Tag: Highered

Posted on

The Three-Year Degree: Promise, Pressure, and Unintended Consequences

April 28, 2026, by Dr. Barry Ryan – Imagine being a prospective college student (or a supporting family member. Looking through colleges’ websites, you’re in shock about the sticker price of a year of tuition, fees, housing, travel and so on. Then do a quick calculation multiplying everything by four and the numbers become daunting, to say the least.

What if there’s a way to attend a good university, obtain a solid education, and still be able to apply for a grad program you’ve always dreamed about following graduation? And save 25% off those costs, not to mention saving a year of your life and being able to enter a job market one year sooner? For many American students, the best option has often seemed to go overseas for their three-year degree. At least until now, that is.

On March 31, 2026, Inside Higher Education published a “Quick Take” under the title “Louisiana Board of Regents Adds 3 Year Degrees to Offerings.”

Not so long ago such an announcement might have been met with skeptical, if not downright disparaging responses from leaders in traditional American universities. Today, however, given some of the significant challenges facing undergraduate students and the institutions they attend there is a more thoughtful reaction. It looks as though the Louisiana announcement is just the tip of what is becoming an iceberg.

College-in-3.org is an affiliative group of 60 colleges and universities planning to offer 90 unit bachelor’s degrees, although the organization notes that a number are still pending accreditation approval. Some institutions have indicated their plan to offer 3-year programs as “Applied” or “Career-focused.” Such descriptors might apply only to certain types of degrees, of roughly 90 credit hours with linkages to specific majors that are often more technical or medical-related.

Higher education and mainstream press have reported that state universities in North Dakota, Indiana, Massachusetts, Utah and Iowa are exploring or developing adding three-year bachelor’s degrees. Going the other direction (at least for now), Inside Higher Ed reported on March 25, 2026 that a bill allowing its universities to development 90 unit bachelor’s programs just died in the legislative process in Connecticut.  But that seems to be swimming against the tide.

It is no secret that there is a groundswell of doubt regarding the true value of the four-year degree, particularly given its growing price tag. In addition, for most students (and their families) the costs also include room and board, loans with interest for years to come, growing costs for travel for students and families to and from home, and so on. And then there’s the lost opportunity cost for the student by being out of the work force for four, rather than three years.

Wouldn’t it be at least a significant savings to pay for only three years, rather than four? That seems like a very simple question, but it’s a bit more complicated. Here are just a few of the reasons why, from the student’s perspective and also that of the university.

What if you’re thinking of grad school? At present, there are some universities and programs within them that require a four-year bachelor’s degree. That is starting to change, pushed by the overall financial realities but also by the institutions’ experience in admitting students from abroad who may possess three-year bachelor’s degrees, yet have proven themselves very successful in US grad programs. But the aspiring undergrad student who has a particular grad school program in mind had better do their homework well, or risk even more difficult circumstances upon graduation. Perhaps even better for such a student would be the growing number of “3+1” bachelor’s plus master’s combinations.

If you go the three-year route, doesn’t that automatically mean you’re receiving “less education”? That’s an even harder question to answer. Many UK and European undergrad degrees are three years already. Are their graduates missing out? Have they been unsuccessful in graduate program, professional careers and so on? That doesn’t seem to be the case.

What about the differences that go beyond just the degree length. Many overseas institutions (and faculty and grads) argue that (1) they received a better “general education” background from what we call high school that more than compensate for less time spent on “lower division” courses at university. Add to that, (2) an additional year in the three-year model to concentrate on more specialized “upper division” (courses within their “major” as it is termed in the US).

They may also assert that, after 3 years focused more on a concentrated field, they are better prepared to enter the workforce directly. The same argument applies for those grads who seek professional expertise in a number of areas that are typically pursued at the graduate level in both US and UK/European settings.

Even US universities have begun to – grudgingly –recognize overseas three-year bachelor’s degrees as meeting the essential equivalent of a four-year American undergraduate program for purposes of preparation for grad programs.

What’s the hold up for US doing 3 years more broadly? The answers are legion.

The US system is built upon a foundational presumption of 4-year degrees. There are huge implications for accreditation, Title IV aid, general education requirements, the entire calendar and content of marketing/recruitment/enrollment/retention/alumni, not to mention faculty and student services cost per student. Changing the 4-year presumption could wreak havoc on a system not known for its ability to deal with changes (made clear by the briefest review of the FAFSA fiasco of recent years).

In this era of sometimes catastrophic financial challenges (especially for smaller institutions), the idea of cutting off a year of tuition (and other) revenue appears apocalyptic. Once you have attracted the customer, why would you want them to stop paying for your services one year earlier? Since the majority of revenue is derived from tuition, fees, housing and so on, what happens when you cut off 25% of it? Even if you assume that the initial bumps will smooth out over time, what does the typical institution do in the meantime, without meaningful and accessible reserves? The implications for reductions in faculty are problematic, even more so when unions are involved. Yet that is where much of the cost savings would come.

