null
Source link
Tag: University
-

The paradox of parents’ involvement in their children’s time at university
Over the past few decades, there has been – as many an academic will attest – a significant shift in the extent to which parents are involved in their children’s higher education.
Parents now often attend university open days with their children, with some institutions laying on separate talks and events for them. Moreover, despite the introduction of tuition fees and maintenance loans, many parents end up making some financial contribution to their child’s higher education.
To date, however, we know relatively little about parents’ perspectives on their involvement, nor about the extent to which they support their children in non-financial ways once they have embarked on their higher education journey. Research that I have recently completed (with Julia Cook and Dan Woodman) on parents of Australian higher education students may be transferable to the UK, given the similarities between the two higher education systems and social structures more generally.
Drawing on data from the longitudinal Life Patterns project, which has been following the lives of young Australians since the 1990s, we asked parents with children in higher education – or shortly to enrol – a series of questions about the support, if any, they were offering their children, as well as whether they felt parents should be supporting their children in any particular ways. Their responses were fascinating.
Independence and intervention
Nearly all of those we spoke to believed that higher education was a space in which young people learned how to be independent – and it was this that helped to distinguish it from school. University was typically positioned as a space where their children would “fend for themselves”, engage in “adult learning”, and be accountable for their own actions.
However, while there was a strong rhetorical commitment to higher education as a time of achieving independence, when describing the detail of their parenting practices our participants outlined a wide range of ways in which they had been closely involved in the lives of their student children (or thought a parent should be), providing high levels of practical and emotional support.
All of those we interviewed were either already providing financial support to their offspring at university, or they had clear plans to do so when their children enrolled. In addition, they either had already spent, or thought it was desirable to spend, considerable time with their children supporting them through any problems they encountered during their studies. This differed between participants but often included “coaching” approaches, to help the child identify the root cause of problems; strong encouragement to take advantage of the various services available on campus – sometimes with detailed advice about how best to access these; and, in a significant number of cases, direct involvement in academic matters, including paying for private tutors.
The following excerpts from our interviews are illustrative:
Yeah, we would help [daughter] through that and … make a timetable for her for the week on how she could help with the study. …. So she’s not thinking it’s all got to be done in a short amount of time.
The other thing we could do is investigate some tutoring if that’s required.
None of our interviewees remarked on the apparent paradox between the rhetorical foregrounding of “independence”, on the one hand, and the numerous examples of parental intervention, on the other. This is perhaps unsurprising. It does, however, raise the interesting question of why these parents continued to see university as a space of independence given the various forms of support they were giving their child (or thought should be given).
Defining distances
In answering this question, we can first point to the dominance of discourses about independence. Despite the well-documented changes to young people’s lives over recent decades and the associated later age at which the traditional markers of adulthood are on average now reached, independence as an achievement of early adulthood retains considerable discursive power. Admitting that one’s child is “semi-dependent”, or similar, while at university may thus be viewed as admitting or that an adult child is struggling and even that one has “failed” as a parent.
Relatedly, it appears that there continues to be some social opprobrium associated with acknowledging that one intervenes in the life of one’s son or daughter once they reach the age for higher education. This is alluded to in the following comment from one of our interviewees:
Kids get older, they’re more mature than you think. You don’t want to be seen as mothering your children, I don’t want to be that umbrella parent that’s hanging over them all the time saying ‘do go do this’ or ‘you should do that’.
Both structural factors (such as having to pay tuition fees, and the high cost of university housing) and cultural influences (such as the expectation that parents take responsibility for monitoring their child’s educational progress) likely encourage parents to continue to intervene quite significantly in the lives of their student-children. Yet it appears that these participants were nevertheless keen to discursively distance themselves from such behaviours.
These findings provide new insights into how parenting practices are shifting over time. They may also have broader political and policy implications. Our sample was broadly middle class and we would speculate that the interventions outlined above may not be available to all students – particularly those from families with no prior experience of higher education. Universities thus need to be aware that some students may be being supported in their academic endeavours by parents, and this may serve to exacerbate social inequalities. Can more support be offered within universities to those without such familial resources?
With respect to more general policy debates, for those who believe that the student loan should be increased (or grants restored) to cover costs currently often picked up by parents, arguments may be harder to make if the actual degree of parental contribution is masked by the discourse of “independence”. There may therefore be some advantage to being more open about the degree of parental support, with respect to finances at least.
-

Duke University offers buyouts and signals future layoffs as federal cuts hit
Dive Brief:
- Duke University is offering voluntary buyouts for employees and has frozen hiring as it braces for federal funding cuts, the institution said Wednesday.
- The North Carolina institution signaled that layoffs were likely in the coming months, but said it is “pursuing several employment actions now in hopes of reducing the scale of involuntary separations later this summer.”
- The moves are in response to federal cuts and policy shifts, which could translate into funding losses for Duke between $500 million and $750 million, university officials said during an internal webinar Wednesday, according to media reports.
Dive Insight:
Historically, much of Duke’s research enterprise has been devoted to work on behalf of the government. Federal grant support made up nearly three-quarters of the $1.5 billion in sponsored research funds that Duke received in fiscal 2024, much of it going toward health science.
The university, in its latest financial statement, described its medical school as “one of the largest biomedical research enterprises in the country.” And funding just from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services — which houses the National Institutes of Health — accounted for 58% of all of Duke’s sponsored research funding.
The National Science Foundation and U.S. Department of Energy also accounted for tens of millions of dollars in the university’s funding.
Since President Donald Trump retook office, those agencies and others have been cutting and delaying grant awards at a frantic pace, including moves to cap reimbursement for indirect research costs at NIH and the Energy Department. Both funding caps have been blocked in courts — at least for now — but the Trump administration is continuing to fight the legal cases against the policies.
Uncertainty over the funding will likely loom for some time to come.
For Duke, the NIH indirect cost cap would mean $194 million in lost funding each year, President Vincent Price and other leaders said in February.
“Much is at stake,” the officials said then. “Our nation’s world-leading research enterprise has been enabled by — and will only be sustained by — partnership and co-investment from both the government and higher education.”
They also signaled at the time that “careful planning and difficult decisions” could lie ahead.
Today, Duke is trying to cut $350 million from its budget, according to reports of the university’s presentation, as it grapples with funding gaps under the Trump administration.
As it trims down, Duke has paused capital spending on buildings, renovations and other projects that are “not fully funded or deemed essential,” the university said Wednesday.
It’s also reviewing universitywide programs — such as technology adoption, off-campus real estate and on-campus space consolidation — for potential cost-savings.
