Tag: mergers

  • Opening January 2026: Inside One of the Biggest University Mergers in Australia

    Opening January 2026: Inside One of the Biggest University Mergers in Australia

    There’s a huge story going on right now in Australian higher education, one that hasn’t made many ripples outside the country yet, but really should have.

    In January of 2026, two of the country’s major universities will be merging. The old research intensive University of Adelaide, one of the country’s so-called sandstone — meaning prestigious — universities, will be joining with the newer post Dawkins i.e., created in the early 1990s, University of South Australia, which began its life as the South Australian Institute of Technology.

    The new institution, Adelaide University, will be a behemoth of a multiversity, among the five largest institutions in the country. I’m fairly certain I’m right in saying this is the largest merger ever of two anglophone universities. But there are a lot of questions about how this is gonna work out. How will the new institution manage to maintain two separate missions? One is a research institution and one is an access institution. How can two very distinct cultures be bridged? And also, how do you create a distinct curricular or pedagogical identity for a new institution?

    With me today is David Lloyd. He’s the Vice Chancellor of the University of South Australia, and until the merger happens, also the Deputy Vice Chancellor at the University of Adelaide, and as you probably guessed, he’s one of the architects of the merger.

    In the course of this interview, we cover a range of issues such as what are the benefits of mergers? Why these two institutions? Why now? And how on earth do you possibly make a merger of this scale actually work? I can’t do any of this justice in an intro, so let’s just turn it over to David.


    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.33 | Opening January 2026: Inside One of the Biggest University Mergers in Australia

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): David, why merge these two institutions—and why now? What made this the right moment to bring these two very different institutions together?

    David Lloyd (DL): I guess sometimes we joke and say there’s never going to be a better time. I’m not sure there ever is a perfect time. In this case, it’s not our first attempt. Ever since UniSA was established in 1991, people have questioned why another university was needed in South Australia.

    Right now, though, the political landscape is aligned in support of this. There’s institutional ambition on both sides of the ledger—coming from different motivations, but ultimately converging. You’ve got leaders who’ve known each other for a long time, strong financial positions in both institutions, and a shared history—we came very close before. We nearly merged in 2012. We nearly did it again in 2018. So in some ways, it’s like—third time lucky.

    AU: What do you gain together that you don’t already have apart? What’s the advantage here?

    DL: One of the biggest advantages is scale. Australian universities are large organizations. UniSA has about 40,000 students and Adelaide has about 30,000. So combined, you’re looking at 70,000 students—which makes it a $2.1 billion enterprise. It’s a big operation. Now, big isn’t automatically better, but it does mean you’re more financially robust and resilient.

    At that scale, the student mix is also important—about 75% domestic and 25% international on day one. That gives you a really strong foundation, making the institution more shockproof in the face of events like the pandemic or future geopolitical disruptions. You get a very robust organization.

    And then, if you think about how you can leverage the cash flow of a $2.1 billion enterprise into applications and resources—it throws off a lot more than each institution could alone. That gives you a real capacity for investment.

    AU: You said this isn’t your first go at this, right? That this is actually at least the second time, that I know of, that this has been considered. So take us back. Presumably, at some point after 1991, as UniSA grew from being an old technical institution into what it is now, there would have been various moments when people said, “Hey, there are gains to be had from a merger.” Over this long period—20 or 30 years—what were the big turning points? When did the light go off and people say, “Aha, we should definitely do this”?

    DL: I think it goes back to the origins of the institution in the 1990s. When the policy came through under the Hawke Labor government—John Dawkins was the Minister for Education at the time—the creation of new institutions was happening across the country.

    In that formative period, you had faculties and activities from what had been an Institute of Technology and a College of Advanced Education. There was a bit of a shop-around approach—people were saying, “Well, these parts could go to University X, or those parts could go to University Y, or we could put them together and create something new.” And in South Australia, that led to the creation of a new university.

    So you went from a town with two institutions—the old, established sandstone University of Adelaide, and Flinders University, a 1950s construct—to suddenly having this new kid on the block in 1991. And it quickly became a real challenger to the other two. It grabbed a large share of the domestic market and drove the participation agenda. The national driver at the time was to increase tertiary attainment, and suddenly, a lot of people who’d never gone to university had access.

