by you.
[Susan Makowski] Right, but that’s a selfish thing that I’m choosing to do, because I want to make certain that I can capture as many students Who might not have heard of us or might be really interested in us
[Kirk] Looking ahead and over the demographic cliff, Makowski tells me she knows things are about to change with fewer applicants.
[Susan Makowski] I think that’s going to be a natural progression, simply because a cliff is coming.
[Jon] Kirk, the seeds of this problem for colleges were planted back in 2008.
[Archival news footage] It was a manic Monday in the financial markets. The Dow tumbled more than 500 points after…
[Wes Butterfield] We were in a fairly dark place. And, again, that’s impacting us today.
[Jon] That’s Wes Butterfield. He’s chief of consulting services at Ruffalo Noel Levitz, a consulting firm that helps colleges and universities recruit students.
[Wes Butterfield] Anytime we reach those types of points in our history, birth rates go down. People just simply stop having babies. People were concerned about whether or not they’d have the resources to be able to start a family. And so those numbers backed off, and it takes a while for us to get to a point where it truly begins to impact us.
[Jon] The decline in births that started 18 years ago is about to translate into fewer students coming out of high school and enrolling in college. By 2039, there will be 15 percent fewer 18-year-olds per year than there are now.
The effect of all of this that you and I report about the most, Kirk, is what it will do to colleges and universities. It comes on top of a decline in enrollment that’s already been happening over most of the last 10 years. People have been questioning whether college is worth the high cost, and a relatively strong labor market drew a lot of high school graduates straight into jobs. Emily Wadhwani keeps a close eye on this as a senior director at Fitch Ratings, where she’s the sector lead for education. Fitch rates the financial health of institutions.
[Emily Wadhwani] We’ve been seeing kind of a trending downward of demand in terms of enrollment, particularly on the undergraduate side. So this is definitely a longer trend that we’re seeing.
[Jon] The pandemic only made things worse. And now the demographic cliff is here.
[Emily Wadhwani] Where we are now climbing back out of this post-pandemic recovery period, we see the same challenges that schools were facing prior to the pandemic, only now it’s more pronounced because those demographic trends have only deteriorated since then.
[Jon] That’s why colleges have started closing. Fitch categorizes the outlook for the higher education sector as deteriorating. Kirk, you and I have been seeing that a lot lately on abandoned campuses of colleges that have closed.
[Bob Allen] This is sort of a movie-set college campus, and people say that as soon as they essentially walk in the front gate.
[Kirk] That’s Bob Allen. He was the last president of a 185-year-old Green Mountain College in Vermont before it closed in 2019. By the time I visited the campus, it looked more like a ghost town.
[Bob Allen] So, yeah, watch yourself on these. They aren’t, see normally all of this would have been cleaned up.
One of the advantages of a small school is that it really was like an extended family. I knew not all of the students by name, but I knew most, and they knew me. They called me Bob, which was what I would prefer.
[Kirk] To Allen’s right, the red brick dining hall and dorms. To his left, the empty swimming pool, a ghost-like symbol of dried-up enrollment.
[Bob Allen] Increasingly students want to go to schools in cities and not rural areas. Poultney is a very tiny Vermont town.
[Kirk] At the time, Allen told me he preferred to give tours like these when the college was still open.
[Bob Allen] It was a lot more fun when we had students, all right.
[Kirk] At its peak, Green Mountain had about 800 students. That was already pretty small. But by the end of the 2010s, there were only a little more than half that many left. So Allen and his board decided that the college had to close.
[Bob Allen] It’s the hardest thing I’ve ever had to do personally. I spent most of my career building businesses and to take a 185-year-old institution and have to shut it down was really tough.
The demographics are working against all colleges, but in particular, small rural colleges. It’s tough for surrounding towns when colleges close too. Our payroll just for the college alone was $6 million. It has to, in the end, have an economic impact on the town. You know, some of the businesses had closed even long before we made our announcement.
[Jon] Kirk, the demographic cliff means there will be a lot more colleges closing. Don’t take it from us. That’s the prediction of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. Already, 21 colleges defaulted on their bonds last year, or were at risk of defaulting. That’s way up. Here’s Emily Wadhwani from Fitch.
[Emily Wadhwani] We’ve seen the closure rate accelerate over the last few years. We expect to see that continue for the next few years. That has tended to be smaller, private, liberal arts, sometimes religiously affiliated schools with perhaps less than a thousand students. I’m generalizing; there are a couple outliers there, but broadly speaking, those are the types of schools that we’ve seen close.
