Bryan Alexander

American views of higher ed decline, once again

Posted on October 2, 2026 by Bryan Alexander

Quick post today, as I travel across several American cities:

United States attitudes towards higher education soured yet again, according to a new Gallup poll. The main question asked this time was “How important is a college education today — very important, fairly important or not too important?” It’s one Gallup has asked regularly for decades.

Here are the results, measured against annual reports dating back to the late 1970s:

Look at that sheer plummet from 2013! The “very important” answer is less than half what it was just thirteen years ago. It went from a supermajority to not even one third of the responses. As the article observes, “As recently as 2013, more than twice as many U.S. adults (70%) said college was very important.” (Shameless note: 2013 is also the year of peak enrollment. Another bit of evidence for peak higher ed?) And the rapid takeoff of “not too important” shot up from 6% to nearly 30%, representing a five fold increase.

At the same time the leading response – not a majority, but the greatest number – was “fairly important.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the sector.

After revealing that finding, Gallup broke down responses by population groups. Their results: “The decline in the perceived importance of college is seen across all major demographic groups.” All:

All. Democrats and Republicans, men and women, all ethnicities. And not by a little bit. Double digit declines, every one. Gallup again: “Even groups that have historically placed greater importance on college have registered substantial declines.” Not a single group viewed higher education as favorably as they used to.

What do you all make of these continued signs of declining American faith in the academy? How do you see this playing out in terms of campus-community relations, government support, fundraising, politics? And how should people in the academic world respond?

Posted in horizon scanning | Tagged peakhighereducation | 1 Comment

Health Care Nation, a 2026 update

Posted on September 28, 2026 by Bryan Alexander

Greetings from late September. I’m writing this from several different airplanes and airports, traveling back from the University of Alaska’s second AI Symposium. Aircraft wifi has been uneven, dropping in and out, and once tried to double charge me. Another time United actually apologized for not having Starlink yet.

Today’s post takes one of my future of higher education scenarios, Health Care Nation, and adds some more to it. If you haven’t seen it before the idea is that allied health – the full range of health care from emergency services to surgery, psychotherapy, and hospital administration – keeps growing on the American landscape. Over time allied health employs more people, uses more technology, constitutes a large part of the national economy, and achieves a higher cultural prominence. (You can find more details in my previous writing: in 2014 (EDUCUASE Review; blog post), 2017 (blog post; another one), 2018 (blog post; another one), 2020 (in Academia Next), 2024 (video; blog post), and 2025 (blog post).)

Ryan Craig recently published a newsletter issue backing the scenario’s drivers and implications. I’d like to draw your attention to it and apply it to the scenario.

To start, he notes the sector’s enormous size and steady growth:

hospital ICU room

Last year, healthcare spending increased an astonishing 7.3% to $5.7 trillion. While the average developed country spends less than 10% of GDP on healthcare, in the U.S. it’s approaching 20% of the economy – up from 5% in 1960 and 13% in 2000. Eight of America’s 20 largest companies by revenue are healthcare businesses. Our healthcare sector is now bigger than every other country’s GDP save China. Government spending on Medicare and Medicaid has grown nearly 50% since 2020…

Last year, healthcare accounted for 121% of net job growth in the U.S; of 360K net jobs added in 2025, healthcare generated 436K (meaning a loss of 76K jobs across all other sectors). As America ages, healthcare has added jobs every month since January 2022 and is responsible for nearly half of net job growth since the pandemic. The Department of Labor projects millions more new healthcare jobs in the next few years. Plus, healthcare jobs aren’t just in Silicon Valley and big cities; healthcare providers are dominant employers in every market.

Craig finds that some of higher ed is responding by increasing health-related offerings, and can do even more because so doing involves:

(1) responding to market signals; (2) adding capacity in programs with clear pathways to good jobs; and (3) increasing enrollment in programs that balance classroom instruction with work and thereby do a credible job of equipping students with valuable practical skills.

And so: “Healthcare programs have lines out the door because they lead directly to good entry-level jobs with well-trodden career paths. ”

Craig also, and accurately, points out challenges to campuses seeking to do this work. It can be difficult to attract medical professionals to teach when academic compensation can be relatively low. There are also limits from state governments and medical bodies. Craig intriguingly points to the possibility that Americans will eventually reach an upper limit to how much we will pay for medical services.

I would add a few more details to this account. Campus allied health programs can backfire for internal reasons, like any academic program: hiring the wrong people, bad administration, poor marketing, oversaturating a given region. Automation (both AI and robotics) may play a major role in medical services, requiring more educational support in terms of research and development, preparing students to use new tech, and studying the changing world of medical work. I’d also give more emphasis to the demographics on this score, namely that as we age up (which America is doing, especially as we’re turning away and violently evicting immigrants) we tend to consume more health care. Elder care fields are apparently lacking in staff.

Overall, it seems that 2026 sees American higher ed moving ever more deeply into the Health Care Nation scenario. I hope academia can do well in it as it comes to pass. Thanks to Ryan Craig for helping us think it through.

(hospital ICU room photo by Quinn Daedal; my thanks to the fine team at Reclaim Hosting for their support!)

Posted in scenarios | 2 Comments

At the intersection of storytelling, aging, and higher education

Posted on September 7, 2026 by Bryan Alexander

Last week we hosted a great conversation on the Future Trends Forum. The topic was the intersection of storytelling, aging, and higher education.

Today I’d like to share the recording of that session, along with the resources which participants contributed, plus a list of major themes addressed.

Our guests were Joe Lambert, a world-renowned leader in digital storytelling, co-founded of what eventually became StoryCenter, and most recently the author of Story, Aging and the Art of Making Meaning, plus Stephen Katz, professor emeritus of sociology and Distinguished Research Award recipient at Trent University. Nearly one hundred participants were in the audience over our meeting hour.

It was a moving, thoughtful, and challenging conversation. I hope you find the following of use.

1. The recording

To begin with, here’s the full recording on YouTube:

2. Resources

Resources we shared:

“The New Students at This Liberal Arts College Are in Their 80s” – a Wall Street Journal article on Goucher College teaching some local senior citizens.

A Planet Money conversation about mandatory retirement.

Participant and old friend Alan Levine’s blog posts: “Sourcing the Saying of the Three Deaths” – on memory and mourning. “Granny’s Stories”.

Joe Lambert, Seven Stages: Story and the Human Experience.

David Longanecker, The Late Truck Driver: Following the Dream, the story of a higher education administrator who retired… to become a truck driver. (Amazon)

Bronnie Ware, The Regrets of the Dying.

Stephen Jenkinson, Die Wise: A Manifesto for Sanity and Soul.

