The Great Unbundling of Higher Education: Doane’s Bold Move and What It Means for the Future
Higher education is at a crossroads, and Doane University’s recent decision to cut several majors and minors by 2027 is a stark reminder of the seismic shifts underway. Personally, I think this move is less about retrenchment and more about a necessary recalibration. What makes this particularly fascinating is how it reflects a broader trend: the unbundling of traditional academic offerings in favor of market-driven, future-proof programs.
The Cuts: A Necessary Evil?
Doane’s decision to eliminate majors like New Media, Policy and Values, and Interfaith Studies, along with minors in Film and Journalism, is a pragmatic response to declining enrollment and shifting economic demands. From my perspective, this isn’t just about cutting costs—it’s about survival. President Roger Hughes frames it as an opportunity to “remake” the university, and I couldn’t agree more. What many people don’t realize is that higher education has long been insulated from the kind of disruption seen in other industries. This move signals that the ivory tower is finally waking up to the realities of the 21st century.
But let’s be clear: these cuts aren’t painless. Seventy-eight students will be directly impacted, and several faculty members will lose their jobs. One thing that immediately stands out is the human cost of such decisions. Hughes acknowledges this, calling it “hard” and “not easy.” Yet, if you take a step back and think about it, the alternative could be far worse: a university that fails to adapt and risks becoming irrelevant.
The Bigger Picture: Higher Ed’s Identity Crisis
Doane’s situation isn’t unique. Nebraska Wesleyan, the University of Nebraska, and countless other institutions are making similar cuts. What this really suggests is that higher education is grappling with an identity crisis. For decades, universities have operated on the assumption that a broad liberal arts education is inherently valuable. But as tuition costs soar and job markets evolve, that assumption is being tested.
In my opinion, the problem isn’t the liberal arts themselves—it’s the failure to connect them to tangible outcomes. Programs like Interfaith Studies or Human Relations may be intellectually enriching, but if they don’t align with employer needs or student demand, they become liabilities. This raises a deeper question: Can universities strike a balance between preserving intellectual curiosity and preparing students for the workforce?
Investing in the Future: A Double-Edged Sword?
What’s particularly interesting about Doane’s strategy is that it’s not just about cutting—it’s also about reinvesting. The university is pouring millions into new facilities like the Performing Arts Center and an Innovation Center focused on engineering, AI, and data analytics. On the surface, this seems like a smart move. After all, these are the fields driving the modern economy.
But here’s where it gets complicated: What happens when these fields become obsolete? The very logic used to justify cutting “obsolete” programs could one day be applied to these new investments. A detail that I find especially interesting is Hughes’s assertion that “revenue follows the experience.” While I agree that student experience is critical, I’m skeptical that chasing trends will guarantee long-term sustainability.
The Value of Higher Education: A Shifting Narrative
Hughes insists that a four-year degree remains “one of the best investments you can make in yourself.” Personally, I think this statement is both true and outdated. Yes, a degree still holds value, but the narrative around higher education is shifting. Students and parents are increasingly viewing college as a transactional experience, expecting a clear return on investment.
This shift has profound implications. Universities can no longer rely on the prestige of a degree to attract students. Instead, they must demonstrate relevance, affordability, and outcomes. From my perspective, this is both a challenge and an opportunity. It forces institutions to be more accountable, but it also risks reducing education to a mere credentialing process.
Final Thoughts: The End of One Era, the Beginning of Another
Doane’s decision to cut and reinvest is a microcosm of the broader transformation in higher education. It’s messy, it’s controversial, and it’s absolutely necessary. What makes this moment so pivotal is that it forces us to confront uncomfortable truths: about the purpose of education, the role of universities, and the value of knowledge in a rapidly changing world.
In my opinion, the universities that will thrive in the coming decades are those that embrace this uncertainty. They’ll be agile, innovative, and relentlessly focused on student outcomes. But they’ll also need to preserve what makes higher education special: the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.
As I reflect on Doane’s move, I’m reminded of a quote by John Maynard Keynes: ‘The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones.’ Higher education is long overdue for such an escape. Whether Doane succeeds remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the old model is no longer tenable. The question now is what will replace it.
