College Closures Since 2008: A Necessary Correction or a Dangerous Detour?
When a college shuts its doors, it’s never just about bricks and mortar. It’s about students suddenly adrift, faculty losing careers, and communities losing a vital institution. Since the economic earthquake of 2008, the landscape of higher education in the U.S. has been shifting dramatically. Over a hundred colleges have closed their doors permanently. This wave prompts a critical question: As institutions vanish, are we actually steering higher education towards a more sustainable and effective future, or are we inadvertently dismantling crucial pathways to opportunity?
The Perfect Storm: Why Colleges Started Closing
The financial crisis wasn’t just a stock market crash; it hit higher education hard. State funding for public universities plummeted, forcing tuition hikes and budget cuts. Simultaneously, families saw their savings shrink and credit tighten, making college less affordable. For private institutions, especially smaller ones heavily reliant on tuition, this was a double whammy.
But the roots go deeper than just 2008:
1. The Demographic Cliff: Birth rates dropped significantly after the 2008 recession. By the mid-2010s, this meant fewer traditional college-aged students entering the pipeline. Colleges built for larger cohorts suddenly faced intense competition for a shrinking pool.
2. Skyrocketing Costs & Stagnant Value Perception: Decades of rising tuition, coupled with growing student debt burdens, led many to question the return on investment. Could a degree guarantee a well-paying job? This skepticism hit tuition-dependent colleges hard.
3. Online & For-Profit Competition: The rise of affordable online options (both non-profit and for-profit) and coding bootcamps offered alternatives perceived as faster and cheaper. Traditional institutions, slow to adapt, struggled to compete.
4. Questionable Management & Overexpansion: Some institutions, particularly in the for-profit sector, expanded rapidly, taking on significant debt based on optimistic projections. When enrollment dipped or regulations tightened (like gainful employment rules), collapse was swift. Corinthian Colleges’ spectacular implosion is a stark example. Even some non-profits overbuilt facilities or launched expensive programs without sustainable demand.
5. The Pandemic Acceleration: COVID-19 acted as gasoline on the fire. Campus closures, the sudden shift to online learning (which many smaller schools weren’t equipped for), and heightened financial strain on families pushed many already fragile institutions over the edge.
The Fallout: Who Gets Hurt?
College closures aren’t sterile business failures; they leave deep scars:
Students: The most vulnerable group. Many face interrupted studies, lost credits that don’t transfer easily, difficulty accessing transcripts, and the emotional toll of displacement. Low-income, first-generation, and adult learners are often disproportionately affected, losing their hard-fought foothold in higher education.
Faculty & Staff: Professors, administrators, and support staff lose careers, often with little warning and in communities where similar academic jobs are scarce. Years of dedication vanish overnight.
Local Communities: Colleges are often major employers and economic anchors. Their closure drains local economies, hurts property values, and diminishes the cultural and intellectual vibrancy of a town or city. Think of small liberal arts colleges nestled in rural areas – their closure can devastate the region.
Educational Diversity: The closures haven’t been random. Small private colleges, regional public institutions serving rural areas, and historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) have been particularly vulnerable. This risks homogenizing higher education, reducing options for students seeking specific environments, missions, or support systems.
Is This the “Right Direction”? Arguments For and Against
Proponents of seeing closures as a necessary correction argue:
Market Efficiency: Weak institutions with unsustainable models, poor management, or consistently low graduation rates should close. It forces others to adapt, innovate, and become more efficient. Resources (students, faculty, funding) flow to stronger, more responsive institutions.
Curbing Low-Value Degrees: Closures, especially in the for-profit sector, weed out programs that burdened students with debt without delivering meaningful career outcomes or quality education.
Encouraging Innovation: The threat of closure pushes colleges to differentiate themselves, invest in relevant programs, improve student support, and explore new delivery models (like hybrid learning).
Focusing Resources: Consolidation (like mergers, which often precede closures) can create stronger, more resilient institutions with broader program offerings. Examples like Boston University absorbing Wheelock College show this potential.
Critics, however, see significant dangers:
Creating “Education Deserts”: Closures, especially in rural or underserved urban areas, leave vast regions without accessible higher education options, forcing students to relocate or abandon their studies – exacerbating inequality.
Loss of Mission-Driven Institutions: Unique colleges serving specific populations (like HBCUs, women’s colleges, religious institutions) provide irreplaceable environments and support. Their loss diminishes the overall diversity and richness of American higher education.
The Human Cost: The argument for “creative destruction” rings hollow for the students whose dreams are derailed or the professors who lose their life’s work.
Focus on Survival Over Mission: The intense pressure to avoid closure can push institutions towards chasing trends and revenue over their core educational mission and values, prioritizing short-term gains over long-term student benefit.
Oversimplification: Not every struggling college is “weak.” Some serve vital roles in challenging locations or for marginalized populations, facing systemic disadvantages a simple “market” solution ignores.
Navigating the Road Ahead: Beyond Simple Closures
The question isn’t if more colleges will close – demographic pressures alone suggest more are coming. The question is whether we are managing this transition wisely and minimizing harm while fostering a healthier system.
Proactive Planning: Institutions need realistic financial planning, scenario modeling, and earlier exploration of alternatives like strategic partnerships, consortia, or mergers before crisis hits. Boards must demand this.
Stronger Student Protections: Policies ensuring seamless credit transfer, robust teach-out plans (guaranteeing students can finish elsewhere), and reliable access to transcripts must be enforced rigorously. Students shouldn’t bear the brunt of institutional failure.
Supporting Vital Missions: State and federal governments, along with philanthropies, should recognize the unique value of institutions serving critical populations or regions and provide targeted support to ensure their sustainability.
Embracing Innovation (Thoughtfully): Colleges must adapt – offering flexible pathways, relevant skills, and leveraging technology effectively. But innovation shouldn’t mean abandoning core academic values or the focus on holistic student development.
Rethinking Funding Models: The heavy reliance on tuition is unsustainable for many. Exploring alternative revenue streams and advocating for renewed public investment in higher education as a public good is crucial.
Conclusion: Adaptation, Not Just Elimination
The wave of college closures since 2008 is a symptom of profound, long-brewing challenges in higher education. While the elimination of truly unsustainable or predatory institutions is necessary and beneficial, the sheer volume and concentrated impact raise serious concerns.
Are we heading in the right direction? It depends. If closures are seen only as inevitable market corrections, leading to a landscape dominated by a few large, well-resourced institutions while vast regions and populations lose access, then no – we are taking a dangerous detour towards greater inequality and reduced opportunity.
However, if this painful process forces a necessary reckoning – prompting systemic innovation, stronger protections for students, smarter resource allocation, a renewed commitment to access, and a recognition that diverse institutional missions are vital – then perhaps we can navigate towards a more resilient, equitable, and effective higher education system. The direction isn’t set; it depends on the choices institutions, policymakers, and society make now. The goal shouldn’t be simply fewer colleges, but a system better equipped to fulfill the promise of higher education for all who seek it.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » College Closures Since 2008: A Necessary Correction or a Dangerous Detour