Tatiana Rodriguez, “Ever think about your family’s legacy?” : “I had a college student record a video podcast with me about his family legacy:”

Joe’s podcast, ElderWare: Story Work and Aging in the mid-21st Century.

My podcast is about getting older and sharing stories, and the ways in which technology will impact this work in the near future. On it you’ll hear a mix of conversations with authorities and experts in a range of fields, conversations with reports from my own experimentation with new apps, bots and tools.You should listen if you are interested in the future of getting older and the stories we will have to tell.

The Age-Friendly University Global Network is a consortium of higher education institutions committed to promoting positive and healthy aging and enhancing the lives of older members of the global community through innovative educational programs, research agendas, curriculum development, online education, health and wellness activities, arts and culture programs, and civic engagement opportunities.

Two projects from Chris Wakaluk: a podcast, The Stories That Brought You Here, and My Audio Memoir, a process for recording family history.

Storyworth, a service which helps people tell their stories.

Dear Photograph, a simple image+text story creation service.

Every Age Counts, an Australian group against ageism.

Timeslips, a nonprofit:

We aim to change the way people understand and experience aging by bringing young people into positive relationships with elders; enabling family members to have meaningful emotional connections despite cognitive changes; and infusing creativity into our care systems by inspiring staff to feed their own creativity while inviting elders to imagine and express themselves.

Climate and Aging, a nonprofit working on intergenerational responses to the climate crisis.

The LGBT History Project hosted at Dickinson College:

The LGBT Center of Central PA and the Dickinson College Archives and Special Collections have partnered to document the stories and history of LGBT life and activism in the greater Central Pennsylvania region. This site contains oral histories that have been recorded for the LGBT History Project, as well as fully accessible digital versions of documents, images, and artifacts that have been donated to the project.

The Knox County Black History Archives, hosted at Kenyon College: “Discovering African American History in Rural Ohio.”

Generations United: “The mission of Generations United is to improve the lives of children, youth, and older people through intergenerational collaboration, public policies, and programs for the enduring benefit of all.”

Intergenerational Schools, “Award-winning, tuition-free public charter schools offering individualized instruction in an intergenerational community.”

The Worcester Institute for Senior Education (WISE) at Assumption University.

The Penn State University Intergenerational Program (PSIP):

Since 2001, the PSIP has been instrumental in developing and piloting new intergenerational models and curricular materials spanning the areas of civic engagement and community planning, nutrition education, environmental education, early childhood education, kinship family support, and farm family succession planning.

3. Themes from the conversation

Extracted and anonymized, in the order they arose:

An important shift, from generational divide to generational sharing. Including multiple generations within higher education. (“In university, we often have middle-aged people teaching young people about older people, but we don’t have older people.”) Combine experiential with intergenerational education.

Mandatory retirement can cost people the meaning they find in work and institutions their tacit knowledge.

How to include elders’ wisdom and experience in redesigning higher education? How can we educate young people to not fear aging? Should we offer different assessments based on age?

Identity does not stop with aging.

The importance of listening to elders’ stories and recording them before it’s too late.

Whose voices represent aging, and whose are unheard? For the latter, minoritized populations and the working class. Reframing “AI” to “ancestor intelligence.”

A model of stages of aging: youth, adulthood, a third age (retirement, roughly), then the fourth age. The fourth age seriously lacks stories in our culture.

The need for critical gerontology, for decolonizing aging worldwide.

How can technology help us tell stories of aging, to connect across all ages?

Many thanks to Stephen and Joe for their thoughtful conversation. And more thanks to the Forum community for sharing experience and questions. I hope to bring the guests and topic back in a few months.

PS: is this Forum summary useful to you? I can do more if so.

Posted in Future Trends Forum, storytelling | Leave a comment

International enrollment in American higher ed declined in 2025: new data

Posted on August 26, 2026 by Bryan Alexander

Just a quick post to note new enrollment data: specifically, there’s new research concerning international students attending American colleges and universities. It’s not good.

The Department of State posted new numbers about student visas over the past academic year. Inside Higher Ed found that the government issued 23% fewer visas in 2025 than in 2024.

Two leading sending nations saw major drops: “China and India, historically the two countries that send the most students to the U.S., both saw significant drops in visa issuances—28 percent and 56.6 percent, respectively.” Additionally, and unsurprisingly, “Iran… saw a greater than 90 percent dip compared to 2024, when over 3,000 student visas were issued to Iranians.”

Why this matters: first, reducing the number of international students depresses the global experience many American campuses value. It means fewer cross-cultural connections, fewer opportunities for students, faculty, and staff to learn globally. Second, it represents a financial hit to colleges and universities, as international students often pay full price or something more.

(I tried adding an IHE chart but WordPress decided not to allow me to upload images now. Weird.)

Posted in enrollment, horizon scanning | Leave a comment

One year later, more campuses cross the $100,000 per year boundary

Posted on August 10, 2026 by Bryan Alexander

Nearly a decade ago I asked the question: when will the first American college or university charge more than $100,000 per year to attend? Today I’d like to revisit that question by checking on the subsequent reality.

NB: I’ve been reflecting on my work this summer, and wondering if my output has been not futurist enough. I spend a lot of time collecting data on the present in order to build resources for forecasting, but fear I don’t get to do as much of the latter as I’d like. This blog might change a bit, moving forward.

Now, to the topic. Back in 2018 I raised the six figure published price question when the most expensive campuses charged in the $65,000 range. I noted the rapid rise in posted prices and set about estimating when the first school would crack the $100,000 barrier. Over the years I revisited the question (in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024) as the top prices kept advancing. Finally, last year two Boston institutions crossed over into six figures, research-1 Tufts University and small liberal arts college Wellesley College. (here’s my 2025 writeup)

So what’s happened since?

A few caveats and hedges before proceeding. First, it’s important to remember that these are *published* prices. Depending on the institution, some or most students and their families don’t actually pay that much, thanks to scholarships, grants, work-studies, etc. This is the famous “high price, high discount” financial model many elite institutions rely upon. Second, most American campuses don’t charge anything remotely near six figures per year, but the ones that do tend to have a lot of prominence and influence, both within the academy and in the national culture. Third, we’re talking about undergrad education, not grad school, as the latter is a different (and often more expensive) ballgame. Fourth, we’re focusing on domestic students, as campuses tend to charge more for international students. Fifth, one hundred thousand is just a number. There isn’t anything magical to it, but the flip from five to six figures has some potential symbolic resonance (yet see below).

We can start by revisiting Wellesley and Tufts to see how their prices fare. As of this writing the liberal arts college posts these charges: “Tuition $72,570, Housing $12,020, Meals $11,186, Student activity fee $360… Books $800, Personal expenses $1,250.” My math says this totals $98,186, which is a drop from last year. I wonder if the college leaders feared bad publicity and pushed for cuts.