Employee benefits could also be on the chopping block.
“A study is also under way to assess how certain changes to the university’s benefits may generate savings while protecting the program’s strong competitive position,” Duke said.
However, Executive Vice President Daniel Ennis told employees Wednesday that the university still plans to give out merit raises and will not change its tuition grant program for children of employees.
Universities around the country have been scrambling in recent months to open breathing room in their budgets to cope with the uncertainty and disruption created by cuts and delays at federal agencies. Many have frozen hiring and budgets to maintain financial flexibility while others have laid off employees to cope with cuts.
-

Lean, Global, and Tuition-Free: The University of the People Model
One of the most consistent problems in higher education, one that bedevils systems around the globe, is that of cost containment. Costs in higher education grow inexorably, both due to the Baumol effect, that is, services in labor intensive industries like education tend to have costs that grow faster than inflation. And the Bowen Effect, which states that because quality and education is unmeasurable and expenditures are often mistaken for quality, there’s a permanent ratchet effect on university costs limited only by the amount of resources a university can amass. Education’s expensive and getting ever more so.
But what if I told you there was a university out there that had the cost problem licked? It’s a university based in the United States and accredited by the very respected Western Association of Schools and Colleges. It delivers education the world over with 150,000 students in more than 200 countries and territories. And it educates all these students tuition free, for a grand total of about $150 US per year per student. Sound miraculous? Well, it is in a way, and it’s not easily replicable, but it is real and it’s worth learning from. It’s called the University of the People, an online institution founded in 2009 and based in California.
Today, my guest is the University of the People’s Founder and President Shai Reshef. He’s received global recognition for his work at University of the People. He’s an Ashoka fellow. He’s one of Fast Company’s Most Creative in Business, named the Top Global Thinker by Foreign Policy Magazine, and most impressively, he was winner of the 2023 Yidan Prize for Educational Development, which is probably the highest form of global recognition in the field of education.
In our chat today, Shai and I cover the basic economics of running a mega online university. We answer the questions: how do you serve students across 20 plus time zones? How does a university without government support stay tuition free? And most importantly, how — even if most of your staff are volunteer — are you able to manage things like academic governance and quality assurance on a shoestring?
And as I said, not everything Shai is going to tell us today is going to be transferrable to other institutions, but his message should have at least some resonance and the University of the People’s experiences can lead to change elsewhere.
But enough for me. Let’s listen to Shai.
The World of Higher Education Podcast
Episode 3.29 | Lean, Global, and Tuition-Free: The University of the People ModelTranscript
Alex Usher (AU): Shai, let’s start with the basics. For listeners who might not be familiar—what is the University of the People? Who does it serve? And how does that make it different from a traditional university?
Shai Reshef (SR): The University of the People is the first nonprofit, tuition-free, accredited American online university. Our mission is to open the gates of higher education to anyone in the world who is qualified but has no other way to access it—either because it’s too expensive, like in the U.S., or because they live in countries where there aren’t enough universities. Africa would be a great example.
We also serve people who are deprived of access for political or cultural reasons—refugees, women in Afghanistan, or anyone else who, for personal reasons, can’t attend a traditional university. We use the internet to bring higher education to them.
AU: How big is the institution? How many students do you have? Where are they from? And what’s the breadth of programming that you offer?
SR: We started in 2009. As of now, we have 153,000 students from 209 countries—so, pretty much from almost every country in the world.
Our students are typically people who did go to high school but didn’t attend university afterward. Many of them started working and later realized they needed a degree to advance their careers. Our student body tends to be older; they’re not your typical 18-year-olds. They come to us because they want a better future.
That’s why we only offer degrees that are likely to help them find jobs. At the undergraduate level, we offer degrees in business administration, computer science, and health science. At the graduate level, we offer programs in education, information technology, and business—specifically, the MBA.
AU: That’s huge. This must cost an awful lot of money. You’re not a public university in the sense of being government funded, and you’re not charging tuition. So how does it work? What does it cost, and how do you make ends meet?
SR: Well, first of all, we are nonprofit. So, we’re not making money—maybe a small surplus, but not profit. And we are tuition-free. That means students can study for free, but when they get to the exams, we ask them to pay $140 USD per exam.
Now, for some students—especially those from developing countries—even that amount is too much. So we provide scholarships where we can. About half of our students pay the exam fees, and the other half receive scholarships.
We’re able to stay sustainable and tuition-free because we run a very lean operation. We rely heavily on technology. We offer only a few degree programs, all of which are directly relevant to the job market. We also operate in many parts of the world where we can deliver quality education at lower costs.
We don’t have buildings—since we’re fully online—and importantly, we lean heavily on volunteers. I’m a volunteer. The deans are volunteers. Our professors and faculty are volunteers too. In fact, we have over 40,000 volunteers supporting the university.
AU: But surely $140 per exam on its own isn’t enough to run the institution, right? You must have other sources of income, I imagine?
SR: Our budget—running a university with 153,000 students—is about $20 million USD. Two-thirds of that comes from student fees. The remaining one-third comes from donations. These include contributions from wealthy individuals and foundations such as the Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Ulet Foundation. We also receive some government support—for example, from the German government.
So, about $7 million comes from donations, and $13–14 million comes from student fees. But again, we operate on just a fraction of the budget that any other university of our size would require.
AU: I’m just looking at the numbers—$20 million to teach 150,000 students. That’s about $120 or $130 per student. That’s very, very low. And one of the ways you manage that, I understand, is through your use of volunteers. How do you get people to teach for free?
SR: It’s a good question. In my previous life, before I started the University of the People, I launched and ran the first online university in Europe. So I had a good understanding of how an online university should operate.
When I decided to start the University of the People and make it tuition-free, the main difference—among several—was to rely on volunteers rather than paid faculty and staff. At the time, I wasn’t sure how well that would work.
I announced the university in January 2009 at a conference in Munich. The next day, The New York Times ran a full-page article about it. And the day after that, I already had hundreds of professors writing to me saying, “We love this idea. We want to help.”
So people come to us. I’m not out there recruiting them—they come because I’m not the only one who believes higher education should be a basic right, and that money shouldn’t be a barrier. I came with the idea of tuition-free higher education, and a lot of people believe in that mission. They want to be part of it and help.
AU: What kind of support services are you able to offer students? I mean, student services, academic support—how can you do that within a tuition-free model? Are there still some things you’re able to provide?
SR: Oh, we’re able to do a lot. First of all, all of our courses are written in advance by subject matter experts. They go through a peer review process, just like any other academic program. Once finalized, they’re taught in our online classes.