[Jon] That’s a pretty good list of the kinds of colleges that are in trouble, and consumers need to keep that in mind. No matter what schools you’re considering, you need to do more these days than look at their courses or the athletics program. You need to check out their finances.
[Emily Wadhwani] The second place I would look is the strength of fundraising, often an indicator of the level of wealth the university has — the capacity to fund scholarships and other aid packages, less reliance on tuition as a primary means of operating revenue.
[Jon] We’ve talked before in this podcast about how you can see if your college might be in financial trouble. And we’ll post the link to that in the show notes.
Now, it’s obviously a sad situation when colleges close, for their employees and students and alumni, and for the towns that depend on them. But, Kirk, there are a couple of bright spots if you’re currently a college student or the parent of a college student, or have a child who’s considering college.
[Kirk] Yeah, Jon, colleges teach this in Econ 101. It’s the simple law of supply and demand. As the number of students is falling, there’s less demand. And as demand goes down, two things are happening. First, most colleges are becoming easier to get into. And second, the price of tuition has actually started falling.
[Jon] Now, Kirk, let’s be clear: College is still expensive, and to make up for keeping tuition low, colleges with dorms and dining plans are raising the price of food and housing. But increases in tuition are finally dropping when adjusted for inflation, after decades of exceeding the cost of almost everything else that Americans spend money on.
[Kirk] Exactly, Jon. You’re also likely to be able to negotiate for more financial aid. We gave a lot of advice about this in the first episode of our second season, and we’ll link that in the show notes too.
[Jon] We’ll have a lot more to tell you about the dramatic changes in admission in our next episode. So check that out.
[Kirk] So that’s all pretty good news for future students and their families. But there’s more bad news. And not just for colleges, but for the economy and society. There will be fewer graduates coming out the other end with skills employers need, and fewer young people in general available to work in any kinds of jobs.
[Jon] Right, and all of that, Kirk, is coinciding with the tidal wave of baby boomers who will be retiring at the same time.
[Rachel Sederberg] We’re already well underway in this process where we saw vast retirements over the last few years.
[Jon] That’s Rachel Sederberg, a senior economist and director of research at the labor market analytics firm Lightcast. Ten-thousand baby boomers are turning 65 every day. And Sederberg says there just aren’t enough workers coming up behind these retiring baby boomers to fill the jobs they’re leaving.
[Rachel Sederberg] The generations that follow the baby boomers are simply smaller and cannot mathematically make up for that decline.
[Jon] These shortages are already happening, Kirk.
[Rachel Sederberg] We are losing people across every occupation and industry. So we’re going to need more workers across, and we don’t have enough of any kind.
[Kirk] Okay, to tie this all together for you, we reached out to the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. It studies the connection between higher education and the economy. Chief Economist Nicole Smith connected these dots for us.
[Nicole Smith] So if you’re a college president, one way to look at this is, you know, ‘I don’t have enough students.’ But as an economist, I’m also thinking of the impact on the economy. Young people and young labor and the labor force — it’s the lifeblood of our society.
[Kirk] Smith says the decline in the number of traditional-aged college students will affect much more than whether a bunch of colleges close.
[Nicole Smith] We just don’t have enough who are completing and going to college and finishing school at as fast a rate as the economy is creating jobs for people with college degrees.
[Kirk] She’s not just talking about bachelor’s degrees, but all kinds of education after high school, including in manufacturing and the trades.
[Nicole Smith] Seventy-two percent of all jobs over the next decade will require some type of education and training beyond high school. So even if you don’t need a full bachelor’s, we need something that’s beyond high school and everyone has to be prepared to go back to get that credential so that you are prepared for that particular job.
[Kirk] So we’re all going to be falling down the demographic cliff together. In some parts of the country, labor shortages are already well underway.
[Nicole Smith] Many communities are facing this already. Rural communities are already having problems filling vacancies for some of their medical fields. They’re offering all sorts of incentives for doctors to come and work in those locations. So we’re already there.
[Jon] Kirk, as our experts have said, this demographic cliff is a dramatic turning point for higher education and it comes alongside questions about the value of college and a general decline in the proportion of high school students who are bothering to go.
[Kirk] Right, Jon, and that’s on top of huge political pressure on colleges and universities under the Trump administration and massive funding cuts.