Yet while last year the college offered an estimate for student transportation needs, up to $1250, this year they left that category open, leaving only this tag: “Varies based on distance from student’s home to Wellesley.” A travel budget of $1814 per year takes us back to $100,000. Additionally last year’s post including a charge for health insurance of $4,051. This year there’s no such figure, but instead a complex set of numbers-free options:

The state of Massachusetts requires that all college students in Massachusetts have health insurance. For students who may not have a health insurance plan that meets the state’s minimum requirements, Wellesley offers a Student Health Insurance Plan. Wellesley will bill all students the health insurance fee, which can then be waived by students who have health insurance coverage meeting the state’s standards.

Approximately 50% of Wellesley students waive the health insurance fee.

For a student enrolled in the College’s Student Health Insurance Plan, the fee is added to the student’s total cost of attendance. Health insurance grants are available for those with the highest need.

It seems plausible that either or both transportation and medical insurance could take Wellesley back over six figures. It’s interesting how they don’t share estimates this year.

How about Tufts? They’ve done something similar. Last year I figured their posted price was $100,721. This year they seem to have cut that back a bit, keeping things under six digits:

Yet that page also mentions other charges. “Out-of-Pocket Expenses (Costs Paid to Others) for All Students” includes “Books and Supplies, $1,000 [and] Personal expenses $1,846” in addition to “Transportation Varies, based on how far from Tufts a student’s home.” They add those up to $2,846, which brings the annual price to $99,998, just two dollars under the six figure turnover.

Like Wellesley, Tufts decided not to post a medical charge this time, but to offer some language under the header of “Other Expenses”:

Students who are not covered by a family member’s insurance plan will need to enroll in the university’s student health insurance plan, which incurs an additional cost. Financial aid may cover this expense for some students. However, many students can waive the university’s health insurance plan if they have other coverage options.

Last year’s posted figure was $4693. Assuming some medical inflation, those who pay it will now see their bill firmly over $100,000.

What about other campuses? How have the nation’s most expensive colleges and universities fared beyond Boston? I am grateful that others have taken up this peculiar cause and done some research. At CNBC Jessica Dickler uses Princeton Review data to identify a total of fifteen campuses which have crossed the six figure barrier this year:

1.	Harvey Mudd College	$104,512
2.	Duke University	$103,975
3.	University of Chicago	$103,821
4.	University of Southern California	$103,162
5.	Barnard College	$103,000
6.	Washington University	$102,260
7.	Smith College	$102,226
8.	Fordham University	$102,188
9.	Claremont McKenna	$101,990
10.	Vassar College	$101,051
11.	Wesleyan University	$101,030
12.	New York University	$100,998
13.	Georgetown University	$100,864
14.	Colgate University	$100,224
15.	Haverford College	$100,026

We might add others based on my previous posts, depending on a couple of fees. Colorado College charges $103,306 including medical insurance, or $97,990 without. Similarly the University of Miami costs $103,355 but a mere $98,872 minus the health coverage. The University of Pennsylvania asks $99,082 plus an undetermined amount for health insurance. Cornell University posts $99,734 without transportation – which is significant, given the campus location – and also without medical fees. Stanford University is $98,320 plus something unspecified for health care. Vanderbilt states $99,620, including health insurance, but without mentioning transportation, books, or materials.

Below these are a number of campuses in the mid- and lower 90s.

So, to sum up. Two years ago American higher ed held back from this six figure number. Last year two Boston schools crossed over it. This year between 15 and 20 colleges and universities have entered the club.

What might we make of this, looking forward? I can share some thoughts based on following this question for years.

First, these high sticker prices are fodder for any politician, official, or media figure who wants to attack American higher ed. They might appear over the next three months as fall elections build up in intensity.

Second, as far as I can tell the $100,000 number hasn’t had much magic. There haven’t been cries of outrage from the public, nor much discussion inside of the academy. It is interesting to see some campuses structure their pricing pages to hold back from clearly showing six figures, but otherwise we all appear to have accepted this and moved on.

Which brings me to a third point. If Americans haven’t stormed the ivory tower to protest these high charges, then we might see more colleges and universities raises theirs as well. If we went from zero to 2 to 15-20, we might expect anywhere from 28 or more joining them in 2027-2028.

Fourth, the high tuition/high discount model is based on a society deeply stratified by economics. It lets a post-secondary institution charge top dollar to the 1% and thereabouts, then discount through the middle and lower classes. Since American society remains thus stratified and may become more so, we shouldn’t expect many changes to this campus economic model.

Fifth, I’m struck by how some of these most expensive institutions are backing away from openly declaring prices for several expense categories. Leaving transportation, medical insurance, and others undefined is an interesting move. I don’t question the accuracy, but rather am curious about the way these avoid adding clear charges. Let’s see who else does this next year.

Sixth, general inflation may boost prices still further, especially with the impacts of American federal tariffs and the Iran war. Additionally, medical costs continue to soar (cf my Health Care Nation scenario). That particular campus charge will most likely rise, adding to total cost of attendance.

That’s all for now. I’ll revisit this next year if there’s interest.

(odometer image from the great Cogdog)

Posted in economics, higher education, horizon scanning | 8 Comments

Compact 2.0 and the McMahon statement: the Secretary of Education issues a call to action

Posted on August 4, 2026 by Bryan Alexander

Greetings from early August. For some this is vacation season, but for me it’s full-tilt work. I’m pitching a new book, ramping up video and Substack content, setting up speaking gigs and consultations through next spring, and redesigning fall classes, while dealing with a frustrating health issue.

Official portrait via Wikipedia.

I have a series of posts in the pipeline here, but today wanted to write about a current event. Yesterday the United States Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, sent a public letter (pdf) to the leaders of American colleges and universities, along with governing boards and some associations. It’s an important development in the Trump administration’s campaign against higher education, so I thought we could examine it and see what it might mean for the academy over the next few years.

