Some constructs are on the edge and kicking them may cause them to collapse. It probably will only change the timing but it is still the kick that is the first order cause of the collapse.
Plenty of institutions are being hit with a perfect storm, two years of COVID and associated rules probably didn't help either.
A college or three have failed every year for the past 5 years or so. There will be more until populations of college age students starts to grow again. Most small colleges are extremely vulnerable.
Size and endowments offers some protection to large and wealthy schools.
In the first paragraph it's saying in part.
The article also details other challenges they face. We'll never know if they would have found a way to address these challenges and survive long-term had this not happened.
What would be a comparable industry perspective to the way colleges fight over tuition generators (students)? Oil companies fighting over oil fields?
Residential solar or real estate agents?
The crazy thing to me about higher ed is that there's large loans and everybody qualifies. We'd probably get a better skills/job match by including the major in interest rate calculations.
This brings up the hairy issue that all education should not be focused on eventual income generation. We still need our English, History, and other majors out there in the real world even if we don't expect them to make a great ROI on their degrees. Their contributions to society are still worthwhile.
I think a policy that incorporates the major into the interest rate would drive universities to cut less profitable programs, and MAYBE lower tuition for those majors.
I think my approach to change the system would be to put a cap on the maximum loan that the government will back, and have that cap be influenced by major. This would be similar to the conventional loan situation for mortgages.
I agree, but getting them from an expensive private school is a luxury.
> I think my approach to change the system would be to put a cap on the maximum loan that the government will back, and have that cap be influenced by major. This would be similar to the conventional loan situation for mortgages.
Some kind of cap is a really good idea. Especially if that means state schools are covered, but not the entire 80k/year of a private one.
The way student loans are difficult to discharge in bankruptcy means a lot of kids make a mistake they'll spend the rest of their life trying to get away from.
Why would anyone in the middle or lower income class spend money on a college degree that was not geared toward increasing their income?
There is a reason that journalism graduates predominantly come from wealthy families.
Actually, in my opinion, one of the main problems in higher education today is that the value proposition of the actual education and student experience is secondary to the ability to market. In other words, new programs are presented by faculty (or rarely staff because of politics) and administration will immediately ask how this can be sold to increase enrollment (read: revenue). In other words, what is best for students, in terms of experience and employment outcomes, will always take a backseat to what is flashy and looks good in a brochure.
When Profit is the system's main incentive, it can be easy for decision makers to start viewing "profit" as an input rather than an output.
You have government funding, both for research and education.
You have tuition and fees, which students pay but there are student loans and grants etc.
You have endowments.
You have alumni and donor funding.
You have schools that develop technology and own profitable patents.
Sports is its own topic that I don't know enough about to comment on.
Are they helping them in any way other than marking what would previously have been a failing grade as a passing grade instead?
The ransomware attack certainly didn't help, but it is wildly misleading to say, or even imply that caused them to shut down.
The actual reasons:
(a) They filled a niche that didn't need to be filled anymore. They used to absorb students from other local universities (ISU, UIS, UIUC). Those schools have realized the value of helping their own students be successful, leading to declining enrollment.
(b) They were previously a community college, and began awarding bachelor's degrees. They were then fighting in a weight class way above what they were used to, and never really got their feet under them (to use some mixed metaphors).
(c) They were expensive for the quality. They gave a good education, but had zero connections to business and industry to justify the cost.
(d) They had a pipeline from Chicago's south and south-east side that has recently been sniped by large state schools, leading to a decline in enrollment.
For context, I worked with them on enrollment management and declining enrollment a decade ago.