When students sign up, they’re placed in a class of 20 to 30 students—each time with peers from 20 to 30 different countries. Every course runs for eight weeks. On the first day of the week, students receive their lecture notes, reading assignments, homework, and discussion question.
The core of our pedagogy is peer discussion—students engage in week-long discussions around the topic of the week. Every class has a professor who reads and moderates the discussion daily.
Each student also has a program advisor who follows them from the moment they enroll until they graduate. So there is a lot of support. If a student stops showing up to class, they’ll typically get an email asking where they are.
Even though our professors are volunteers, they commit 10 to 15 hours per week, per course, to support students with everything they need. So it’s a full-service university.
The difference between us and a traditional university is that we don’t offer the “nice-to-haves.” We don’t have a football team, a gym, or psychological services—which are important, but we simply can’t afford them. But everything core to the academic experience is there—and delivered with high quality.
AU: Shai, I want to ask—one of the things you must have to navigate when you’ve got students from all over the world and you’re operating in so many jurisdictions is accreditation. That seems like something that’s very bureaucratic and time-consuming. So how do you handle that? Do you do any jurisdiction shopping? Where are your degrees accredited, and is that part of the reason people pursue them?
SR: Originally, in 2014, we were accredited by DEAC, which is a national accreditation agency in the U.S. And just a couple of weeks ago, we were accredited by WASC—the Western Association of Schools and Colleges—which is one of the six regional accrediting bodies in the U.S.
That puts us in the same group as Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA. Some might argue they need to work a little harder to meet our standards—but in any case, we’re now in the same accreditation category.
Now, even though our students come from around the world, many of them admire American education. That’s a big part of why they choose us. In a few countries, we’re not locally recognized because we’re fully online. But still, thousands of students study with us because they value the American degree, and because local employers recognize and appreciate the quality of our education.
Was it easy to get accredited? No, it was hard. It took a lot of work. We had to prove that what we offer is equivalent, in terms of outcomes, to what traditional universities offer. That includes how we admit students, how we support them, and how we assess their learning outcomes.
In the end, we did everything required to meet those expectations—and we succeeded. That’s why we were granted accreditation.
AU: It just occurred to me, as I was thinking about this, that maybe this is your secret sauce. These are the kinds of things that cost millions of dollars at many universities. And if you’re able to do it without complex quality assurance structures, academic senates, registrar’s offices, and all those kinds of things—if you’re able to do it with the leanest version of those—isn’t that something other institutions could learn from?
SR: Yes, they can learn. But do they want to learn? That’s a different question.
One of the challenges we pose to other universities is this: when you’re charging $30,000 to $50,000 a year, and then here comes a university charging just $1,400 a year—if students pay in full and study full time—that’s a huge contrast. And when traditional institutions see that, they often just turn around and say, “No way,” because they don’t believe it’s real.
The truth is, our advantage comes from the fact that we built a new institution from scratch. That allowed us to decide what to do—and what not to do.
Let me give you an example. At a university our size, the admissions office alone might have thousands of people reading student résumés, essays, checking social media, verifying every detail—thoroughly evaluating each application.
We do it differently. We say: if you have a high school diploma, come and take two courses. If you pass, you’ve shown us you meet our standards. You get credit for those courses and become a degree-seeking student. If you can’t pass, you can’t continue.
Now, not only is that a better system in my view—because it tests students based on how they actually perform, not how well someone coached them on an application—but it also saves a ton of money. We don’t need a large admissions operation. Just come in and prove yourself.
It’s a different way of operating—and a much more efficient one. And I think that’s our real secret. It’s not really a secret—but it works.
AU: You’ve scaled up incredibly quickly—15 years to reach 150,000 students, and to be embedded in, I guess, just about every country in the world. What were the biggest hurdles in that scaling process? Were there moments where you stumbled and thought, “Wow, I’m not sure we can grow this quickly?” Or was it pretty smooth?
SR: Well, if you ask me, I’d actually answer a different question: Why aren’t we even bigger than we are?
Because the truth is, we’re online—there are no physical seat limits. Nobody has to stand at the back of the lecture hall. So, in theory, we could double our student body. Why haven’t we?
The main challenge is that most people in the world haven’t heard of us. Even when I travel and someone asks what I do, and I say, “University of the People,” I’m surprised if they’ve heard of it. Most people haven’t—and especially not the ones who need us most, like refugees or people in remote or underserved regions.
The second challenge is that even when people do find us, we don’t have enough resources to support everyone. For example, we have 4,300 Afghan women currently hiding and studying with us inside Afghanistan—but we received 20,000 applications from there. So yes, it’s incredible that we can serve over 4,000 women, but we simply can’t accommodate all who apply.
To go back to your original question about the difficulties we’ve encountered—yes, there are some. For instance, there are countries that still don’t recognize online education. In those places, we’re just waiting for governments to become more open to 21st-century technologies and new models of learning.
So that’s been one of our biggest challenges: growing awareness and overcoming regulatory barriers.
AU: In lots of traditional universities, success is measured through things like research output, income, or rankings. How do you measure success at the University of the People?
SR: Well, the first thing we look at is how many people we’ve given the opportunity to pursue higher education—people who had no other alternatives. That’s a key measure for us.
I was once interviewed by a student journalist from an Ivy League school, and he said, “You’re setting up competition for my institution.” And I told him, “Anyone who wants to go to your institution should absolutely do so. But we’re here for those who don’t have that option.”
So one measure of our success is how many doors we open. Another is how many of our students actually graduate—and what they go on to do. We have graduates working at Amazon, Google, Apple, IBM, the World Bank—that’s another sign of success.
Ultimately, we measure ourselves by whether we’ve helped people build a better life. Are they better off while studying with us? That’s what matters to us.
We don’t participate in rankings competitions. We don’t try to be the most expensive institution—though in some parts of the sector, it seems the more expensive you are, the better you’re perceived to be. That’s a strange way to measure quality, but it’s common in higher ed.
We’re proud to be different. We’re changing the model of higher education to make it accessible, affordable, and high-quality.
AU: A few days ago in The New York Times, there was an article by the Russian writer Masha Gessen. They were talking about the attacks on higher education in the United States and mentioned that the ideal model right now might be the University of the People in Poland—a communist-era, tuition-free university. As I was preparing for this interview, I thought, “Wait a minute, that sounds a lot like your University of the People.” I’m curious what you think about that argument. Given all the challenges in U.S. higher education—even before Trump—are approaches like yours part of the solution?