    Then you fast forward to 2012. There was a desire at that time—between the University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide—to pursue a merger. It didn’t go through, for all sorts of reasons. I think mostly small, local considerations. Peter Høj—who’s now my co–Vice Chancellor at the new Adelaide University—was the Vice Chancellor of UniSA back then. He left to run the University of Queensland.

    And I was recruited to lead UniSA after that particular push toward merger had fizzled. So I came into an institution that had thought about merging, had moved somewhat in that direction, but ultimately hadn’t done it.

    Then in 2018, the same kinds of conversations came up again. These things tend to resurface when there’s a leadership change. When a Vice Chancellor leaves, people say, “Well, we could hire a new one—or we could merge the universities.” It’s a very simple framing, but it does come up.

    In 2018, that cycle happened again. We went quite far down the road exploring a merger. There was a public process. But in the end, UniSA withdrew. We said no, and we said no because of the business case. What was being articulated at that time didn’t look like something that would take the goals and ambitions of the institution to where we believed it needed to be—especially not given the overhead that would come with creating a new university.

    So things settled down again—until we got to the conditions we talked about earlier, the ones that make this moment feel like the right one.

    AU: Let me just ask you—based on what you’ve described, why, from the University of South Australia’s perspective, is Adelaide the right merger partner? Why not Flinders?

    DL: Yeah, yeah, that’s a really good point. I can tell you that in the various machinations over the years—and I’ve been here now for 13 years—there have definitely been times when I thought, you could actually end up with quite a different landscape in South Australia. UniSA and Flinders could have come together to create a kind of younger, more modern university that would have competed in the domestic market against the older, more established University of Adelaide. That would’ve created a local differentiator.

    But the combination that actually came about—and the reason we are where we are today—has a lot to do with a key political shift. In 2021, while still in opposition, the now state government released a policy position saying that, if elected, they would establish a merger commission to examine the merits of a combination—with a view to making it happen. It was a very clear and determinative policy.

    They believed a merger had been a missed opportunity in the past and were committed to a process that would determine the next steps. That put universities in an interesting position. You had the prospect of an external body telling you, “You have to merge—and here’s who you’re going to merge with.” That creates a real risk of losing institutional autonomy and control.

    What stood out in that policy position, though, was the stated ambition to create a university that could rank sustainably in the global top 100. If you look at different combinations, a UniSA–Flinders merger wouldn’t get you there—at least not without a significant uplift in investment. But a UniSA–University of Adelaide merger could. And so that becomes one of the key factors shaping the path we chose.

    AU: There’s one other country that’s really moved in this direction, specifically with the goal of getting institutions into the global top 100, and that’s France. Right? You’ve seen a lot of that in places like Lyon and Paris. Did you spend much time looking at the dos and don’ts from the French experience—or from any other international mergers?

    DL: We did spend some time on that. There’s quite a bit of jurisdictional variability when it comes to amalgamating institutions. The example we really studied, with a kind of weather eye on how to do this properly, was the creation of the University of Manchester.

    But that was quite a while ago now. When we looked at the French experience, what stood out was that their approach often seemed to involve putting a veneer of amalgamation over existing institutions and then dropping a kind of cash bundle on top to make the veneer hold together. So it’s less the creation of a single institution and more the creation of an amalgamated system. From our perspective, this is a non-trivial exercise. We didn’t want to just have an umbrella that said, “This is a merged university.” We wanted to create a new university.

    And from UniSA’s side, the conditions for entering the process were very clear: we would create a new institution—with its own mission, its own purpose—its own values, and all of those things. That’s not really what the French model does. But one interesting lesson from the French approach was that if you apply that veneer—and if you’re something like Paris-Saclay—you can be considered a young university again, which is an intriguing outcome. The Sorbonne, for example, is now viewed as a young university again.

    That was an interesting insight into how these things are perceived. So for us, the goal was to do this really well—to create an integrated, new institution. That way, we’d have the benefits of a young university, with all the pedigree and legacy behind us too.

    AU: David, I assume—though I’m not sure exactly what process you used—there was some kind of letter of intent or memorandum of understanding that said, “We’re going to do this, and we’re serious.” How does the planning process unfold from there? Once you’ve done the initial feasibility and assured each other you’re acting in good faith, how do you move through the bottlenecks of institutional governance, stakeholder engagement, and all those kinds of things? How do you get to the finish line?