To begin with, a quick summary of the letter’s contents: it calls on colleges and universities to commit to reforming themselves along certain lines. Affordability, return on investment (ROI), intellectual diversity, anti-foreign actors, more focus on merit, an emphasis on America first as an organizing principle – there’s a lot there. All of these topics appear as questions, which I’ll quote and excerpt here:

Transparency and Merit in Admissions: How will your institution ensure that admissions criteria are transparent and wholly described to prospective applicants? And how will your institution ensure admissions decisions are based on merit, achievement, and your university’s educational purpose?
Free Speech and Open Inquiry: How will your institution protect the free exchange of ideas, wide-ranging debate, and openminded campus discourse? And how will you guarantee that unruly and violent protestors do not harass students or disrupt classes, research, public lectures, and campus operations?
Intellectual Pluralism and Academic Vitality: How will your institution encourage intellectual pluralism in all its academic units? … And how will your institution ensure the research enterprise is dedicated to … serving the American people who fund it?
Affordability, Value, and Student Outcomes: How will your institution ensure that families can access affordable, high-return, degrees? And what will your institution do to contain costs, improve pricing transparency, and ensure that every academic program equips students to repay their loans?
Academic Standards and Rigor in the Age of AI: How will your institution incentivize rigor in the age of AI, combat grade inflation, and prioritize excellence in teaching and learning?
Safeguarding Research Integrity from Malign Foreign Influence: How will your institutions protect academic programs from foreign influence, and safeguard the integrity of the research enterprise?
Prioritizing American Interests: How will your institution answer this national call to action? How can your campus and faculty advance American security interests, deliver academic programs that meet urgent workforce needs, and contribute materially to the Nation’s prosperity? [emphases in original]

This might sound abstract or lacking concrete details for the short term, but McMahon clearly laid out one marker. She “called on every postsecondary institution to publish, by the end of 2026, a clear public statement outlining its commitment to implementing reforms that will help restore public trust in higher education.”

A Bloomberg article adds some important context for this letter’s development. The Department of Education owns it, but some academics participated in its creation. First, one association helped: “the administration’s latest move was developed in partnership with university leaders, primarily the Association of American Universities, which represents dozens of top research institutions including all eight Ivy League colleges.” Second, senior leaders at four universities played roles, two presidents and two chancellors:

Those include Andrew Martin at Washington University in St. Louis, Michael Crow at Arizona State University, Doug Girod at the University of Kansas and Ronald Daniels at Johns Hopkins University.

Bloomberg adds: “Girod serves as chair of the AAU’s board, and Daniels is its vice-chair.” Elsewhere, the American Enterprise Institute’s Jenna Silber Storey wrote that she played a role in its development.

After the letter went out, public reactions have appeared. Inside Higher Ed interviewed several people, and I’d draw attention to some of their responses. The American Council on Education’s Ted Mitchell described the letter as “far less belligerent than previous discussions of what higher education ought to be and be doing.” More, he saw the letter as stepping back from strongly asserting federal control over campuses:

I think and I hope that it’s a realization by the administration that universities should not be instruments of the state. I do think that this is a tactical shift. I hope even more it’s a philosophical shift to working together to make institutions as good as they can be.

In contrast, PEN America was strongly critical:

[the letter is] “another blatant attempt by the Trump administration to pressure colleges and universities to abandon principle and hew to the administration’s priorities and ideologies.” The association called on colleges and universities “to stand strong against this latest salvo and for the values of free expression, academic freedom, and institutional autonomy.”

The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U)’s president Lynn Pasquerella took a different tack, emphasizing that academia is already engaged in some of this work, and that’s not appreciated:

While there is always room for improvement, it is disappointing that these longstanding commitments are framed in a way that calls into question the dedication of institutions and the millions of faculty, staff, and administrators who have devoted themselves to advancing educational opportunity, research, innovation, and the public good.

Along those lines, the Association of Governing Boards (AGB) posted an admirably concise response, saying that we’re already working on this and that campuses need autonomy to do it well:

Many of the priorities outlined in today’s letter from the Secretary of Education reflect shared goals across higher education. How those goals are achieved, however, is the sole purview of governing boards and institutional leaders exercising their fiduciary duties in alignment with their institution’s unique mission. The US system of higher education has been built and strengthened by the principles of board independence, institutional autonomy, and mission-driven leadership. It is vital that we protect these principles to ensure reforms are shaped by fiduciary responsibility and the long-term interest of our institutions and their students, not by political coercion.

The President of the State University of New York (SUNY) system’s University Faculty Senate, Bruce Simon, offered thoughts on Bluesky. One note which stood out to me: “Compact 2.0 offers an opportunity for colleges and universities to stand up for their founding missions and foundational principles and functions, open up a dialogue with the American people, and offer their own ideas about what restoring trust in higher ed entails.”

I would add a few thoughts. To me, this letter feels like a second take of last year’s compact. I like Simon’s “Compact 2.0” framing. 1.0 failed to get any traction, so they tried again, this time working with some academic partners and shifting the approach. It’s important to emphasize the continuity here. (I spoke to last year’s compact in my Trump vs higher ed YouTube series.)

The questions McMahon’s letter raises are an interesting mix. Some are established academic values, like doing good teaching and research, or current academic concerns, such as dealing with AI. Some reflect public concerns about higher ed, like perceived price and politics. Others are standard conservative goals: job preparation, viewpoint diversity. The neoliberal framing of education in terms of ROI is one held in many quarters within and without the academy. Still others are Trump themes: “merit” (which I read as code for “no DEI”), anti-protests (read: Gaza), and the America First anti-foreign argument.

One theme which hasn’t gotten much reaction so far it that last point. The letter clearly wants an America First academy and opposes some international connections. There’s this call for the latter, calling for the post-secondary sector to focus on American benefits to the exclusion of others:

University-sponsored research can drive economic growth and deliver medical innovation and technologies with vital military applications. University leaders must ensure that the research enterprise is oriented toward advancing the U.S. national interest—not our adversaries’—by refusing gifts with problematic conditions and ensuring that foreign actors do not unduly influence academic programming, research personnel, researcher assignments, or student admissions. Institutions must also ensure that malign foreign actors do not gain access to sensitive research or technology. How will your school protect academic programs from foreign influence and safeguard the integrity of the research enterprise? [emphases in original]

More direct is this call for renationalizing academic work:

American taxpayers invest hundreds of billions of dollars into higher education every year. American universities must put Americans, and American interests, first. That means prioritizing American students and faculty, orienting the research enterprise to support the country’s economic and security needs, and putting American societal success ahead of global commitments. How will your institution answer this national call to action? How can your campus and faculty advance American security interests, deliver academic programs that meet urgent workforce needs, and contribute materially to the Nation’s prosperity? [emphases in original]

How do international students, staff, and faculty feel when hearing those words? This proposed shift of the American academy from its generation+ of globalized work to a re-national one might be one of the most important points of the letter.

Further, making the higher ed sector more cognizant of its role in national security is a major shift, to put it mildly.

I mentioned public reactions. I’ve also received private reactions, which I won’t share directly, but can summarize. Many people fear that this “call to action” is a way to rope institutions into the Trump administration’s plans. Some have criticized the AAU’s collaboration and call for all of higher ed to resist. Friends who are most strongly opposed to Trump, who view his government as fascistic, and especially strong on the oppositional stance.

So where might this go next?

Over the next five months it will be interesting to see who makes the public statement McMahon calls for. I expect some very careful language in such announcements, as well as careful strategy. Some might prepare to appear cooperative in order to improve odds of getting federal funds. They may try some programmatic moves to make their commitment more evident, such as canceling a race-based scholarship or announcing a national security-themed program.

