College Closures Since 2008: Necessary Correction or Growing Crisis?
Remember the dizzying headlines of 2008? The financial world seemed to be imploding, with giants like Lehman Brothers collapsing. That same year, another kind of closure began, quieter but no less impactful: the shuttering of colleges and universities across the United States. Since then, the pace hasn’t slowed, raising a crucial question: As institutions vanish, are we navigating towards a healthier, more sustainable higher education landscape, or are we veering into dangerous territory?
The Scope of the Situation
The numbers are sobering. Since 2008, over 100 private nonprofit colleges and universities have closed their doors entirely or merged out of existence. That figure climbs significantly higher when adding for-profit institutions and struggling public branch campuses. While closures aren’t new, the rate has demonstrably accelerated, particularly after the 2016 peak in high school graduates and further fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic’s disruptions. This isn’t a hypothetical future concern; it’s a current reality reshaping the educational map.
Why Are Campuses Closing? The Root Causes
The forces driving closures are complex and intertwined:
1. The Demographic Cliff: Simply put, there are fewer traditional college-aged students. Birth rates dropped significantly after the 2008 recession, leading to a shrinking pool of potential freshmen starting around 2016-2018. Colleges built for larger cohorts suddenly found themselves competing fiercely for a smaller number of students.
2. Unsustainable Financial Models: Many smaller institutions, particularly private nonprofits operating with thin margins, relied heavily on tuition revenue. Facing declining enrollment, they struggled to cover fixed costs like faculty salaries, facilities maintenance, and technology upgrades. Endowments at these schools were often insufficient to bridge the gap. Rising operational costs and frozen or reduced state funding (for public institutions) added immense pressure.
3. Heightened Competition & Changing Expectations: Students (and parents) are increasingly cost-conscious and outcome-focused. They compare institutions rigorously, looking at graduation rates, job placement success, and return on investment. Larger universities, often with more resources and name recognition, and more affordable community colleges, started pulling students away from smaller, tuition-dependent private colleges. Online education options also expanded the competitive field.
4. The For-Profit Shakeout: While our focus often lands on nonprofits, the for-profit sector experienced massive upheaval. Aggressive, sometimes predatory, recruiting practices and poor student outcomes led to intense regulatory scrutiny and the collapse of major chains like ITT Technical Institute and Corinthian Colleges. While often framed as accountability, these closures also displaced students.
5. The COVID Catalyst: The pandemic was a brutal stress test. It forced sudden shifts to online learning, slashed auxiliary revenue (like room and board), created health and safety expenses, and amplified student anxieties about the value and experience of college. For institutions already on the brink, it was the final blow.
The Fallout: Who Gets Hurt?
Closures aren’t just administrative events; they have profound human consequences:
Students in Limbo: The most immediate victims are the enrolled students. Transferring credits can be a nightmare, often resulting in lost time, money, and credits, derailing degree completion. Student loans remain, even if the education wasn’t completed. Finding comparable programs nearby isn’t always possible.
Faculty & Staff Displacement: Hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dedicated educators and support staff lose their jobs, often in communities with limited alternative employment opportunities in higher education.
Community Impact: Colleges are often anchor institutions in their towns. They employ locals, attract visitors, support local businesses, and contribute to the cultural and economic vitality. Their closure can devastate a small town or urban neighborhood.
Reduced Diversity & Access: Many closing institutions serve specific populations: religious affiliations, minority-serving institutions (MSIs), rural communities, or those focused on unique liberal arts traditions. Their loss diminishes the diversity of educational pathways available to students.
Are We Heading in the Right Direction? The Debate
This is the core question, and the answer is deeply nuanced. There are arguments on both sides:
The “Necessary Correction” Perspective:
Eliminating Weakness: Proponents argue the market is simply correcting itself. Institutions with outdated programs, poor management, unsustainable finances, or failing to meet student needs should close. This, they say, strengthens the overall system by weeding out inefficiency.
Focusing Resources: Closures, particularly mergers, can consolidate resources into stronger institutions, potentially leading to better programs and support services.
For-Profit Accountability: The collapse of predatory for-profit chains is widely seen as a positive outcome of increased oversight and consumer awareness.
The “Growing Crisis” Perspective:
Vulnerable Students Bear the Brunt: Critics argue the closures disproportionately harm the very students higher education should serve best: low-income, first-generation, and minority students who relied on the niche support or location of the closed institution. The disruption often pushes them out of the system entirely.
Loss of Mission & Diversity: The closure of small liberal arts colleges or unique institutions erodes the diversity of educational missions and approaches that enrich the broader ecosystem. A landscape dominated only by large universities or online providers offers less choice.
Systemic Issues Unaddressed: Simply letting institutions fail doesn’t solve the underlying problems: the high cost of college, the reliance on tuition, inequitable funding models, and the demographic challenges. It treats a symptom, not the disease.
The Domino Effect: Each closure weakens confidence in smaller or similar institutions, potentially accelerating the cycle as students and families become wary.
Navigating the Path Forward
Regardless of where one stands on the “right direction” debate, proactive steps are crucial:
1. Early Warning Systems: Better data sharing and financial health monitoring could help identify at-risk institutions before crisis hits, allowing for intervention or orderly wind-downs.
2. Robust Teach-Out Plans: Regulations must ensure institutions have concrete, well-communicated plans for students to complete their degrees with minimal disruption, ideally through formal partnerships with other schools before closure is announced.
3. Exploring New Models: Institutions need flexibility and support to innovate – exploring consortia, strategic mergers, differentiated program offerings, and hybrid learning models to improve sustainability.
4. Policy Reforms: Addressing the root causes requires policy discussions: increasing need-based aid, examining funding formulas for public institutions, supporting institutions serving vulnerable populations, and tackling the broader student debt crisis.
5. Student-Centric Approach: Every decision about an institution’s future must prioritize minimizing harm and maximizing continuity for enrolled students. Their education and investment must be protected.
Conclusion: Evolution or Erosion?
The wave of college closures since 2008 is a symptom of deep-seated challenges within higher education. While some closures represent a necessary market correction, eliminating unsustainable or poorly performing institutions, the human cost and the erosion of diverse educational pathways cannot be ignored. The sheer volume and the often-disruptive nature suggest we are navigating turbulent waters, not necessarily charting a clear, positive course.
Whether this trajectory is “right” depends on our collective response. If closures happen chaotically, leaving students stranded and communities reeling, while failing to address the systemic issues of cost, access, and equity, then we risk eroding the foundation of opportunity that higher education promises. However, if we use this moment to foster innovation, strengthen student protections, build more resilient institutions, and make hard choices about sustainable models, then these painful closures could pave the way for a more adaptable and equitable system. The direction isn’t fixed; it’s being determined by the actions we take now to ensure that evolution, not just erosion, defines the future of higher education.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » College Closures Since 2008: Necessary Correction or Growing Crisis