[Jon] Throughout this season of the podcast, we’ll be looking at the ramifications of this unprecedented moment in the history of higher education. We’ll tell you how admissions is changing, why men in particular aren’t going to college, and the many new ways that are popping up, other than college, to train people for the workforce. and there’s much more.
[Kirk] So keep listening to future episodes to hear more about what colleges and universities don’t teach you in class.
This is College Uncovered. I’m Kirk Carapezza from GBH.
[Jon] And I’m Jon Marcus from The Hechinger Report.
[Kirk] This episode was produced and written by Jon Marcus …
[Jon] … and Kirk Carapezza, and it was edited by Jonathan A. Davis. Our executive editor is Jennifer McKim.
[Kirk] Our fact-checker is Ryan Alderman
Mixing and sound design by David Goodman and Gary Mott. All of our music is by college bands. Our theme song and original music is by Left Roman out of MIT. We also used some music in this episode from the Stony Brook University Orchestra.
The demographic cliff was set to sound for us by James Trayford of the Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation at the University of Portsmouth in England.
Mei He is our project manager and head of GBH podcasts is Devin Maverick Robbins.
[Jon] College Uncovered is made possible by Lumina Foundation. It’s produced by GBH News and The Hechinger Report, and distributed by PRX.
Thanks so much for listening.
More information about the topics covered in this episode:
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
by Robert Perich, Ladina Rageth, Danya He and Maryna Lakhno
Higher education is at a crossroads. Across Europe and beyond, higher education institutions (HEIs) face increasing financial constraints, shifting political landscapes, and the growing challenge of digital transformation. In this turbulent environment, leadership is not just about managing institutions – it is about navigating uncertainty and ensuring that HEIs remain resilient, innovative, and globally competitive.
Yet, are higher education leaders equipped for this challenge? A recent Swiss national study of senior leaders (detailed findings are available here) provides a reality check. Our study, the first of its kind in Switzerland, examined the career trajectories, competency sets, and strategic concerns of 312 leaders from 38 institutions. What it uncovered was both revealing and troubling: senior leaders felt largely unprepared for the mounting financial and structural pressures facing higher education.
HEIs are no longer just institutions of knowledge – they are complex organisations requiring financial stewardship, strategic foresight, and the ability to manage significant institutional change. And yet, many senior leaders step into their roles with little to no formal management training. In a period where every budget decision can mean the difference between institutional sustainability and decline, this skills gap is more than an inconvenience – it is a challenge.
Who runs Swiss HEIs today?
The study reveals a leadership demographic that is surprisingly homogeneous. Despite years of diversity initiatives, Swiss HEI leadership remains overwhelmingly male (68%) and Swiss (80%). The average senior leader is in their mid-50s, has spent nearly 14 years at their institution, and was more likely than not promoted from within. Internal hires outnumber external appointments (55% vs 45%), and critically, almost 40% of senior leaders entered their positions without prior general management experience.
This reliance on internal promotion, while preserving institutional knowledge, raises an uncomfortable question: Are HEIs prioritising academic credentials and institutional loyalty over strategic and managerial competence? As budget cuts tighten and HEIs are forced to make hard choices, is it enough for leaders to understand academic culture, or must they also master the art of institutional strategy and financial sustainability?
The gap: what competencies do leaders need – and what are they lacking?
Swiss HEIs, like their counterparts worldwide, are complex ecosystems requiring a balance of academic credibility and managerial acumen. Yet, when surveyed, senior leaders overwhelmingly ranked leadership and strategic design capabilities as the most essential competencies, both of which require years of cultivation. They also emphasised managing organisational change, a competency that will become even more critical as institutions face increasing financial pressures and demands for efficiency.
The study highlights a concerning discrepancy between the skills leaders find most important and those in which they feel prepared. Many respondents wished they had received more targeted training in financial management, change leadership, and navigating the political landscape of higher education. Given that nearly half of respondents had never participated in formal leadership training before assuming their roles, it is clear that HEIs have largely relied on a ‘learn on the job’ approach to leadership development.
The perils of academic self-governance
One of the study’s most compelling findings is the tension between traditional academic self-governance and the need for growing professionalisation of higher education leadership. Research universities, in particular, still operate on a model where deans and department heads rotate through leadership roles while maintaining their academic careers. While this system ensures academic legitimacy, it creates discontinuity and limits long-term strategic vision.