Consider the realities of the so-called demographic cliff, but the pre-existing decline in enrollments for all sorts of reasons. In those situations, almost all academic institutions rely essentially on the larger enrollments of general education courses to subsidize the smaller (sometimes miniscule) enrollments in many upper division courses. It’s obvious that many majors are terribly under-enrolled and far from being able to pull their own weight, economically. I was made aware of that reality when, in my first quarter of teaching, I had a general education course of 800 plus students, an upper division major course of 35, and an honors seminar of 15. Those numbers help explain the New York Times article on April 2, 2026, that reported Syracuse University dropping or “pausing” 93 of its 460 academic programs. In those that were ending, 55 of them had NO students who were majoring in those programs. This is not a problem only for Syracuse, obviously. Faculty costs are a huge component of an institution’s expenses. Having a professor making the same teaching small boutique courses versus large general ed courses, which students in both types paying the same tuition, is a serious financial burden for the college.

Other variations will constantly arise. What would happen if a “true” three-year option would become widespread? Would two-year community colleges produce graduates who only needed one year’s worth of upper division courses to complete a bachelor’s program? The effects on contemporary four-year institutions could be devastating.

There are many forces at work that will continue to inhibit or even derail the momentum for the development of three-year bachelor’s degrees in the US. The need for significant changes in the structure and operation of higher education is only growing. The competition for a shrinking pool of qualified students will continue to increase among already-stressed colleges.

There will not be one or even a few simple answers. But the potential for adjusting bachelor’s degree length is one tool that needs to be in the toolbox. Remember, each institution is unique in many ways, and the three-year degree option will likely appeal only to certain colleges, and more easily be fitted to only certain academic programs. Yet it has some advantages, in some specific situations, that justify its careful consideration.

Dr. Barry Ryan is a seasoned higher education executive, legal scholar, and former president of Woodbury University. He is the Co-Director, Edu Alliance’s Center for College Partnerships and Alliances, and a legal scholar. With more than 25 years of leadership experience, Dr. Ryan has served in numerous roles, including faculty member, department chair, dean, vice president, provost, and chief of staff at state, non-profit, and for-profit universities and law schools. His extensive accreditation experience includes two terms on the WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC), serving a maximum of six years. He is widely recognized for his expertise in governance, accreditation, crisis management, and institutional renewal.

In addition to his academic career, Dr. Ryan ​ served as the Supreme Court Fellow in the chambers of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and is a​ member of numerous federal and state bars. He has contributed extensively to charitable organizations and is experienced in board leadership and large-scale fundraising. He remains a trusted advisor to universities and boards seeking strategic alignment and transformation.

He earned his Ph.D. from the University of California, Santa Barbara, his J.D. from the University of​ California, Berkeley, and his Dipl.GB in international business from the University of Oxford.

Posted on

Increasing Institutional Diversity in the Quest for Sustainability

March 23, 2026, By Chet Haskell – Higher education in the United States has long boasted of its institutional diversity. From mega state universities to local community colleges, from elite private research universities to tiny specialized schools, this eco-system provides multiple options and avenues for anyone seeking education. At the same time, this same diversity is fluid and fragile, as demonstrated by the steady stream of closures and the prediction of many more to come.

One subset of this ecosystem – the traditional undergraduate residential liberal arts college – has faced particular challenges of late. While there numerous variations on this model, the general category can be defined through use of National Center for Educational Statistics. NCES counts a total of 1568 private non-profit colleges and universities in the United States of which 1179 are four-year institutions with 3000 or fewer total enrollments.

According to the latest NACUBO/Commonfund survey, of the 1179, there are only 80 with endowments in excess of $200 million and another 34 with endowments between $200 million and $100 million. The basic size of an endowment is of limited explanatory value, since most endowments are composed of multiple endowment with restrictions as to use.

Instead, endowment per student is often a more helpful metric. Among the 80 institutions in the NAUBO/Commonfund survey with endowment in excess of $200 million, a handful (Amherst, Williams or Pomona) have endowments valued at more than $1.8 million per student. Size matters in this case. To put this into perspective, these per student endowments are greater than the per student endowments of most of the larger institutions, except Princeton, Harvard, Yale and MIT. At the lower end of this subset, Whitworth College’s endowment is equivalent to $86,000 per student.

There is also a range of per student endowments the group between $200 million and $100 million. For example, Cottey College’s endowment value is $444,000 per students, but it has only 260 students. The other hand Elizabethtown’s endowment is equivalent to only $54,000 per student.