    DL: Um, great tenacity—I think that’s key. Peter and I started this as an informal conversation back in 2021, and we’re planning to open the doors of the new university on the first Monday of 2026—January 5th. So it’s a long road from informal talks to delivering a functional, operational, competitive institution.

    On the plus side, we had very strong intent from the state government to enable this. In our system, it’s the state government that legislates the creation of universities. But then you also have to negotiate with the federal government to be recognized as an Australian university—

    AU: And funded.

    DL: Exactly. So, at the local level, we could establish a corporate body, but we still needed legislation to pass through the house. It was much more complex than just signing an MOU.

    We actually had to draft legislation and, mechanistically, we created a new corporate entity—a new university—that sits alongside the two existing ones. So when I’m co–Vice Chancellor of the new Adelaide University, I’m still the Vice Chancellor of the University of South Australia. These are independent and autonomous institutions—one of which is actively creating the other, even while the original continues to exist legislatively. It’s quite an unusual construct.

    On the federal side, this goes back to why now. The current federal government—a Labor government—has a strong agenda around widening participation. When we approached them and said, “We’re going to have the largest population of domestic Australian students of any institution in the country,” that positioned us as a sovereign educator. We’re delivering an equity and participation agenda at a scale no other Australian university can match. That naturally leads to a conversation about: how do they help us set it up?

    AU: As I understand it, you’ve got some kind of transition council. I’m not sure if that’s a joint council for both institutions, or if each has its own. How does that work? Who’s on that council making the nitty-gritty decisions? And how do you make sure everything stays on track?

    DL: That goes back to the legislation. Adelaide University was formally established in legislation in March 2024. That legislation created a council—capital “C”—with the word “transition” in front of it, which gives you a sense of its purpose.

    The composition of that council was agreed upon by the two institutions, determining how to populate the board of this new university from the existing boards of UniSA and the University of Adelaide. It was set up as a 50/50 split between the two, with UniSA having the right to appoint the chancellor of the new university. That was one of the key elements in the background negotiations—like why it’s called Adelaide University and not the University of South Australia.

    In fact, the act establishing the new university is based on the University of South Australia Act, and UniSA retained the right to appoint the transition chancellor.

    But functionally, this council operates as a fully independent university council, completely autonomous from the two existing institutions. Everyone who joined the council had to step off their former boards and now acts solely in the interest of the new institution, as required by law.

    What the council does is provide a governance framework for the executive to work within. It approves the strategy, but it’s the executive team—originally Peter and myself, along with a team drawn from both universities—that brings forward the decisions.

    Now, we’ve started appointing deputy vice chancellors who are employees of the new Adelaide University. We’ve brought forward a strategy that actually originated in the business case—a white paper—that both universities had independently agreed was in their best interests.

    If you go back to 2022, we were asking: What will we create? What should it look like? Why are we doing this? How much will it cost? We built a strong business case and rationale. That was then translated into a strategy for the new institution—one that doesn’t just cover the start in 2024, but runs all the way through to 2030. That’s when we aim to have a fully established, steady-state university of scale, delivering everything we set out to achieve: a purposeful, excellent institution.

    AU: One thing that’s really struck me about this process—watching it from 8,000 miles away—is how remarkably smooth it seems to have been. Mergers often stir up a lot of turbulence, especially with alumni communities. And while I don’t know the geography of Adelaide very well, I imagine there can be tensions if one part of town gains certain things and another part doesn’t.

    Then there’s the fact that your two institutions have different origins, stories, and areas of specialization—but still quite a bit of overlap in terms of departments and programs. That’s usually where the real head-butting happens: getting people to play nicely together. But you seem to have managed that really well. What’s the secret to a smooth merger?

    DL: Well, part of it is that this is our third attempt—so maybe it’s third time lucky. As I said earlier, this isn’t our first rodeo. This has been considered before, so there was a certain inevitability in the way we presented it this time. There was a clear policy position, enabling legislation, and strong support from the government behind us.

    But that only takes you so far. You can’t just rely on top-down directives. People can still dig in their heels. If the message had been, “We’re doing this because we were told to,” we could’ve faced a lot of turbulence.

    Instead, what we had were two universities that went through their own internal processes—through their academic boards, their senates—and independently concluded that creating this new institution was in their best interest, and in the best interest of the state. So both came to the table willingly, but from different perspectives.