By contrast, universities of applied sciences, where leadership positions are more commonly filled through open application processes, exhibit a different pattern: leaders tend to have more professional experience and stronger management backgrounds. This divergence begs an essential question: Is the tradition of academic self-governance still fit for purpose in an era that demands more decisive, financially savvy and agile leadership?
Budget cuts and the leadership challenge ahead
Financial sustainability is now the defining challenge of higher education leadership. The study underscores that senior leaders see budget constraints as the most pressing issue their institutions face, followed closely by digital transformation and the rising demand for research excellence and collaboration. While leaders anticipate increasing demands in these areas over the next decade, many institutions lack systematic training programmes to equip their leaders for these challenges. The findings suggest that without structured leadership development – particularly in financial strategy, political negotiation, and crisis management – HEIs risk falling into reactive rather than proactive decision-making.
Rethinking leadership development in higher education
The data from Swiss HEIs mirror trends seen globally: while the challenges facing HEIs have evolved dramatically, leadership preparation has remained largely static. The fact that nearly 40% of leaders entered their roles with no formal management experience is a stark indicator that institutions must do more to develop leadership talent early in academic careers.
Structured executive education programmes, mentorship initiatives, and cross-institutional leadership networks are critical. The study also raises the question of whether Switzerland – and other countries – should consider national leadership training programmes, similar to those in the Netherlands and Sweden, to systematically equip future leaders with the skills they need.
Indeed, other countries have already taken significant steps in this direction. For instance, the UK has developed a comprehensive suite of leadership development programmes through Advance HE, targeting leaders at various career stages across the higher education sector. Such initiatives provide a valuable model for how leadership can be systematically cultivated, and they underscore the importance of moving beyond ad hoc, institution-specific training efforts.
The future of higher education leadership: a critical juncture
HEIs are facing a defining moment. Financial constraints, political pressures, and the complexities of global education demand leaders who are not just respected scholars but also strategic visionaries. The findings from our study highlight the urgent need for HEIs to rethink how they identify, train, and support their leaders. Will higher education rise to this challenge? Or will institutions continue to rely on traditional models of leadership selection, hoping that academic merits alone will make their leaders fit for the complexities ahead?
Prof Dr Robert Perich is Academic Director, Swiss School of Public Governance SSPG, D-MTEC, ETH Zurich. He was CFO of ETH Zurich for 20 years and, as Vice President for Finance and Controlling, was responsible for financial strategy, budget management, asset management, risk management and the digitalisation of central processes. After completing his studies and doctorate at the University of St. Gallen (HSG), he gained 12 years of experience in various management roles at a major Swiss bank. In addition to earlier teaching activities at the University of St. Gallen, he currently lectures at D-MTEC and the University of Zurich (CHESS). He is also Deputy Chairman of the University Council of the University of Cologne.
Dr Ladina Rageth is Executive Director, Swiss School of Public Governance SSPG, D-MTEC, ETH Zurich. She is a social scientist with extensive experience in research and project management in the academic, public and private sectors. She completed her Master’s degree in Sociology at the University of Zurich and her PhD at ETH Zurich at the Chair of Educational Systems. Her research focuses on the sociology of education, labour market outcomes and the institutionalisation of education systems, with a current emphasis on the functioning and management of HEIs.
Danya He is Research Assistant, Swiss School of Public Governance SSPG, D-MTEC, ETH Zurich. She completed her Masters in Media and Communication Governance at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) and worked as a research and teaching associate at the University of Zurich specialising in media and internet governance before joining the SSPG. She brings a wealth of experience in public institutions, media relations and legal affairs and has been recognised for her achievements in educational simulations such as the National Model United Nations.
Dr Maryna Lakhno is the Programme Coordinator at the ETH Swiss School of Public Governance (SSPG), where she manages the school’s continuing education portfolio and oversees its communication. Maryna also contributes to the design of the curriculum and programme activities and is actively involved in research projects within the school. Her doctorate in Public Policy under the Yehuda Elkana Doctoral Fellowship at Central European University in Vienna focused on integrating the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals within higher education. She was awarded the Swiss Government Excellence Scholarship for Foreign Scholars in 2022/23. She co-authored a comprehensive report for the Global Observatory on Academic Freedom.
April 14, 2025, by Dean Hoke: This profile of Tuskegee University is the ninth in a series presenting small colleges throughout the United States.