Even with such resources, most of these institutions are still enrollment dependent, just not entirely so. And one must remember that institutions with more than $100 million endowment represent less than ten percent of all the smaller private institutions. The remainder face much starker resource and revenue challenges and are thus indeed totally tuition dependent and facing the well-reported demographic decline in the number of high school graduates, a decline that will continue for the next decade.

Setting aside the small group with endowments over $200 million, all of the other smaller institutions under discussion must face this decline in their primary revenue source in what has become an increasingly competitive marketplace.

Not only are they similar in approach to higher education, but they face similar challenges and, strikingly, employ similar strategies in their quests for sustainability.

These conditions describe what organizational theorists Walter Powell and Paul DiMaggio called “institutional isomorphism and collective rationality” in a seminal piece in 1983. They argued that institutions in the same field become more homogeneous over time without becoming more efficient. They identified three basic reasons for such changes:

Coercive isomorphism – similarities imposed externally by government policies and funding sources, as well as accreditation practices are good examples.

Mimetic isomorphism – similarities that arise from standard  responses to uncertainty such as common approaches to enrollment management and marketing.

Normative isomorphism – similarities that come under the title of “professionalism” such as standard practices for academic/faculty structures, “best practices” in student support and what has been described recently by Hollis Robbins as the “nomenklatura” process or list through which one becomes an institutional leader — most presidential searches end up looking for (and hiring) individuals with similar qualifications and experiences.

The subset of small residential undergraduate institutions based on a liberal arts curriculum would seem to represent clear examples of such institutional isomorphism. This essay will discuss why this is the case and will present a potential path out of the “iron cage” in which they are trapped.

First, the challenges facing these institutions are not new. While current policies of the Trump Administration exacerbate the difficulties that are faced, the basic challenges will remain after the current government is history. Academic institutions must take the long view and be planning today for where they want to be in five or ten years or more. A key element of any strategic plan is looking beyond the immediate and acquiring the resources needed to invest in the future.

Second, the fundamental challenge is financial in nature. As noted, most of these institutions lack significant endowments and other financial resources and are almost completely dependent on tuition from enrollments. Yet, expenses constantly rise and alternate sources of revenue are limited. At the same time, competition for enrollments has led to almost universal discounting of tuition as a pricing strategy, typically by 50% or more. Furthermore, such colleges must also confront rising employee costs, increased insurance bills and the maintenance of aging facilities. They also lack opportunities for economies of scale.

The applicability of Powell and DiMaggio’s construct is clear. Institutions have become more alike because of all three of the scholars’ isomorphic pressures. These institutions are equally dependent on Federal student financial aid and access to such aid is conditioned on accreditation by one of a set of authorized and quite similar accreditors. The quest for enrollments supports an industry of outside consultants for marketing and enrollment management, none of which are clearly distinctive in approach or results. College websites all look as if they came from t same source, with seemingly standard formats and the common photos of diverse, happy groups of students.

Professional norms and expectations for leadership positions are also of a piece. A casual review of position listings in the standard set of industry publications will demonstrate this reality, as are the similar credentials and career paths of most leaders.

It all amounts to a form of commodification. These institutions all look pretty much the same to outside observers – including large numbers of potential students and parents.

For most institutions, assured sustainability requires either steady and growing enrollments or healthy endowments and related support. The alternative is fragility and exposure to the next external crisis such as the financial collapse of 2008-09, the COVID pandemic, or, today, a national government determined to reduce support for higher education through less financial aid, loosened accreditation requirements that will increase lower quality competition, inhibit international student enrollments or undercut accessibility initiatives that encourage diversity and inclusion.

Under these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that academic institutions have been failing in increasing numbers, sometime through forms of mergers and acquisitions with other institutions and other times through complete closure. While a merger might retain some elements of the merged institution, the losses both economic and psychic are extensive. In the case of a bankruptcy or closure, the effects are often felt more widely, particularly in small towns where a college is a form of institutional anchor.

Is it possible to break out of the pack? Can an institution gain the financial stability necessary for long term survival and prosperity through doing something different? Many institutions have sought a degree of security through consortia arrangements which typically try to lower expenses though sharing of services and which attempt to increase enrollments through providing greater options to students. Regardless of the success of such efforts, the fact is that consortia, while helpful in reducing costs and attracting incremental students, are still basically marginal in impact. The member institutions remain separate in terms of accreditation, institutional governance, budgets and leadership. Collaboration can help institutions well-placed to take advantage of consortia, particularly those within a limited geographic region. But consortium success presumes a certain degree of financial stability of the member institutions.

The Coalition for the Common Good, a new arrangement designed to engage multiple institutions with similar missions that can take advantage of the different strengths of members, began in 2023 with two founding institutions, Antioch University and Otterbein University. Basically designed as a middle ground between consortia and mergers, this initiative aspires to chart a new cooperative path among its members where institutional sustainability is nourished through collective enrollment growth. However, the Coalition is still in its infancy and can only work for certain institutions. Additional models must be developed.