    Each institution had a view of what it would give up—and what it would become. This is really a baton pass from both organizations to something new.

    And when we looked at the mechanics of creating that new institution, we didn’t take a “lift and shift” approach. We didn’t just bundle together the activities of both universities under a single umbrella. We committed to building a new structure. We committed to delivering a new curriculum. We agreed to design everything—program content included—through a forward-looking Adelaide University lens, rather than from the perspective of UniSA’s past or Adelaide’s past.

    And what was remarkable—and maybe a bit fortuitous—was the way our people responded. Let’s say we brought together two marketing faculties. We told them, “We want you to design a new curriculum that takes the best of both.” And instead of any sense of loss or resistance, what we got was strong academic alignment in shaping that new product.

    We did that across the board—wherever we had overlapping programs: two business degrees, two law degrees, two science degrees. The faculty teams who had once been institutional competitors came together and asked, “If we start with a blank piece of paper—not with the past—what would the ideal program look like?”

    And that approach has been incredibly unifying. Thousands of academics have gone through that process already, and many more will continue to do so between now and 2030.

    AU: You’re talking about new programs here. What’s striking, again from a distance, is the early commitment to pedagogy—a move away from the traditional lecture system. As I understand it, the institution committed to moving away from in-person lectures. Have I got that right? Is that the plan?

    DL: I love having these conversations—especially when the 8,000-kilometer view is, “You guys aren’t going to have lectures anymore.”

    AU: That’s why we’re having this conversation, David!

    DL: Exactly. And we had a similar conversation in Beijing when we were on stage launching the new brand. Journalists there were asking the same thing. But no, we are not getting rid of lectures.

    What we are getting rid of is the idea that students just sit in a room while someone talks at them for an hour, and then leave—as if knowledge has magically transferred from the person at the podium to the students in the seats. Instead, we’re aiming for much richer, more engaging classroom experiences.

    These will still be face-to-face, but students will come prepared. The foundational content—the pre-reading, the prerequisite material—will be delivered online. We’ll expect students to engage with that before attending the in-person component, whether it’s a workshop, tutorial, or some other interactive format.

    And that core online content is being designed so it can also stand alone. If you’re not physically in South Australia, you’ll still be able to engage with the material from anywhere—across the country or internationally.

    AU: So, it’s flipped classrooms at scale?

    DL: Yes. Exactly.

    AU: That’s a significant pedagogical shift. It’s not something you’d typically get from individual departmental committees. Was there wide buy-in for that? Because even when you frame it as flipped classrooms rather than online classes, it still feels like a big change for academics across a wide range of disciplines.

    DL: Yeah, and I think in a post-COVID era, that shift is more understandable. The pandemic showed us all that you can go online—and do it either really well or really poorly. But if you do it well, students can have a great experience.

    We’ve anchored all of our structural decisions through the lens of student experience and student success. And the evidence we have shows that, when done right, students actually report better experiences with these kinds of blended or flipped models than they do with traditional, lecture-heavy formats.

    If you go back to one of UniSA’s strengths: in 2018, we created a division called UniSA Online. Higher education bodies now say we’re number one in Australia for online education—and top ten globally. That means we already had a strong engine for content creation and pedagogical design.

    Now we’re layering that into an institution with the generational pedigree and academic reputation that the University of Adelaide brings. So together, the new Adelaide University will have a really compelling mix.

    And to be clear—it’s not a wholesale replacement of everything that came before. The academic content is still owned by the faculty. What’s changed is how that content is curated and presented in the online environment. That curation is handled institutionally, but the ownership remains firmly with the academics.

    AU: We’re a little more than seven months away from opening day. I have two questions: what are you most looking forward to in all of this? And what do you think the global implications are—what lessons might institutions outside Australia take from this?

    DL: Yeah. The first part—this has been nearly a five-year journey for me, getting this institution to the point of opening. On a personal level, my daughter is just finishing a diploma with the University of South Australia. She’s about to start her degree in the next few weeks, entering mid-year. So she’ll begin at UniSA just as it officially ends—and she’ll graduate from Adelaide University in, hopefully, three years’ time.

    So I have a very real hope that we’ve managed to build an institution that will empower her, her peers, our colleagues, and future learners—to be successful, to find meaningful employment, and to have a great experience along the way. That’s not the reason we did all this, of course, but when I look at the outcomes we aimed for, I want to see that we’ve hit the metrics we set.