Background
Founded in 1881 by educator Booker T. Washington, Tuskegee University is a private historically black university (HBCU) located in Tuskegee, Alabama – about 40 miles east of Montgomery . Established initially as the Tuskegee Normal School for training Black teachers, it evolved into Tuskegee Institute and eventually a university known for blending liberal arts, technical, and professional education. The university’s campus, a designated National Historic Site, spans roughly 5,000 acres (including a 450-acre main campus and extensive forestry and research lands). Tuskegee is consistently ranked among the top HBCUs nationally (U.S. News #3 in 2023) and is noted for its academic rigor and legacy of producing African American leaders.
Curricula
Tuskegee offers a broad curriculum encompassing over 50 degree programs. Programs include Engineering, Architecture, Business, Education, and Nursing & Allied Health, as well as a renowned College of Veterinary Medicine. The university balances a liberal arts foundation with strong STEM and professional programs. Students complete a liberal arts core while pursuing majors in fields like engineering, agriculture, the sciences, business, and the humanities. Tuskegee has introduced distinctive programs that leverage its heritage – for example, it hosts the nation’s only Aerospace Engineering program at an HBCU, and it houses a National Center for Bioethics in Research and Health Care focused on minority health ethics.
Experiential learning is integral: from engineering design projects to agricultural research and Cooperative Extension outreach in rural communities, students get hands-on training. Notably, Tuskegee’s veterinary medicine program, founded in 1945, provides crucial clinical experience and has become a top producer of minority veterinarians. Outcomes for graduates are strong in many programs – for example, nursing and allied health majors benefit from clinical partnerships, and engineering students often secure competitive internships. Tuskegee reports in 2022, the four-year graduation rate is 33%, and the six-year graduation rateis 67%.
Strengths
Historic Legacy and Mission: Tuskegee’s history is a cornerstone of its identity. It was built on Booker T. Washington’s self-help philosophy and has played a pivotal role in African American education for over a century.
Excellence in STEM, Agriculture, and Veterinary Medicine: The university is a powerhouse in STEM fields. It is the only independent HBCU with four ABET-accredited engineering programs and the only HBCU with an Aerospace Science Engineering program. Its College of Veterinary Medicine has educated over 70% of African American veterinarians in the United States.
Strong Student Outcomes and Recognition: Tuskegee is recognized for improving social mobility and student success. U.S. News ranks Tuskegee #1 among Southern schools for social mobility and among the top 5 HBCUs nationwide. The university has produced generations of leaders and pioneers, which bolsters its reputation and provides current students with role models and mentors.
Community Engagement and Service: As a land-grant institution, Tuskegee is deeply committed to community service and outreach. Through its Cooperative Extension Program and initiatives like the new Center for Rural Health and Economic Equity, the university addresses needs in Alabama’s Black Belt region—from agricultural assistance for local farmers to health equity research for underserved rural populations.
Weaknesses
Enrollment Decline: Tuskegee’s Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) enrollment has steadily decreased from 3,276 in 2019 to a low of 2,755 in 2023, with a modest rebound to 2,881 in 2024. This downward trend, though not unique among small institutions, negatively impacts tuition revenue, national rankings, and institutional perception.
Infrastructure and Facilities: Numerous campus buildings require modernization. Students and alumni on platforms like UNIGO have expressed concerns about aging dormitories and outdated lab and classroom technology. These issues pose challenges for student recruitment and retention, especially in STEM disciplines. The university acknowledged these concerns in 2024 and stated that actions are underway to address construction delays.
Return on Investment (ROI): According to Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce, Tuskegee’s 40-year ROI for bachelor’s degrees is $1,434,000—well below the national average of $1,744,000 for private institutions. This places Tuskegee in the lower 20th percentile nationally and may raise concerns among prospective students and families weighing the long-term value of a Tuskegee degree.
Note: Tuskegee does an exceptional job with the students it serves, often outperforming peers in helping students succeed and move up economically. However, its graduates’ average earnings are lower than those of graduates from many other private institutions, which affects ROI rankings. This contrast is common among mission-driven institutions that serve high-need populations and public interest-oriented fields (e.g., education, social work, veterinary medicine), where average salaries tend to be lower despite high societal value.
Economic Impact
Tuskegee University is a major economic engine for its region. According to the United Negro College Fund’s (UNCF) 2024 Economic Impact Report, Tuskegee University contributes approximately $237.1 million annually to Alabama’s economy and supports 2,064 jobs statewide through its operations, payroll, student spending, and visitor expenditures. It is one of the largest employers in Macon County, with nearly 1,400 employees on payroll, and its presence stimulates additional employment in the community (restaurants, shops, services that cater to students and employees).