Some institutions are well -placed for the exploration of partnership arrangements. They still have time and room to maneuver before facing more drastic choices. Yet, understanding and implementing the multiple details of any such arrangement is difficult and beyond the capacity of most boards and presidents. Every arrangement is different. Identifying appropriate partners is time-consuming and difficult. Actually putting together a deal and obtaining all the necessary state, Federal and accreditor approvals takes time and expertise. The costs, especially legal, are significant. An even greater expense are the opportunity costs imposed on the leadership teams which not only have to continue to manage their institutions, but also become constrained in what else they can consider. Bandwidth becomes a very real problem.

This is an opportunity for segments of the philanthropic world to consider possible new initiatives to support the small college elements of the education sector. While there will always be efforts to gain foundation support for individual colleges, there will never be enough money to buttress even a small portion of deserving institutions that face the financial troubles discussed above

Philanthropy should take a sectoral perspective. One key goal should be to find ways to support  smaller institutions in general. Instead of focusing on particular institutions, those interested in supporting higher education should look at the multiple opportunities for forms of collaborative or collective action. Central to this effort should be exploration of ways of supporting diverse collaborative initiatives.

But there is a large middle ground between consortia arrangements and mergers and acquisitions. The Coalition for the Common Good is but one such arrangement and it is still in its early stages. What has been learned from the experience thus far that might be of use to other institutions and groups? How might this middle ground be explored further for the benefit of other institutions?

Philanthropic institutions could support this work in numerous ways, first for specific initiatives and then for the sector, by providing funding and expertise to facilitate new forms of coalitions. These could include:

  • Providing financial support for the collaborative entity. While participating institutions eventually share the costs of creating the new arrangement, modest dedicated support funding could be immensely useful for mitigating the impact of legal expenses, due diligence requirements, initial management of shared efforts and expanded websites.
  • Providing support for expert advice. The leaders of two institutions seeking partnership need objective counsel on matters financial, legal, organizational, accreditation and more. Provision of expertise for distance education models is often a high priority, since many small colleges have limited experience with these.
  • Funding research. There are multiple opportunities for research and its dissemination. What works? What does not? How can lessons learned by disseminated?
  • Supporting communication through publications, workshops, conferences and other venues.
  • Developing training workshops for boards, leadership, staff and faculty in institutions considering collaborations.
  • Crafting a series of institutional incentives through seed grant awards to provide support for institutions just beginning to consider these options.
  • These types of initiatives might be separate, or they might be clustered into a national center to support and promote collaboration.

These and other ideas could be most helpful to many institutions exploring collaboration. Above all, it is important to undertake such explorations before it is too late, before the financial situation becomes so dire that there are few, if any, choices.

This middle ground is not a panacea. Some institutions will fail. The wealthy institutions will survive but they are neither numerous enough nor sufficiently accessible and affordable to compensate for the likely losses in weaker colleges. Public support, both state and Federal is unlikely to increase for the public sector institutions. Loosened accreditation will open up higher education to predators, especially for-profit in nature.

The institutional isomorphism described by Powell and DiMaggio is real in higher education and serves to undercut the strengths of an educational arena that should be characterized by creativity and diversity of approaches. Friends of higher education should be seeking alternative models of structure and organization and the philanthropic sector should have an interest in encouraging and supporting such variety.

Paul DiMaggio and Walter Powell, “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organization Fields” in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Walter Powell and Paul DiMaggio, eds. Pp.63-81, University of Chicago Press 1991

Hollis Robbins, The Higher Ed Nomenklatura, Inside Higher Ed, May 12, 2025

Dr. Chet Haskell serves as Co-Head for the College Partnerships and Alliances for the Edu Alliance Group. Chet is a higher education leader with extensive experience in academic administration, institutional strategy, and governance. He recently completed six and a half years as Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and University Provost at Antioch University, where he played a central role in creating the Coalition for the Common Good with Otterbein University. Earlier in his career, he spent 13 years at Harvard University in senior academic positions, including Executive Director of the Center for International Affairs and Associate Dean of the Kennedy School of Government. He later served as Dean of the College at Simmons College and as President of both the Monterey Institute of International Studies and Cogswell Polytechnical College, successfully guiding both institutions through mergers.

An experienced consultant, Dr. Haskell has advised universities and ministries of education in the United States, Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East on issues of finance, strategy, and accreditation. His teaching and research have focused on leadership and nonprofit governance, with a particular emphasis on helping smaller institutions adapt to financial and structural challenges.
He earned DPA and MPA degrees from the University of Southern California, an MA from the University of Virginia, and an AB cum laude from Harvard University.