    It’s a very ambitious strategy. But we’ve had the financial resources and a long runway to plan—something only a whole-of-institution change like this could make possible.

    Personally, I’m really looking forward to 2030. That’s when I want to look back and assess whether we’ve achieved what we set out to do. Not necessarily from inside the organization—Peter and I won’t be the Vice Chancellors next year. We’ve made a conscious decision to hand over to a new leader who will carry this strategy forward.

    But I want to see how they reach those milestones based on the breadcrumbs and trail we’ve laid down. And in the next few months, we’ll see the inaugural rankings for this institution as we move into its first year of operation. I’m quietly confident we’ll meet our targets.

    And I’ll admit—part of me is looking forward to proving the doubters wrong. The ones who said, “You can’t do this. You’ll go backwards. It’s dilution.” I want them to be left eating humble pie. Glen Davis—the former Vice Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, now working in the Prime Minister’s department—once said to me, “Good luck as you attempt the impossible.” And if we pull this off, that’s where the real satisfaction will come from.

    AU: And from an international perspective—what should others learn from this?

    DL: I think what we’re demonstrating is that there are two ways to approach a merger. You can put up an umbrella, apply a veneer, and say, “Here’s a system.” Or you can take a planned, deliberate, mindful approach—what I wouldn’t call a leap of faith, but an investment in doing it properly.

    And that means proper integration. Proper consideration of what it means to deliver a new organization—not just on paper, but in culture, structure, and purpose. If you do that, you can create something that really is more than the sum of its parts.

    I think we’re showing what’s possible.

    AU: DL, thank you so much for being with us today.

    DL: Pleasure. Thanks, Alex.

    AU: And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, and to thank you—our viewers, listeners, and readers—for joining us. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, or suggestions for future ones, don’t hesitate to get in touch at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. Run—don’t walk—to our YouTube page and subscribe. That way, you’ll never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education.

    Join us next week, when our guest will once again be Brendan Cantwell from Michigan State University. You may remember him from last fall’s episode, when he suggested—based on a close reading of Project 2025—that a second Trump administration might shift from a culture war posture to one of active sabotage and destruction of the higher education sector. We’ll see whether he can resist saying, “I told you so.” Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by KnowMeQ. ArchieCPL is the first AI-enabled tool that massively streamlines credit for prior learning evaluation. Toronto based KnowMeQ makes ethical AI tools that boost and bottom line, achieving new efficiencies in higher ed and workforce upskilling. 

    Source link

  • 10 things universities can learn from mergers in the FE sector

    10 things universities can learn from mergers in the FE sector

    • James Clark is a Managing Director at Interpath Advisory, the UK’s largest independent Restructuring and professional advisory firm. James is co-lead of Interpath’s Education Team and has advised on over 20 mergers and potential mergers in the FE and HE sectors. In this blog, James explains 10 things universities can learn from mergers in the FE sector.

    Few people connected with the sector would contest that higher education institutions are coming under increasing pressures: a reduction in overseas students due to visa changes, inflationary pressures caused by macroeconomic factors and government policy, increased competition via alternative routes for 18+ students and plain and simple population patterns.

    Many of these headwinds were experienced by further education (FE) colleges not that long ago, and many would agree these have not vanished completely. The Area Review process, led by the FE Commissioner, sought to remove inefficiency across sixth forms and colleges – as this author would put it (admittedly in crudely simplistic terms) – by taking colleges that are half full, removing excess capacity and leaving fewer college groups which are full. Is it time for higher education (HE) to follow suit? Is it inevitable that HE will do so, though perhaps not on the scale seen in the Area Review process? Should we be seeing more mergers, more economies of scale, and more collaboration to navigate the gales?

    I’m not suggesting FE and HE are directly comparable. But they are both in the business of education, both have people at the heart of their institutions (on a major scale), both manage big cost bases and both suffer from similar issues around competition and government policy. So are there things that higher education institutions can learn from a major upheaval started in FE in 2015?