Beyond direct spending, as a land-grant institution, it operates Cooperative Extension programs that improve agricultural productivity and entrepreneurship in rural Alabama. The university actively pursues research grants that address local needs. For example, in 2023, Tuskegee received a $2.2 million federal grant to establish a Center for Rural Health and Economic Equity, which will not only improve healthcare outcomes in Black Belt counties but also create research jobs and community health worker positions.
Enrollment Trends
As of Fall 2024, total enrollment (FTE) is 2881 students, including undergraduates, graduate students, and professional students in veterinary medicine.
The university has actively recruited beyond Alabama: currently, only 26% of undergraduates are Alabama residents, while 74% come from out-of-state.
Degrees Awarded by Major
In the 2022–23 academic year, Tuskegee University conferred 547 degrees in total (410 bachelor’s, 69 master’s, and 68 doctorates, including professional degrees).
Alumni
Tuskegee University boasts a vibrant alumni network of tens of thousands of graduates spread across the U.S. and abroad. With nearly 140 years of history, Tuskegee has produced generations of African American professionals and leaders, creating an expansive community often referred to as the “Tuskegee Family.” Alumni remain closely connected to the university and each other.
Notable Alumni and Figures: Tuskegee’s alumni and associated figures include some of the most influential names in U.S. education, science, military, and culture:
Amelia Boynton Robinson (Class of 1927): Pioneering civil rights activist and leader in the voting rights movement. She played a key role in the 1965 Selma to Montgomery marches, inviting Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to Selma.
Gen. Daniel “Chappie” James (Class of 1942): The first African American four-star general in U.S. military history.
Lonnie Johnson (Class of 1973): Engineer and inventor, Johnson, a Tuskegee mechanical engineering graduate, had a distinguished career at the Air Force and NASA before his entrepreneurial success. He holds over 100 patents.
Lionel Richie (Class of 1974): Grammy-winning singer, songwriter, and former lead vocalist of the Commodores. Richie, a Tuskegee native, graduated with an economics degree.
Keenen Ivory Wayans (Attended from 1977-1980): an American actor, comedian, director, and filmmaker who co-hosted and created the TV comedy Emmy award show In Living Color. An engineering student on scholarship, he left Tuskegee in his senior year to pursue acting.
Endowment and Financial Standing
Tuskegee University’s financial foundation is solid but underpins a careful stewardship to meet institutional needs. As of 2024, the university’s endowment is valued at around $161 million. It remains smaller than some peer HBCUs. The university still depends heavily on tuition and fees. A milestone came in 2020 when philanthropist MacKenzie Scott donated $20 million to Tuskegee – the largest gift in the university’s history.
The university’s financial management has earned positive marks. The 2023 Forbes Financial Grades gives Tuskegee a 3.82 GPA and a letter grade of A-.
Why is Tuskegee Important?
Tuskegee University holds a singular place in American higher education and society, with a legacy and ongoing impact that extend far beyond its small-town Alabama campus. Founded in an era of segregation and limited opportunities for Black Americans, Tuskegee became a beacon of self-determination – educating Black teachers, farmers, and craftsmen in its early years and proving that excellence could flourish under the most challenging conditions.
Tuskegee’s importance also lies in its academic and professional contributions, particularly in increasing diversity in critical fields. It has been a prolific producer of African American professionals: for example, as noted, the vast majority of Black veterinarians are Tuskegee graduates, and the university has trained countless Black engineers, nurses, and scientists.
Tuskegee University remains a cultural touchstone and symbol of excellence. Tuskegee has also influenced educational models worldwide; notably, its extension work and vocational training approaches were emulated in developing nations (especially in Africa) during the 20th century, spreading the ethos of education for empowerment globally.
In summary, Tuskegee University is important because it represents the power of education as a force for equality and innovation. It has transformed lives and communities for generations, contributed richly to African American history and American progress, and continues to produce leaders and ideas that shape our world. In American higher education, Tuskegee’s thread is unique and invaluable – an embodiment of resilience, excellence, and the ongoing pursuit of knowledge for the betterment of society.
Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy, and a Senior Fellow with the Sagamore Institute. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean, along with Kent Barnds, is a co-host for the podcast series Small College America.