If McMahon follows up, the department might start targeting campuses with punishments if they haven’t posted one of her statements, as well as publicly rewarding those who do so. Grant awards and withdrawals, investigations launched or called off are just a few options ahead.

I wonder about reaction against the four contributing universities and also the AAU. How many faculty, students, and staff at Arizona State University, Johns Hopkins University, the University of Kansas, and Washington University in St. Louis will protest their presidents and chancellors for participating in the letter crafting process? Will fall semester see any subject to no-confidence votes? I wonder to what extent the letter’s move against international connections will motivate these populations, either international academics or Americans on their behalf. On the association level, will any other institution publicly criticize, or even withdraw from the AAU?

There’s the possibility of intersections with the November elections just three months away. Higher education could emerge as a political issue if candidates and the media make it so. Fall semester, starting in just a few weeks, can give ample fodder in the form of posted syllabi, student protests, staff and faculty political statements, classroom recordings, conference presentations, and so on. Perhaps some academic leaders will urge making a McMahon statement to reduce chances of getting attacked.

Incidents may also play a role over the rest of 2026. Consider another prosecution of a Chinese national for espionage. Trump administration officials might pounce, proclaiming the case evidence of why academia needs to make McMahon statements as soon as possible. Campus election work, such as voting drives, might give candidates and officials materials to attack with, adding calls to join Compact 2.0. Student (and faculty, and staff) protests may do something similar, letting Republicans draw attention to the secretary’s second point.

It’s important to bear in mind the opposite may occur. If higher ed largely gives the letter a cold shoulder and the Trump administration gets distracted, as it often does, compact 2.0 could fall away as version 1.0 did.

Are you seeing any reactions at your institution or in your networks?

(thanks to Tom Tobin for links)

Posted in higher education, politics | 15 Comments

The 2031 Crisis in Higher Education: a stark scenario

Posted on July 24, 2026 by Bryan Alexander

Greetings from a surprisingly pleasant late July. Smoke from Canada’s fires has dissipated and temperatures have dwindled to the 80s F. It’s actually delightful to be outside.

Today’s post is about a scenario for higher ed’s future. It’s not from me, but created by one Matthew F. Wilson, director of Research Translation and AI Strategy at Baylor’s Institute for Global Human Flourishing. “The 2031 Crisis in Higher Education” is a dark one, imagining an accelerating decline for American colleges and universities.

Some of the scenario’s details will be familiar to my readers, starting with demographic effects. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act plays a role by cutting loans (and therefore enrollment) while also threatening academic programs without good ROI. State funding to public universities declines again, while demand for skilled trades rises.

Wilson’s scenario adds some more details. I was struck by his imagining that professional schools collapse, mostly due to AI, and with them their subsidies to the rest of their institutions. Wilson also projects this interesting and sad fate for AI literacy:

A child who began using Claude or its successors at age thirteen grew up building projects with AI assistants. They learned to prompt naturally the way earlier generations learned to Google, and this new generation did not need a $160,000 degree to become “AI literate.” They already were. By 2029, most high schools had absorbed AI tools into everyday coursework the way they’d once absorbed graphing calculators. AI was no longer a subject to study but infrastructure to use.

“The 2031 Crisis in Higher Education” anticipates an Intelligence Recession starting in 2029, as AI devours early entry jobs. Following that, it offers a sobering glimpse of Congressional action:

The emergency workforce legislation that passed in the summer of 2030 created retraining vouchers, expanded community college funding, and established portable benefit accounts for displaced workers. Every dollar was aimed at individuals.⁴³ Not a single provision was directed at sustaining four-year colleges or universities. The political constituency for “save my job” had overwhelmed the one chanting “save my alma mater.”

Crucially, all of these developments combine and exacerbate each other. Wilson imagines that process as a doom loop:

One key assumption of this scenario is that most colleges and universities will be unable to redesign themselves for the changing time. The author sees boards and governments blocking changes, and tenure protecting faculty lines. Clearly the scenario’s purpose is to spur imaginative actions.

I had some questions and issues with the scenario. I am curious about how the richest institutions survive the Trump campaign. Indeed, the Trump family only appears twice and Republicans not at all. The scenario’s assumption that corporations will increasingly not require undergraduate degrees is one we’ve discussed for decades, but it hasn’t happened yet. The computer science enrollment drop is an important one, but I’m not sure we can generalize from that to other fields. More, like most people the author doesn’t distinguish between the demographic cliff and the broader, more sustained demographic transition. The scenario tends to focus on residential schools teaching traditional-age undergraduates, underplaying community colleges and other campuses significantly enrolling adult learners, although it does have CCs triumph at the end.

All of that said, it’s a fascinating and daunting scenario. It’s an interesting vision of my post-peak higher ed world.

See what you make of it and how it might describe your situation.

(thanks to Dahn Shaulis)

Posted in scenarios | 5 Comments

Thoughts on world population day 2026 and what might come next

Posted on July 12, 2026 by Bryan Alexander

Happy World Population Day to all who celebrate.

I’m writing about this topic because demographics are an essential tool in the futurist’s toolkit. We now have a lot of data on population, between government efforts, professional demographers’ work, and insurance companies. Demographics aren’t destiny, as the old saw goes, but they have a strong influence.

My readers are likely familiar with my focus on this topic. Last year I posted about World Pop Day and reflected on many demographic issues, from the great demographic transition to its implications for national politics, warfighting, economics, higher education, and technology. I won’t recap all of that here; if you’re curious or new to the topic, please check it out. Today I’d like to offer more informed futurist speculation on how changing demographics might change the world.

First, some updates from the past year. There haven’t been any surprises for those of us studying the topic. The demographic transition (fewer babies, living longer) continued without any pause. Nation after nation, region after region reported birthrates declining further and their senior population expanding. For examples, India, China, Japan, Singapore, the EU and Britain, Germany, Poland, the United States, and Canada saw the number of children fall, even to surprising levels.

Some developing nations are only part way through the transition, still producing children at above replacement levels. These are primarily in subSaharan Africa, plus parts of central and south Asia, notably Pakistan. Here’s the most recent map I can find illustrating these differences:

Immigration has been controversial in many nations. Some call for more people to move from the high fertility nations to the lower ones to supply economic needs (there’s even a comic book). Some migrants and would-be migrants see better opportunities in those nations which raced through the demographic transition. Opponents cite cultural differences, express concern about stresses to state services, and call on locals to increase their own birthrates.