    10 things we can learn from FE mergers

    1. Are the cultures of the merging institutions aligned? One of the major obstacles to mergers (which either create an upfront barrier or mean that post-merger difficulties arise) is that the institutions have very different values and cultures. Existing relationships may help parties understand whether they are a good fit for each other. Management teams contemplating mergers would help themselves by reaching out and starting a dialogue or by increasing the frequency of their catch-ups.
    2. Understand the regulatory landscape. Navigating the regulatory landscape and remaining compliant with educational policy is complex and will be breaking new ground for many management teams. Knowledge of precedents and other case studies will be helpful. Advisor relationships are helpful here. A number of advisors, both in the financial space and legal space, emerged as market leaders during the Area Review process.
    3. Understand your stakeholders and take them on a journey. Banks, governing boards, the Department for Education, the Office for Students, pension scheme trustees. Do not underestimate the different angles each will be coming from. Each will want to know ‘what’s in it for me?’ and care will be needed to ensure each stakeholder feels supported by the merger. Poor communication and a lack of engagement could lead to opposition and unwanted obstacles.
    4. Agree a governance structure at an early stage. Effective and committed leadership is essential for a smooth transition. Conflicts in governance will create unnecessary barriers from the off. Successful mergers I have worked on have had Chairs who have worked together from the off – being like-minded, especially in the desire for success, to leave a legacy and preserve for the next generation has been key,
    5. Grip & Control. Create a steering committee. Set milestones and deadlines and be held to account. Clearly identify what’s on the critical path. If planned well, mergers typically happen on 1 August. Delays to the process could see management teams having to manage critical parts of the merger in term time. Many of the mergers I have worked on have had turnaround directors managing the process.
    6. Don’t assume the plan ends on day 1 of the merger. A 100-day post-integration plan will also be required, with dedicated resource to deliver operational control, as well as the expected benefits of the merger. Failure to plan for this could result in significant operational disruption, for example, if administrative, curriculum support, and IT systems need to be merged. The Area Review process made the 100-day plan part of its requirement for merger support.
    7. Clearly understand the rationale for the merger. Educational improvement? Cost savings? Revenue protection? This may then determine your chosen merger partner.
    8. Crunch the numbers and make sure it stacks up financially. Exploring and delivering a merger will not be cheap, with significant input from legal and financial advisors required, both before, during, and post-integration. Ensuring tangible benefits can be secured from a merger is crucial. Again, those successful mergers involved specialist financial personnel, often interims with expertise in education, to examine the potential benefits prior to the merger.
    9. First mover advantage. Don’t leave it too late to determine that a merger is right, or even essential to your survival. Be front-footed – the more time given over to the proposed merger, the smoother the process will be, and the more optimal the decisions made.
    10. A merger might not be right, but other structures may be available.  Whilst a number of FE institutions decided to abandon merger plans, this gave the institutions time to properly examine their long-term strategy, their cost base, and other potential “alliance-type” shared services models.

    Some would argue that the FE mergers have provided an opportunity for a reset, benefitting from a huge Government funding pot. Many (and not without great leadership) have successfully turned around the fortunes of financially and educationally stumbling colleges.

    One beacon that shines for me, which I had the pleasure of supporting, is the merger of Telford College of Arts and Technology and New College Telford. Within a short period of time, its financial health was upgraded to Outstanding, and its Ofsted upgraded to Good. A remarkable turnaround and testament to a focused and forward-thinking management team and governing body that, when faced with the task, grabbed it with both hands and drove it hard.

    Source link

  • Campus closures, mergers, cuts, and crises at the start of 2025 (Bryan Alexander)

    Campus closures, mergers, cuts, and crises at the start of 2025 (Bryan Alexander)

    Today, while Trump continues to flood the zone, I want to establish a
    sense of what the higher education baseline was before he cut loose. 
    As the new administration goes even more energetically after academia
    I’d like to share some data about our sector’s standing.

    Last year I tracked cuts and crises afflicting dozens of campuses.  I
    posted roughly every months, noting program cuts, institutional
    mergers, and campus closures, as well as financial crises likely to
    cause same: March 1March 20March 28, April, MayJuneJulySeptember, November. Today I’ll continue that line for the reasons I’ve previously given:
    to document key stories in higher education; to witness human suffering;
    to point to possible directions for academia to take.  In addition, I
    want to help paint a picture of the world Trump is starting to attack.

    Some caveats: I’m doing this in haste, between the political chaos
    and a stack of professional deadlines, which means the following will be
    more telegraphic than usual.  I may well have missed some stories, so
    please let me know in comments.