SR: I actually read that very article. Believe it or not, we just sent them an email today saying the same thing—basically, “It sounds like you’re talking about the University of the People.” I assume they don’t know about us—otherwise, they probably would have mentioned us directly.
I truly believe we are the future. Every person should have the right to higher education. Universities should open their gates far wider than they do now. The more people who are educated, the stronger the country: people have better futures, the economy improves, and society benefits from individuals who are well-rounded and capable of critical thinking. That’s what the world needs.
The American system has created some of the best universities in the world—there’s no question about that. I’m not against those institutions. What I’m against is the lack of opportunity for everyone else. And I think what we’ve demonstrated is that higher education can be accessible and affordable for all.
That’s part of why we’ve grown so quickly—we want to show that this model works, that it’s sustainable, and that others can follow it, in the U.S. and around the world. The challenges facing higher education aren’t unique to one country; they’re global. And anyone can look at what we’ve done and replicate it—or ask us to help them replicate it. We’d be happy to help.
AU: So, you’ve been around for just over 15 years. If I ask you to look ahead—what does the University of the People look like in 2040? Will you be twice as big? Even bigger than that? Will you offer different kinds of degrees? How do you see the next decade and a half playing out?
SR: You know, in 2010, following the earthquake in Haiti, we announced that we would take in 250 Haitian students and teach them for free. What I didn’t realize at the time was that, after the earthquake, many of them were living in tents, without electricity or internet.
Still, two months later, the first group of 15 or 16 students began studying. I went to Haiti to welcome them, and I met many students while I was there. One of them asked me what the future of University of the People looked like. I gave them the same answer I’d give today:
We’ll keep growing to serve more and more students—until one day we wake up and realize that all the students in the world who need access to higher education are being served. And then, maybe, we’ll go back to sleep and wake up with another dream.
Until then, we have a long way to go. So yes, we’ll continue to grow, we’ll continue to serve more people, and hopefully, others will replicate what we’re doing. We don’t need to educate the entire world—just help show that it’s possible.
AU: Shai, thank you so much for being with us today.
SR: Thank you very much for this interview. It was fascinating—thank you.
AU: And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers—Tiffany MacLennan, Sam Pufek—and you, our viewers, listeners, and readers, for joining us. If you have any questions about this podcast or suggestions for future episodes, please don’t hesitate to get in touch at [email protected]. Quick request from us: head over to our YouTube page and subscribe to the Higher Education Strategy Associates channel so you never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education.
Join us next week—my guest will be John Stackhouse. He’s the Senior Vice President at RBC and former Editor-in-Chief of The Globe and Mail. He’ll be joining me to talk about a new post-secondary education initiative that RBC is undertaking, in partnership with the Business + Higher Education Roundtable and us here at Higher Education Strategy Associates. I’ll be asking in particular about the future of Canadian higher education and how better links can be forged between universities and the private sector. See you then.
*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.
-

Limestone University Announces Closure
Limestone University survived the Civil War and the Great Depression, but protracted financial struggles have proven harder to overcome: After nearly 180 years, Limestone will cease operations next week.
Officials announced the closure Tuesday night.
“Words cannot fully express the sorrow we feel in having to share this news,” Limestone president Nathan Copeland said in a statement. “Our students, alumni, faculty, staff, and supporters fought tirelessly to save this historic institution. While the outcome is not what we hoped for, we are forever grateful for the passion, loyalty, and prayers of our Saints family.”
The move follows a tumultuous period for the university. After years of financial challenges, the Board of Trustees was set to decide last week on whether to shift to online-only operations or close altogether. At the last minute it decided to hold off on the decision because a “possible funding source” had emerged.
Limestone was seeking a $6 million infusion to help facilitate the shift to a fully online model. Though the university was able to secure $2.1 million in pledged commitments from almost 200 donors, according to the closure announcement, it ultimately fell well short of the goal, prompting the board to close the private institution in South Carolina.
Now 478 employees will lose their jobs.
The closure comes on the heels of significant enrollment and financial losses. The university enrolled 3,214 students in fall 2014, according to federal data; Limestone recently noted enrollment at around 1,600.
It has also operated for years with substantial budget deficits. The latest audit for the university noted “significant doubt” about Limestone’s ability to remain open, given that it had “suffered recurring significant negative changes in net assets and cash flows from operations” and had “a net deficiency in [unrestricted] net assets.”
Limestone’s board also borrowed heavily from the university’s meager endowment in recent years.
In 2023, the South Carolina attorney general agreed to lift restrictions on Limestone’s endowment to allow the board to increase spending from those funds. As a result, the endowment collapsed in value, falling from $31.5 million at the beginning of fiscal year 2022 to $12.6 million at the end of FY23. Auditors noted that “all endowment funds are underwater” as of last June.
Auditors also expressed skepticism that Limestone would be able to pay off mounting debts.
The university had more than $30 million in outstanding debt in the last fiscal year, including $27.2 million owed to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Limestone’s latest audit shows the university listed its buildings and land as collateral for both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and another bank loan.
Auditors also found that Limestone’s “internal controls over financial reporting are informal and lack formal documentation,” and that the university’s accounting department was understaffed.
Despite the abrupt nature of the closure, Limestone officials wrote in Tuesday’s announcement that the university “will proceed with an orderly wind-down process” and help students transfer to other institutions and support faculty and staff with more information to come on those efforts.
Limestone will hold its final commencement on Saturday.
“Our Limestone spirit will endure through the lives of our students and alumni who carry it forward into the world,” Limestone board chair Randall Richardson said in the closure announcement. “Though our doors may close, the impact of Limestone University will live on.”
The closure announcement comes less than a week after St. Andrews University, a private institution in North Carolina, made a similar decision to cease operations due to fiscal issues.
-

Limestone University to close after fundraising blitz falls short
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.Dive Brief:
- Limestone University, in South Carolina, will close when its current semester ends this week after last-ditch fundraising efforts came up short, the Christian institution announced Tuesday.
- The university’s trustee board voted to permanently shutter Limestone despite raising $2.1 million from almost 200 donors in the last two weeks. The board previously said Limestone would need $6 million to stabilize operations.
- “In the final analysis, we could not continue operations on-campus or online without a greater amount of funding,” board Chair Randall Richardson said in a Thursday statement.
Dive Insight:
Limestone ended last week on a hopeful note, with Richardson describing the board as “cautiously optimistic.”
At the time, the board announced a potential financial “lifeline.” This came shortly after revealing a fiscal crisis that might force the university to shutter or move to online-only operations.
Days after revealing the possible “lifeline,” Limestone launched a public fundraising blitz and received an unrestricted gift of $1 million from the Fullerton Foundation, a local nonprofit with which it has a long relationship.
“One of the largest in Limestone’s recent history, the transformative donation comes at a pivotal time as the institution rallies to secure critical funding that will help sustain its mission of providing life-changing educational opportunities,” the university said in the Fullerton announcement.
But even for a small university, the multimillion dollar campaign wasn’t enough to sustain Limestone.
Founded in 1845, Limestone’s enrollment has declined in recent years, with fall headcount dipping 27% to 1,782 students between 2018 and 2023, according to federal data. Current enrollment stands at about 1,600 students, the university said last week.
The university’s board has blamed those drops, as well as rising costs, for its financial travails. For fiscal 2024, it logged a budget deficit of $9.2 million, following an $11.4 million shortfall in 2023.
As it prepares to close, the university has promised an “orderly wind-down process” and said it will help students transfer to other institutions.
“More detailed information about the closure timeline, academic records, transfer assistance, employment impact, and other support services will be provided in the coming days,” it said.
Limestone plans to hold its commencement ceremony on Saturday for those students graduating at the end of the term, 246 in all.
“Our Limestone spirit will endure through the lives of our students and alumni who carry it forward into the world,” Richardson said. “Though our doors may close, the impact of Limestone University will live on.”
-

Restoring academic values: a key for university effectiveness
by John Kenny
This blog post is based on research into the effectiveness of higher education policy, published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education. The article, ‘Effectiveness in higher education: What lessons can be learned after 40 years of neoliberal reform?’, takes a systemic perspective to consider a range of roles needed for HE to function effectively in the more accountable HE environment of today (Kenny, 2025).
It focusses on three key stakeholder groups arguably most pertinent to effectiveness: government policy makers, university corporate leaders and the academic profession, with a particular focus on the academic role, as this is typically overlooked in much of the research into higher education policy, yet we argue critical to the effectiveness of the system.
A systemic approach to HE policy assumes that reform in educational systems is complex and unpredictable. It also accepts that different stakeholders may experience change differently, there needs to be an understanding of the different roles played within the system and how they interact. Of particular concern in this article is how the academic role interacts with other stakeholders, especially the government regulators and university corporate leaders.
For over 40 years, a top-down ‘command and control’ approach to change has been adopted in HE. Typically, when this mind-set drives change, the inherent complexities of systemic change are disregarded, and it is assumed the outcomes of a reform can be pre-determined. It largely ignores the relationships, values and experiences of other stakeholder groups, which systems theory suggests is not appropriate for effective educational reform (Checkland, 2012; OECD, 2017).
By contrast, this article points to research into effective organisations that identified four ‘culture groups’ as present in any organisation: the Academic, the Corporate, the Bureaucratic and the Entrepreneurial. Each of these has a unique values perspective from which it approaches the decision-making process. These ‘competing values’ determine the organisational values, but with the values of the dominant group tending to prevail. The research linked organisational effectiveness (or performance) to a “strong culture” defined as one in which the practices and processes are in alignment with the espoused values position of the organisation (Smart & St John, 1996; Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1981).
For academic institutions such as universities, HE policy specifically identifies both Corporate and Academic governance as the two most important (Gerber, 2010; MCU, 2020; TEQSA, 2019a; 2019b; 2023). It follows that, in an effective organisation, a “strong culture” would be based on both the corporate and academic values having a more equal influence over decision-making.
Many of the current problems have arisen because, under the neoliberal reform agenda, with government policymakers aligned with corporate values, a corporate culture has dominated for the last 40 years. This has led to a situation in universities where corporate leadership dominates and academic leadership has been diminished (Gerber, 2010; Magney, 2006; Yeatman & Costea (eds), 2018).
The intention of this work is not to demonise any culture group nor argue for a return to a ‘Golden Age’ where academics tended to dominate. It proposes that, in the more accountable HE environment of today, from a systemic perspective the unique nature and purposes of universities as trusted organisation means each of these roles is important. It argues that across the system the government, corporate leaders and Academia, each play an important, but distinct role in ensuring the system, and universities, function effectively. For the HE system and universities to be effective, as opposed to more efficient, we need better understanding of these distinctions and more clarity about the accountabilities that should apply to each group (Bovens, 2007; Kearns, 1998).
This work pays particular attention to understanding the academic role. It argues that, with the domination of a corporate mind-set, which values control, compliance, competitiveness and productivity, academics are seen as “mere employees” (Giroux, 2002; Harman 2003), whose autonomy and academic freedom need to be curtailed (Hanlon, 1999).
This paper argues this situation has been exacerbated by the failure of the academic profession to define their role in this more accountable HE environment. The paper points to research that aims to fill this gap by re-defining academic professionalism in the more accountable HE environment, but in a way that does not sacrifice its essential ethical and autonomous underpinnings.
It further argues these unique characteristics of academic work, which have compelling implications for the overall quality of university education, have come under sustained attack from the rise of political populism (Hiller et al, 2025), increased disinformation and misinformation on social media, and the growing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI).
An extensive review of national and international literature identified four ‘foundational principles’ (Kenny et al, 2025) which present a definition of the academic role involving a holistic combination of academic leadership, shared professional values, and independence in scholarship, underpinned by a “special” employment relationship. The historical, political, legislative, educational and cultural context of any particular HE system, however, requires these ‘foundational principles’ to be translated into a set of ‘enabling principles’ to suit that HE context (Freidson, 1999; Kenny & Cirkony, 2022).
To test this empirically, a set of ‘enabling principles’ were developed for the Australian HE context as a case study. Kenny et al (2024) described how, in the three phases of this action research study already completed, a set of ‘enabling principles’ has been developed and incorporated into a Professional Ethical Framework for Australian Academics (The Framework).
This case study aims to re-define the nature of academic work to re-emphasise its contribution to the effectiveness of HE, both in Australia and around the globe. The Framework represents our current re-definition of the academic profession in the more accountable Australian HE context. However, the universality of the foundational principles suggests this approach might be replicable by researchers in other HE contexts (Kenny et al, 2025).
This work addresses the compelling question of the sustainability of the academic profession by:
- Providing greater alignment across the HE system between the broader social purpose of universities and the important role that academics play.
- Unifying individual academics as professional scholars through a set of common professional values and a justification for their professional autonomy and academic freedom.
- Contributing to the sustainability of the academic profession by enabling individual academics to better navigate the competing tensions within their institutions as they build their professional identity based-on transparent professional standards, adequate resourcing and accountability mechanisms that will minimise exploitative practices currently evident in the system (AUA, 2024).
- Providing a common language that enables non-academic stakeholders, including governments, university management, industry, students, etc, to better understand the unique role academics play in ensuring the HE system and universities are effective in meeting their obligations to Society.
- Providing foundational principles that can be adapted to other HE contexts and facilitate the creation of a global academic community of practice through which the profession can enhance is voice in shaping the future of HE around the globe.
This work should help to restore a balance of power between the academic and corporate leadership in the governance of universities by facilitating more purposefully designed governance structures and accountability mechanisms that enable academic staff to influence HE policy formation, decision-making and resource allocation, which is especially important against a backdrop of growing political and economic challenges to universities.
Feedback from our national and international academic colleagues is encouraged. Those wishing to find out more are directed to the website of the Australian Association of University Professors (AAUP) at https://professoriate.org, where more information can be found about this research and how you might participate in the further development of The Framework,which has been made available for consultation with and feedback from a broader national and international academic audience.
John Kenny has extensive experience as a teacher and teacher educator and leadership in academic professional issues. His growing concern over the long-standing systemic issues in higher education, loss of independence for universities and loss of prestige for the academic profession led him to take a more systemic perspective and initiate this research looking into the role of academia in the effectiveness of higher education.
The author may also be contacted directly by email ([email protected]).
-

Democracy lives in the daily life of our university
It was quite the paradox really.
Sat in a glorious space in Lisbon specifically designed for groups of students to organise events where they can eat (inexpensively) and talk together, we met a Medical student leader from Portugal and a Pharmacy student leader from Moldova who were both thinking hard about their future.
The first thing we noticed was how refreshing it was to meet student leaders from healthcare backgrounds – in systems where self-governing faculty and school communities are nurtured and valued, talented students from a broad range of disciplines go on to become policy actors that can change universities, communities, countries and even continents.
Freedom of movement had allowed Valeria to pursue both a bachelor’s and master’s in Pharmacy at the University of Lisbon – something that a funding system had helped her switch to after completing a first year in Human Resources management. But given the economic situation back home, she feels real pressure to stay.
Meanwhile Sofia – in the process of combining being a city-wide student leader with completing her fifth year in medical school – was looking at salaries for doctors across the EU and the world, and was wondering whether Portugal could ever offer the career conditions that would allow her to practice comfortably.
In the demographic midwinter
Portugal has a particularly acute version of a problem impacting countries across Europe, including the UK – a so-called demographic winter that combines a growing proportion of pension-age people that need to be supported by the tax revenues of a shrinking number of working-age people.
Around 30 per cent of young Portuguese people now live and work abroad, representing the highest emigration rate in Europe – and Portugal’s TFR (total fertility rate), the average number of children born per woman, has remained stubbornly below the replacement level of 2.1 since the 1980s.
It all creates a hugely difficult feedback loop – fewer young workers means declining tax revenues, which constrains public investment in services that might otherwise entice them to stay, which then prompts more to leave.
That means that governments need immigration – but despite political pleas to value diversity as an extension of the European ideal, the pace and volume of that immigration, coupled with the ageing of the electorate, then emboldens far-right parties like Portugal’s Chenga! (“Enough!”) – which has gone from securing just 1.3 per cent of the vote and a single seat in the Assembly of the Republic in 2019 to just under 20 per cent of the vote and 50 seats last year.
Despite Brexit ending formal freedom of movement with the EU, we are of course experiencing our own internal migration patterns that mirror these issues. Graduates from economically disadvantaged regions consistently flow toward London and other major economic hubs, rarely returning to their hometowns. Our internal “brain drain” exacerbates demographic decline in already struggling regions, with rural areas, post-industrial towns, and coastal communities particularly affected.
The prospect of university campus closures in our demographically challenged regions threatens to accelerate this pattern – creating a parallel to Portugal’s feedback loop but on a national scale. Without coordinated government planning to create and retain talent in these areas through strategic investment, improved infrastructure, and meaningful employment opportunities, the UK risks a deepening divide between its prosperous urban centres and increasingly hollowed-out regions and towns.
Educating them to leave
To get birth rates up, back in January we’d heard how Hungary’s populist President was implementing a pronatalist strategy using education policy – offering student loan forgiveness for female graduates who have children after studies, with full debt cancellation for mothers of three+ children, as well as lifetime income tax exemptions for women with four+ children.
But even if you set aside the politics of programmes like that, the big question is whether they work. Having previously offered returning expatriates tax reductions of up to 70 per cent for five years – 90 per cent for those relocating to the economically disadvantaged south – in Italy Giorgia Meloni’s government has been forced into a dramatic retreat, citing the unsustainable €1.3 billion annual cost and limited evidence of efficacy.
It puts all Portugal’s higher education sector in real difficulty. Both student and university leaders know that modernised higher education and skills systems are central to any country’s economic future. But if the expenditure involved only ends up boosting the Netherlands’ or Germany’s economies, sustaining low fees and circa 50 per cent participation rates will get harder and harder.
Just over a year ago, the centre-right minority coalition led by Prime Minister Luís Montenegro of the Social Democratic Party (PSD) and the CDS People’s Party (CDS–PP) responded with a multi-year graduate tax holiday – workers aged 18-26 (up to 30 for master’s/PhD holders) qualify for income tax exemptions over five years, and additional benefits exist for graduates moving to rural areas through the “Incentivo à Fixação de Jovens no Interior” program, including extra tax deductions and housing support.
But the benefits are pretty small when weighed against the rising cost of living, especially in major cities – base salaries remain uncompetitive, and they don’t fix the country’s acute housing problem, which sees students, graduates and migrants fighting for substandard housing in a country whose tourism-dependant economy has tended to turn much of its cities’ property portfolio into holiday lets.
And following the collapse of the coalition earlier this year, a fresh general election is to be staged – and pretty much all of the country’s student groups have the cost and availability of housing as a top priority.
What goes on tour
It was one of the many issues we ended up discussing on our two-day study tour to Portugal, where 30 UK student leaders (and the staff that support them) traversed Lisbon, Coimbra, Barcelos and Porto to build connections, share ideas and identify solutions to the problems besetting both students and the higher education systems in which they are partners.
So many of the issues faced by students sounded familiar – the obvious difference each time being that at least the Portuguese government is trying.