Other political and cultural responses have followed along last year’s lines. There are predictable pushes for more births from the right, often along racial lines. In the United States, this is seeping into government policy, between the vice president’s pronouncements and whatever ~~Lysenko~~RFK, Jr. is trying to do. There have been pro-natalist events and conferences. Left and progressive thinking on this topic is more diffuse, with some arguing for shrinking humanity as a good thing and others celebrating womens’ greater autonomy. Meanwhile, a group of economists argued that increasing worker productivity can solve problems of declining overall economic output.

On the technology side there have been some interesting debates about the role tech has played in speeding the demographic transition. One paper which received a lot of attention argued that smartphones helped depress childbirth, presumably by incentivizing some people to be alone, satisfied with their devices.

At a meta level I find more people willing to look at and discuss demographic data than previously. This might be because of rising political debates or because fears of overpopulation are losing currency.

How might this all progress?

A straightforward extrapolation points to the world reaching peak human population at… some point. The United Nations estimates it’ll take a while to reach it, probably in the 2080s with just over 10 billion people. A study in The Lancet sees this coming earlier and with a small number: “peak[ing] in 2064 at 9·73 billion (8·84–10·9) people.” The University of Pennsylvania’s Jesús Fernández-Villaverde thinks global data overestimates fertility and we might be passing peak human even sooner.

Straightforward extrapolation has many weaknesses, famously. We could have a cultural reversal whereby significant numbers of women decide to have more children, perhaps under the influence of a religious movement. Some government might crack the so far unsolved problem of reversing population decline. These seem unlikely to me.

Conversely, global disasters might kill a lot of us, depressing the total population even further. As a futurist I’m primed to list such: a supervolcano, an asteroid strike, a plague (think that COVID killed up to tens of millions), nuclear power mishaps, nuclear war, biological war, or just a thoroughgoing conventional war of sufficient extent. (I should do a blog post on this.) The point being, there are worse ways for us to approach and pass peak humanity, and sooner.

All of that said, it seems like a plausible bet that the demographic transition will continue operating. Let’s think about some implications.

I wonder about psychological and cultural responses to fewer children. An economic logical of scarcity suggests we could value those small numbers of smaller humans more highly. We could see more “high touch” parenting, more social appreciation for children, more men taking more care of little ones. The arts from film to literature to music might celebrate children to a greater extent than they do now. But we should also expect a kind of dialectic, as we’ve seen with the proudly childfree movement. More people could well proclaim the shrinking children population as progress.

The economic aspects are wide open right now, as we have few precedents for this kind of population change. On the one hand are concerns that an ultimately smaller population means fewer chances for geniuses to emerge, fewer workers to support an expanding senior demographic, and some kind of economic sclerosis appearing. On the other is the hope that the industrial-era expansion of worker productivity, aided by technological development, will balance it out. Super-workers will produce more as will their firms, yielding a larger economy and more taxes out of which to better pay for elders’ pensions, care, and other services. I expect a lot of economic modeling and research to work on this problem, along with national policies trying to address it. Businesses and nonprofits should enter the fray.

Politically, we should anticipate a ferment of policies and movements aimed at getting women to have more children or protecting their abilities to not do so. These debates will activate all kinds of cultural forces and social organizations: religious belief and religious institutions, gender norms, national identity, how we think of ourselves as ancestors. In another way this keys off of that emerging divide over the future of progress – does having fewer children and living longer constitute a new form of progress, or is a failure thereof?

The politics around migration seem likely to persist. We already see nationalist positions calling for excluding foreigners while (somehow) increasing local birth rates. On a related note, we might anticipate a politics of aging, embracing a large senior popular and warring against ageism. Pro-immigrations forces, on the back foot as I write this, will need to offer new arguments. Perhaps we’ll see a form of limited migration become more popular, with nations admitting targeted populations based on skills, wealth, or other attributes.

Geographically, I wonder about the rural world emptying out as younger people leave for cities and everyone else gradually dies. Will relatively empty districts become appealing to inhabitants of ever-growing, expensive, and crowded cities, or will urbanites prefer the panoply of densified services and opportunities they enjoy? In other words, will the long term trend of increasing urbanization persist?

In terms of family and personal groups, I keep returning to Donna Haraway’s idea of our partnering with animals instead of humans. In Staying with the Trouble (2016) she describes a future where families welcome other species into their lives more than today’s pets. She envisions lifelong bonds including child rearing, study of animal behavior, and body modification to enable closer ties. Make kith, not kin is Haraway’s slogan, and perhaps this will catch on as many populations shrink.

I’ve also been pondering the technological dimension of demographic change. I’m not sure cell phones had a significant impact on childbirth rates, but I can imagine a future where technology more fully isolates us. Consider the role of AI as companion to humans. To the extent significant numbers of people turn to bots for conversation, emotional support, and psychological intimacy, we could see them withdrawing from therapists, churches, community events… and romantic partners.

That’s with the technology we have right now. Unless AI research and development badly falters, or society turns massively against AI, we should expect these types of relationships to constitute a kind of subculture or widespread behavior as AIs become better at companionship for various levels of “better.” To this software revolution I add hardware. Yes, there’s a burgeoning industry of companion robots, especially humanoid ones. To pick one recent example from a Chinese company,

[UBTech]’s chief brand officer, Michael Tam, describes the human-robot companionship economy as “the first essential scenario in human history with unlimited emotional value, boundless companionship, and full-life-cycle coverage.”

There’s a lot going on in this shot.

If the rapid progress robots have shown continues, we might see more people cohabiting with bots. (I’ve written about this before, when I described an automated intermediary layer between people.) (Here’s one tongue in cheek article on the idea.) This would certainly elicit cultural pushback, mockery, praise, regulation, and more. Depending on aggregate decisions, we might see a slice of the human population spending most of their time absent other humans, but close to automated companions. Yes, once again science fiction offers us glimpses of the way forward.

On a different level of technology and demographic impact, one vision includes robots, either teleoperated or backed by AI, doing various forms of physical labor. We already have this, of course, between drones used in war and industrial robotics, but this vision sees robots entering a wide range of labor positions: mail carriers, cooks, police. Given the history of automation I’d anticipate robots starting by performing narrow functions, which expand over time. These are supplements to a shrinking labor pool, or replacements for workers pressing for higher compensation. They are also alternatives to immigrants. A successful robot rollout could mitigate xenophobia… but also triggers domestic labor problems.

…and that’s enough for now. For the past two days I’ve been hit by a migraine, so I need to wrap this one up. I was going to add thoughts about climate change but will have to save for later.

Posted in demographics | Leave a comment

Campus closures, mergers, and cuts: a summer 2026 survey

Posted on June 29, 2026 by Bryan Alexander

Greetings from the summer solstice week in the Washington, DC area. We’re alternating between serious heat (not yet at French levels) and serious storms. The happiest beings here are plants.