    Closing colleges and universities

    Philadelphia’s University of the Arts closed in 2024. Now different
    actors are angling for its physical remains.  Temple University purchased an iconic building, Quadro Bay bought another, and while more bids appear.

    Mergers

    Gannon University (Catholic, Pennsylvania) and Ursuline College (Catholic, Ohio) agreed to merge by this December.  The idea is to synthesize complementary academic offers and provide institutional stability, it seems.

    Seattle University (Jesuit, Washington state) and the Cornish College of the Arts (private, Washington) also agreed to merge.  As with the Lake Erie schools, one motivation is to expand curricular offerings:

    Emily Parkhust, Cornish’s interim president, said the deal opens new doors for the tiny school’s nearly 500 students.

    “This strategic combination will allow our students opportunities
    that we simply weren’t able to offer and provide at a small arts
    college,” she said. “Such as the opportunity to take business classes,
    computer courses, pursue master’s degree programs, engage in college
    sports — and even swim in a pool.”

    Financial problems also played a role: “Cornish declared it was undergoing a financial emergency in 2020, and this year, Seattle University paused hiring as it faces a $7.5 million deficit.”

    The Universidad Andres Bello (Universidad Andrés Bello; private, Chile) purchased Post University (for-profit, Connecticut).

    Campuses cutting programs and jobs

    In this series I’ve largely focused on the United States for the
    usual reasons: the sheer size and complexity of the sector; limited
    time. But in my other writing I’ve noted the epochal crisis hitting
    Canadian higher education, as the nation’s decision to cut international
    enrollment has struck institutional finances.   Tony Bates offers a good backgrounder.  Alex Usher’s team set up an excellent website tracking the resulting retrenchment.

    British higher education is also suffering, partly for the reasons
    that nation’s economy is hurting: negative effects of Brexit, energy
    problems stemming from the Ukraine war, and political fecklessness. For
    one example I find the University of Hull (public research) which is combining 17 schools into 11 and ending its chemistry program, all for financial reasons. Cardiff University (Prifysgol Caerdydd; public research) cut 400 full time jobs, also for financial reasons:

    Vice-Chancellor Professor
    Wendy Larner defended the decision to cut jobs, saying the university
    would have become “untenable” without drastic reforms.

    The job role cuts are only a
    proposal, she said, but insisted the university needed to “take
    difficult decisions” due to the declining international student
    applications and increasing cost pressures.

    Prof Larner said the
    university is not alone in its financial struggles, with most UK
    universities grappling with the “broken” funding system.

    Back in the United States, Sonoma State University (public university, part of California State University system) announced a massive series of cuts.

    “approximately 46 university faculty – both tenured and
    adjunct – will receive notice that their contracts will not be renewed
    for 2025-26. Additional lecturers will receive notice that no work will
    be available in fall 2025… Four management positions and 12 staff
    positions also will be eliminated.”

    The university will shut down a group of departments: “Art History,
    Economics; Geology; Philosophy; Theater and Dance; and Women and Gender
    Studies.”

    (These are the kind of cuts I’ve referred to as “queen sacrifices,”
    desperate moves to cut a school’s way to survival.  The term comes from
    chess, where a player can give up their most powerful piece, the queen.
    In my analogy tenured faculty represent that level of relative power.)

    There will be some consolidation (“The college also plans to merge
    the Ethnic Studies departments (American Multicultural Studies, Chicano
    and Latino Studies, and Native American Studies) into one department
    with one major”) along with ending a raft of programs:

    Administrative Services Credential in ELSE; Art
    History BA; Art Studio BFA; Dance BA; Earth and Environmental Sciences
    BA; Economics BA; Education Leadership MA; English MA; French BA;
    Geology BS; German Minor; Global Studies BA; History MA;
    Interdisciplinary Studies BA; Interdisciplinary Studies MA; Philosophy
    BA; Physical Science BA; Physics BA; Physics BS; Public Administration
    MPA; Spanish MA; Theatre Arts BA; Women and Gender Studies BA.

    Additionally, and unusually, SSU is also ending student athletics:
    “The University will be removing NCAA Division II athletics entirely,
    involving some 11 teams in total.”

    What lies behind these cuts?  My readers will not be surprised to learn that enrollment decline plays a role, but might be shocked by the decline’s size: “SSU has experienced a 38% decrease in enrollment.”