Its National Higher Education Accommodation Plan (PNAES) launched in 2022, and aims to deliver over 18,000 new student beds by 2026 with a €486 million investment. Then in September 2024, Prime Minister Luís Montenegro’s “Student Accommodation Now” emergency programme added 709 beds, and a €5.5 million credit line was established for universities to secure additional housing – all because the failure to provide housing “frustrates people’s efforts” and “stifles their ability to develop their talent”. The Prime Minister put it like this:
It is repugnant, from a civic point of view, that a student can battle for twelve years to enter higher education, only to find they cannot attend because they have nowhere to stay near the institution that accepted them.
In one of the groups I was in, one of the student leaders asked us what our own politicians had said about student housing and its role in educational opportunity, and what was in our countries’ student housing strategies. Our delegates’ faces turning blank, I had to admit that the the closest we’d got to a plan back home was former minister Robert Halfon repeatedly saying that it wasn’t his problem and was actually students’ fault:
…the government has no role in the provision of student accommodation…applicants who require student accommodation should take its availability into account when making decisions about where to study.
Housing isn’t the only thing they’ve been working on in Portugal. In 2022, the government set up an independent commission to evaluate the implementation of its Legal Framework for Higher Education Institutions (RJIES) – their equivalent to England’s Higher Education and Research Act.
Led by an 8-person panel that included two student reps, the commission’s recommendations included the creation of a single, consolidated legal instrument – a Statute for higher education students – that would define their rights and duties clearly and comprehensively, standardise protections across all institutions, and recognise the diversity of student profiles (including student workers, student parents, and students in volunteer roles).
Mental health was also prioritised – the Commission recommended strengthening support through dedicated student mental health services integrated into broader academic and social support strategies, and the revised RJIES now explicitly includes a duty for higher education institutions to contribute to student wellbeing, and specifically mentions their responsibility to guarantee mental health services. Universities will be also expected to hit psychologists:students ratios.
The Commission found that while student participation is formally recognised, in practice it can be marginal or symbolic – and recommended ensuring real, effective participation of students in institutional governance (General Councils, Academic Senates, Scientific and Pedagogical Councils), strategic planning processes, and evaluation and quality assurance activities.
The resulting arrangements will strengthen student voting power significantly – in the overhauled election process for rectors and presidents, students will hold at least 20 per cent of the weighted voting power.
And the new law explicitly details the competencies and election process for student ombudspeople – Portugal introduced university-level complaints adjudication in 2007 to tip the balance towards students, and will now mandate consistency in the role and broader student participation in their election.
Given the distance (both in time and governance) of the OIA from students and their problems, and the sorry state of independent adjudication in Scotland and NI, we really do now feel miles behind as a country on student rights protection.
Binary, but not a divide
After a visit to the (very) student city of Coimbra, the bus rolled into the Barcelos campus of the Polytechnic of Cávado and Ave – Portugal’s newest public higher education institution. IPCA had been formed as part of a national strategy to expand and decentralise higher education in Portugal – with regional provision aimed at driving regional development and addressing the need for skilled professionals in emerging industries.
The student leaders we met both from IPCA’s SU and FNAEESP (the National Federation of Polytechnic Higher Education Student Associations) were exercised about RJIES reform – partly because the status of polytechnics had become a key issue in the debate.
We tend to bristle at mentions of a binary divide, but Portugal maintains one – and FNAEESP reps were clear in their position, firmly favouring preservation with what they called “sharper clarification” to ensure polytechnics maintained their focus on vocational, technical education and practice-oriented research.
They also pushed for a “symmetrical structure” where both types of institutions would face equivalent requirements without compromising their distinct missions:
The polytechnic sector isn’t asking to become something it’s not… we’re asking for recognition of what we already are – institutions providing high-quality technical and professional education that drives regional development.
When we explained that our abolition of the binary had happened over thirty years ago, one of the reps perceptively asked us if that had raised the profile of the provision, or just hidden it. When we then explained the way in which large parts of the UK’s politics seem to ignore the technical and professional provision on offer in the sector – centring their critiques about “too many students at university” in assumptions about what a “university” is – we got a wry smile.
The upshots in Portugal are that the binary divide will be maintained but made more flexible, allowing polytechnics that offer doctoral programs to adopt the title “Polytechnic University” while preserving their focus on advanced technical education and applied research for regional development.
That will come with stricter requirements – including improved staff-to-student ratios (one PhD holder per 20 students instead of 30) and a broader range of degree offerings that maintain an applied, professional focus – and the updated RJIES framework will preserve the distinctive applied mission, partly to maintain public understanding and support for the investment that part of the system needs.
The price of chips
Even in huge universities like the University of Lisbon, the previous evening we’d seen a similar commitment to the prominent status of technical education. Opposite Team Wonkhe’s hotel was Técnico, which we’d only realised was the university’s Science and Technology faculty when leafing through a strategy brochure. The brand police would never let that happen in the UK.
Its stunning Alameda campus is located at the top of the hill overlooking Fonte Luminosa, and was designed just as António de Oliveira Salazar’s Estado Novo regime was keen to build symbols of national pride and progress.
But during the dictatorship, the SU building had become a central hub for meetings, discussions, and coordination of resistance to the authoritarian government – which forced anyone who wanted to work in academia to be vetted by the political police, who had the right to arrest anyone deemed to be against the regime.
For a long time higher education had not been an instrument for growth or for people to improve their lives and prospects, but was about maintaining the hegemony of the ruling upper class. Even when Estado Novo eventually opened up universities to a broader range of the population, centres of research were created outside the universities so that young people would not get any new ideas.
Fernando Rosas, one of the founders of the socialist party Bloco de Esquerda, recalls 4 December 1968, when students broke into a building and had a “political picnic” to protest against the terrible food in the cafeteria:
That day, I woke up politically. Until then I had not been interested in such matters. But I heard the speeches about nutrition and the colonial wars, became an activist and later one of the leaders of the student union… what we in the student union did was part of the foundation of the military movement that then led to the revolution. We trained them to be engineers but also taught them to fight for freedom.
Photos up around the building tell the tales of struggles to end daily oppression, ensure universal access to education, healthcare, and political rights, and build a fraternal, inclusive and participatory society. After the Carnation Revolution at Tecnico, students’ votes carried equal weight to teachers, with student groups collectively voting on grades despite teacher assessments being reduced to suggestions:
We gained freedom to design our own curricula and research without fear of imprisonment or censorship.
Today the demonstrations might be gone, and on Thursday’s evidence we can’t say that the food has got much better – but the spirit of democracy lives on. Reforms to the curriculum at Tecnico introduced amidst austerity (which we look at elsewhere on the site here) focus on interdisciplinarity and student choice, with student associative activity – sharing power with eachother and with the university – embedded carefully into every level of the student experience, from programme to faculty to university to city to country to continent.
At the central university level, three of Lisbon’s values are familiar – intellectual freedom and respect for ethics, societal innovation and development, and social and environmental responsibility – but when we spoke with vice-rector João Peixoto, a less familiar fourth emerged as something just as important:
Students are part of the power system – they have a say, they have votes, and we cannot ignore them…democratic participation is not just something we say; it’s something we do, every day, in every council, with every voice heard.
Students across the university have voting rights, sit on councils, shape curricula, and deliver through students’ associations a large part of what we’d give a professional services department to “provide” – not as guests or consumers, but as citizens of the university community:
Our history reminds us: students fought for democracy in Portugal, and today, they still have a seat in deciding its future.
The way that culture had paid forward into the future culture of the country was vivid in Portugal’s history. That culture’s relative weakness, dismissal and continued erosion in the UK’s system should cause us to worry a lot about our future.
-

Columbia University vows to remove any future encampments
Columbia University officials said Wednesday they would immediately remove any future encampments on campus and threatened demonstrators with arrest amid reports that students were planning another wave of pro-Palestinian protests.
“We have been made aware of possible plans to establish encampments on Columbia’s campuses,” the New York institution said in a public safety notice. “We want to clearly communicate that camping and encampments on Columbia’s campuses are prohibited by University Policy.”
More than 100 people wearing masks to hide their identities met Tuesday to discuss establishing multiple encampments at Columbia this week, according to an NBC News report based on anonymous sources and a recording of the meeting.
At the time, the protesters intended to begin demonstrating at Columbia’s main campus in the Morningside Heights neighborhood on Thursday, followed by the Ivy League institution’s Manhattanville location on Friday, NBC reported Wednesday.
The planned demonstrations would come about a year after Columbia students first erected an encampment to protest the Israel-Hamas war and call on the university to divest from companies with links to Israel. The encampment at Columbia kicked off similar demonstrations across the nation’s colleges, stoking anger from conservative lawmakers and leading to hundreds of student arrests.
Since then, the university said it has hired more public safety officers, increased campus patrols and restricted access to its main campus.
Still, President Donald Trump threatened to pull federal funding from colleges that don’t crack down on “illegal protests” in a March social media post that drew backlash from free speech and civil rights advocates.
The Trump administration made good on this threat when it pulled $400 million in federal contracts and grants from Columbia in March, claiming it was yanking the funding over concerns the university hasn’t done enough to protect Jewish students from harassment. The administration has since pulled large swaths of funding — or threatened to — from other well-known colleges over similar allegations.
A growing number of lawmakers, free speech experts and academics are accusing Trump of weaponizing antisemitism to target colleges. On Thursday, five Jewish Democratic senators lambasted the president for using “what is a real crisis as a pretext to attack people and institutions who do not agree with you.”
“By doing so, he not only fails to address the threat of antisemitism but also exploits it to delegitimize higher education, while often ignoring or downplaying the rise of antisemitism within his own party,” they said in a statement.
Last month, Columbia ceded to several demands from the Trump administration — including revamping its protest policies — with the hopes of retaining access to its federal funding.
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon, along with other federal officials, has praised the university’s compliance. But the Trump administration has yet to publicly reinstate its funding and is reportedly pursuing a consent decree against Columbia, which would give a federal judge oversight of the institution’s compliance with the administration’s demands.
The administration is facing at least one lawsuit over allegations that it is overstepping its authority at Columbia.
If protesters establish a new encampment at Columbia, the university vowed to immediately remove tents and other structures, restrict access to the campus and instruct demonstrators to leave, according to Wednesday’s announcement. If they don’t leave, they could face “removal from campus and possible arrest,” Columbia’s notice said.
“We value free expression and the right to protest,” the notice said. “These activities must be conducted in accordance with University Rules and Policies to ensure the safety of our community and that academic and other campus activities can continue unimpeded.”
-

Limestone University may have a ‘lifeline’ to avert closure
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.Dive Brief:
- Limestone University may have the “financial lifeline” it needs to avoid shutting down and maintain its in-person courses and operations, its board of trustees said Tuesday. The announcement did not disclose details on the funding source.
- The private Christian institution, in South Carolina, signaled last week it could be forced to close or turn to online-only operations without an immediate cash injection. The board said it has tabled those discussions for now and plans to reconvene no later than April 29.
- However, the 179-year-old university will proceed as though it will be online-only after the semester ends, Limestone President Nathan Copeland said in a statement. “I regret the uncertainty of the situation, but we must be exceptionally cautious,” he added.
Dive Insight:
In a statement, board Chair Randall Richardson was frank about just how deep Limestone’s financial troubles run.
“Last week, we were at the brink of a possible closure or transition to online-only classes,” Richardson said. “Now, we are pausing that discussion so we can wait on more information about a potential financial lifeline.”
Officials offered no details on the financing, saying only that “a possible funding source has surfaced” that could mitigate the university’s current crisis. A university spokesperson declined Wednesday to share more information about the funding source.
Previously, officials said the university would need a $6 million emergency fund to stave off closure and keep its physical campus and activities running.
In the university’s announcement Tuesday, it said the proposed cash infusion would “stabilize operations and give the university the opportunity to pursue long-term solutions that preserve its on-campus identity.”
Richardson said the board was “cautiously optimistic about the future of Limestone,” but added a hedge: “We want to emphasize, this is just a possibility at the current time.”
Limestone attributed its financial woes in part to falling enrollment. Between 2018 and 2023, its fall headcount dropped 27% to 1,782 students, per federal data. The university said Tuesday that enrollment now stands at about 1,600 students.
High costs have also added pressure. The university has faced persistent budget deficits — $9.2 million in fiscal 2024, following an $11.4 million gap in 2023, according to its latest financials.
Limestone has tapped its endowment to fund its operations amid the financial strain. Between fiscal years 2023 and 2024, Limestone’s net assets declined by more than $12 million, to $61 million, as the university ramped spending from its endowment.
In its latest financial statement, the university’s auditors issued a “going concern” warning, indicating they found “substantial doubt” about Limestone’s ability to continue operating over the next year.
For now, Limestone’s uncertain fate remains a predicament for officials, employees and students alike as they try to plan for upcoming semesters — a challenge which the university’s leaders acknowledged.
“We will update everyone as soon as we know more,” Richardson said. “Please be patient and continue to pray for a viable solution to save this historic university.”