Today’s post is one of my semi-regular surveys of cuts to higher ed. I’ve been scanning for institutional closures, mergers, and staff/program cutbacks for several years. My goal is to collect evidence of such reductions, assembling them in one spot for public access and use.

(Previous posts – from 2026: February, May; from 2025: February, June, July, August, October; from 2024: March 1, March 20, March 28, April, May, June, July, September, November. )

My focus in these posts is American higher education, mostly due to reasons of time as well as the distinct features and importance of this nation’s academy. I add some examples from Canada, as that nation deals with fallout from deciding to cut international student enrollment, fallout which canny Americans might pay heed to.

I’ve divided what follows into the usual five parts: institutional closures, mergers, cuts, and potential cuts to come, with some reflections at the end. I also add a Wikipedia link to each institution and a short tag describing its nature.

One note: as I’ve written these closure/merger/cut posts, more and more people have reached out to me to share news and personal stories. I’m grateful to each of you. If you’re comfortable posting in the open, the comment box at the end of this post welcomes you. If you’d rather communicate privately, please use this contact form.

1 Closures

No colleges nor universities have announced closures over the past two months that I’ve seen, not since two campuses shut down in New England.

We can check in on developments following from previous closures:. In Michigan, the University of Michigan is offering to buy the grounds of a shuttered school, Concordia University Ann Arbor. Anna Maria College, which announced it would close in April, ordered faculty to clear out their spaces this month. Anna Maria also hired a broker to sell its physical campus. Some of its students are anxious about their scholarship funds.

2 Mergers

Two San Francisco area community colleges, Laney College and Merritt College, will merge next year, becoming a new entity, Oakland City College. The reasons include: dwindling enrollment, the desire to reduce competition between the two, and persistent financial problems.

This passage from the SFGate article echoes my own forecasts and even language:

According to the resolution document from the board, though Laney and Merritt colleges were founded during a “different demographic and economic era,” the district is now experiencing different problems, including a decline in enrollment. During the meeting, one of the trustees, Cindi Napoli-Abella Reiss, said the decline has been noticeable in the last 12 to 18 years.

“The enrollment has decreased so much. It’s hard to fathom,” she said.

3 Campuses cutting programs and jobs

In Ohio Baldwin Wallace University (private) is ending “nine undergraduate majors, seven graduate programs and 19 minors.” Those programs had zero or very low enrollment. As a result Baldwin will cut ten faculty lines. The rationale is not financial exigency but shifting resources (i.e., money and people) to higher-enrolling academic programs.

Which programs are facing the ax? “The undergraduate program closures include economics, human resources, music theory, sociology, sustainability, physics and community health education promotion. The graduate cuts include Baldwin Wallace’s master’s programs in education and an MBA specialization in human resources management.”

The University of Maryland (public land-grant research university) laid off 84 staff. The reason given: cuts to state and federal financial support.

Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore; private research) will cut 110 staff. Those workers supported research, and Hopkins lost $500 million in research funding due to Trump administration policies.

In New York the New School (private research university) laid off nineteen faculty members and 68 staff (the language used is “involuntary separation”). The rationale was a mix of enrollment and financial stress with a desire to restructure offerings. As Higher Ed Dive notes, “[f]rom 2021 to 2024, fall enrollment at the institution declined 13.6% to 9,068 students, according to federal data. Going forward, the university expects to serve around 8,300 students.”

The American Association of University Professors’ New School chapter condemned the terminations, criticizing them for being unrelated to performance, disproportionately targeting women and people of color, and falling most heavily on the humanities and social sciences. That AAUP chapter and individual faculty members have called out the New School’s administration for not consulting sufficiently with the community. An online petition calls for the New School to reinstate those instructors.

Portland State University (public research) will cut two major programs and fifty-two staff members. Also on deck are more cuts:

The latest plan includes tentative reductions in the Portland Center program for international students who study at PSU. University leaders are also proposing reductions across various academic realms. They include reductions in the professional education fields of Educator Licensure as well as Leadership, Learning, and Counseling. PSU proposes cutting liberal arts areas, such as of History, Philosophy, and World Languages and Literatures departments, as well as its School of Earth, Environment, and Society. These reductions total 26 positions represented by an educator union.

Also in Oregon, Southern Oregon University (public) announced a series of cuts: three academic programs to be shut down, the number of faculty deans reduced to one, cutting more than 60 jobs. SOU is facing financial problems, driven by enrollment declines: “The university enrolled 5,113 students in fall 2024, down 14.1% compared to 10 years ago, according to federal data. Full-time enrollment suffered even steeper losses, dropping to 3,209 students in fall 2025, down 22% from nine years ago…” The state of Oregon will apparently give SOU $15 million if the institution turns its finances around.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT; private research university) shut down one of its libraries, the Dewey. Budget problems were the stated reason.

Colorado State University (public land-grant) launched staff cuts to its Fort Collins and CSU Pueblo campuses. The reason given was reduced state funding in the wake of rising costs.

Kent State University (public research) will lay off “up to 45 staff members” as it tries to avoid a budget deficit and grow a surplus.

Muhlenberg College (private liberal arts) laid off nine staff members and ended sixteen unfilled positions. The cause: a budget deficit, which the college’s chief financial officer described as ‘“not threaten[ing] the College’s survival, it is very serious.”

In Canada Sault College of Applied Arts and Technology (Ontario, public) will terminate eight faculty members due to lower enrollment in their fields. That nation’s major cuts to international student numbers plays a role.

Following up on the George Brown Polytechnic cuts from May, a group of laid off faculty condemned the institution’s moves as part of provincial mismanagement and called for labor action to protect academics.

4 Impending or likely cuts

Here we consider college and university decisions and other developments with either announce cuts to come without committing to details, or which make cuts likely.

The president of the University of Oregon (public research) formally announced the campus would have to cut $65 million of its spending. The cause: lower than projected international and American out-of-state enrollment. The administration seems to see this problem not as a one-off but as a long term trend.

The University of Wyoming (land grant, research) is facing a $15 million budget hole. The reasons? “enrollment decline, inflation and reduced investment income, outgoing University of Wyoming President Ed Seidel said at the hearing.” 2% budget cuts for major units are on the table.

The state of Arizona passed a budget with significant cuts to higher education. Institutions hit include: “$8 million from Arizona State University, $2.6 million from Northern Arizona University and a total of $5.7 million from University of Arizona.” Programs cut include:

Dual Enrollment, $1.5 million
Arizona Promise Program, $16.3 million
Adult Workforce Diploma Program, $2.0 million
Adult Education Workforce Program, $6.0 million
Ninth Grade On‑Track Initiative, $3.4 million
Adult Education Skills Program, $1.0 million

The University of Denver (private research) began a restructuring plan which involves merging and closing academic units. To be closed:

the Department of Religious Studies within the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences and the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering within the Ritchie School of Engineering and Computer Science… Philosophy; Gender, Women’s and Sexuality Studies; and Socio-Legal Studies.