    More cuts: St. Norbert College (Catholic, liberal arts, Wisconsin) is planning to cut faculty and its theology department. (I posted about an earlier round of cuts there  in 2024.)  Columbia College Chicago (private, arts) will terminate faculty and academic programs.  Portland State University (Oregon) ended contracts for a group of non-tenure-track faculty.

    The University of New Orleans (public research) will cut $2.2 million of administration and staff.

    The University of Connecticut (public, land grant) is working on closing roughly two dozen academic programs.  According to one account, they include:

    master’s degrees in international studies, medieval
    studies, survey research and educational technology; graduate
    certificates in adult learning, literacy supports, digital media and
    design, dementia care, life story practice, addiction science and survey
    research; a sixth-year certificate in educational technology, and a
    doctoral degree in medieval studies.

    It’s not clear if those terminations will lead to faculty and staff reductions.

    Budget crises, programs cut, not laying off people yet

    There are also stories of campuses facing financial pressures which
    haven’t resulted in cuts, mergers, or closures so far, but could lead to
    those. Saint Augustine’s University (historically black, South Carolina) is struggling to get approval for a campus leasing deal, while moving classes online “to take care of deferred maintenance issues.”  SAU has been facing controversies and financial challenges for nearly a generation.

    The president of another HBCU, Tennessee State University, stated that they would run out of money by this spring.  That Higher Ed Dive article notes:

    TSU’s financial troubles are steep and immediate. An FAQ page on
    the university’s website acknowledges that the financial condition has
    reached crisis levels stemming from missed enrollment targets and
    operating deficits. This fall, the university posted a projected deficit of $46 million by the end of the fiscal year.

    The Middle States Commission on Higher Education agreed to hear an accreditation appeal from Keystone College (private, Pennsylvania), while that campus struggles:

    Keystone college front page 2025 Feb

    From the top of Keystone’s web page right now.

    The board of William Jewell University (private liberal arts, Missouri) declared financial exigency
    This gives them emergency powers to act. As the official statement put
    it, the move “enables reallocation of resources, restructuring of
    academic programs and scholarships and significant reductions in force.”

    Brown University (private research university, Rhode Island) is grappling
    with a $46 million deficit “that would grow to more than $90 million,”
    according to provost Francis J. Doyle III and Executive Vice President
    for Finance and Administration Sarah Latham.  No cuts are in the offing,
    although restraining growth is the order of the day. In addition,
    there’s a plan to increase one sort of program for revenue:

    the university will work to “continue to grow master’s
    [program] revenue, ultimately doubling the number of residential
    master’s students and increasing online learners to 2,000 in five
    years.”

    KQED reports
    that other California State University campuses are facing financial
    stresses, notably Cal State East Bay and San Francisco State
    University.  The entire CSU system and the University of California
    system each face massive cuts from the state’s governor.

    Reflections

    Nearly all of this is occurring before the second Trump
    administration began its work. Clearly parts of the American
    post-secondary ecosystem are suffering financially and in terms of
    enrollment.

    It’s important to bear in mind that each school’s trajectory is
    distinct from the others in key ways. Each has its history, its
    conditions, its competing strategies, resources, micropolitics, and so
    on. Each one deserves more exploration than I have time for in this
    post.

    At the same time I think we can make the case that broader national
    trends are also at work. Operating costs rise for a clutch of reasons
    (consumer inflation, American health care’s shambles, deferred
    maintenance being a popular practice, some high compensation practices,
    etc) and push hard on some budgets. Enrollment continues to be a
    challenge (I will return to this topic in a future post). The Trump
    administration does not seem likely to ameliorate those concerns.

    Note, too, that many of the institutions I’ve touched on here are not
    first tier campuses. The existence of some may be news to some readers.
    As a result, they tend not to get much media attention nor to attract
    resources.   It is important, though, to point them out if we want to
    think beyond academia’s deep hierarchical structures.

    Last note: this post has focused on statistics and bureaucracy, but
    these are all stories about real human beings.  The lives of students,
    faculty, staff and those in surrounding communities are all impacted. 
    Don’t lose sight of that fact or of these people.

    (Seattle University photo by Michael & Sherry Martin; thanks to Karen B on Bluesky, Karen Bellnier otherwise, Mo Pelzel, Peter Shea, and Siva Vaidhyanathan for links; thanks to IHE for doing a solid job of covering these stories)

    Source link