Mergers include:

The Ritchie School of Engineering and Computer Science is merging with the College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics. The Graduate School of Professional Psychology will join with the Morgridge College of Education and the Graduate School of Social Work.
To “integrate the performing arts,” the Lamont School of Music, the Department of Theatre and Newman Center Presents will be brought under the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences.

It is not clear how many jobs will be lost, as the institution plans to move positions and functions between units. But “DU leaders acknowledged that the changes will eliminate an unspecified number of jobs.”

East Carolina University (North Carolina; public research) announced it would launch a series of program cuts to “a mix of certificates, minors and bachelor’s and master’s degrees across multiple colleges.” The reason was to cut spending, although not in a crisis mode. Not all of the programs were named, but those that were included:

Sociology (BA)
Middle Grades (MAED)
Software Engineering (MS)
Sustainable Tourism and Hospitality (MS)
Sustainable Tourism and Hospitality (PB)
Ethnic Studies (Minor)
Physics (Minor)
Speech and Hearing (Minor)
Gerontology (PB)
Family and Consumer Sciences (BS)
Medical Family Therapy (PB)

Other terminations may be forthcoming at ECU: “The academic portfolio review committee also identified 51 other programs in need of significant changes. Departments overseeing those programs are required to submit plans by May 15 detailing steps to strengthen enrollment, improve outcomes or address other areas of concern.”

The University of Texas’ board passed a measure making it easier for individual campus presidents to close programs and terminate faculty members without faculty input before or after such decisions.

The president of Syracuse University (New York; private research) announced a major enrollment shortfall, both in number of students and also per-student revenue. International student numbers also fell. As the linked Syracuse.com article observes, ‘A deficit could mean more cuts at a university already tightening its belt.”

A major Harvard University (private Ivy League research) unit may lay off staff this summer. The Faculty of Arts and Sciences is considering terminating up to one quarter of its support staff in the face of a $365 million deficit caused in part by new and higher federal endowment tax rates. It also decided to cut three senior administrators.

Moody’s Ratings lowered its financial rating for Columbia University (New York; private Ivy League research) from stable to negative. The reasons given were the Trump administration’s pressure on that campus as well as declining international student numbers.

Northpoint Bible College (Massachusetts; private Pentecostal) is ending its degree programs and shifting to offering certificate and other non-degree programs. The reason: the Association for Biblical Higher Education withdrew Northpoint’s accreditation.

Stockton University (New Jersey; public) is starting to offer voluntary buyouts to some academic workers. The reasons include: rising staff costs; decreased state support; stable enrollment after some declines. To that latter point, “[a]bout 8,300 students enrolled in the fall 2025 semester, compared with roughly 9,500 students in the fall 2019 semester, according to university data.”

5 Reflections

What do these stories tell us, overall?

I hesitate to repeat points I’ve made in previous posts in this series (see top of post for links), especially ones familiar to those of you who also read my books and seen my talks, but some leading trends seem worth repeating. Once again we see institutional enrollment declines driving financial problems. Related to this, more academic leaders are citing the demographic transition as a challenge, cutting back the traditional-age undergrad pipeline.

The Trump administration continues its multiple affronts to the academy. We can see this in rising concerns over international student numbers, reflecting federal anti-immigration policies. We also see it in federal research funding cuts, which play out in the form of campus cuts. (I’ve been trying to track Trump’s campaign against higher ed in this YouTube series.)

Some state governments play a role here. The established pattern is cutting funding to public universities and colleges, and we see that continuing. There is also a theme of states negotiating with campuses for financial deals. And we also see some states politically intervening in the academy. The University of Texas move noted above should be seen as an example of this.

For years I’ve been recommending that some colleges and universities make a deliberate decision to shrink themselves. Reducing the student body, trimming the physical footprint – these can be thoughtful, proactive moves for a campus facing headwinds. This is one path I laid out in my latest book, Peak Higher Ed. Few campus leaders have wanted to say this is a good idea out loud, although some have told me so privately. So I was interested to hear this bit in that Portland State story:

PSU administrators are working to close a projected $35 million budget deficit by the end of the 2026-27 school year. And university leaders have not shied away from the fact that in order to fill that gap, Portland State will have to become a smaller institution. [emphases added]

It’s still politically risky to explore such a strategy in public, especially for older folks accustomed to the post-1980 long boom in higher ed, but perhaps we’ll see more do so if the situation deteriorates further.

I was struck by this detail in the ECU program cuts story: “Faculty and academic departments initiated the closures of 33 programs… while a university oversight committee recommended the remaining 11.” That’s quite a story about shared governance in some form. In how many campuses are faculty involved in making such decisions now?

Note that another religious campus is represented here with a massive cut and potential closure to come. We have seen others struggle or fail over the past few years. I’m tempted to link those stories to declining American religiosity, which I’ve documented (2017, 2019, 2021, 2022, yet see here for a potential change), yet I’m aware of other factors, including many hyperlocal ones.

I’ll close with two requests to you, dear readers. First, while I wrote about these developments with an emphasis on statistics and structures, remember that these are all stories about human beings and damages to human lives, from students to staff and faculty.

Second, please reach out to me with more stories and evidence of such developments. Many of you have done so openly (see acknowledgements below). Some prefer to contact me privately, which is understandable in our grim academic climate. Please DM me on various socials or email me directly right here.

Please take care everyone. My heart goes out to all students, faculty, and staff hit by these moves or anxious of what might come next. It’s a rough time. We should help each other.

(photo of Laney College by Michael Layefsky; thanks to Apostolos K., Glen McGee, Steven Kaye, and Peter Shea for links)

Posted in horizon scanning | Tagged queensacrifice | 13 Comments

#ShowYourStripes: one excellent climate change visualization

Posted on June 20, 2026 by Bryan Alexander

Just a quick post, friends. In the midst of a lot of other things going on I wanted to join today’s climate change awareness event.

To explain: some of you may know about the climate or warming stripes visualization. Created by climate scientist Ed Hawkins (University of Reading), this information representation arranges vertical stripes in a horizontal sequence. The X axis is time; each stripe’s color indicates relative temperature compared with the previous one. As Wikipedia puts it, the thing is “a series of coloured stripes chronologically ordered to visually portray long-term temperature trends”

For example, here’s one for the world:

At a glance you can see the temperatures rise from left to right. And it looks pretty elegant, too. Folks have turned these into art, from posters to clothing. For example,

Climate stripes have been around for some time, but today is #ShowYourStripes day. So I used this handy website to produce one for the city I’m adjacent to, Washington DC: