Connect with us

News

More than a quarter of private colleges are at risk of closing, a new projection shows

Published

on

More than a quarter of private colleges are at risk of closing, a new projection shows

Izzy Johnson, left, and Jack Beatson are first-year students at Sterling College in Craftsbury Common, Vt. The college has announced that it will close at the end of this semester.

Oliver Parini for The Hechinger Report


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Oliver Parini for The Hechinger Report

CRAFTSBURY COMMON, Vt. — More than a dozen newborn lambs cavorted around a fenced-in yard beneath the scrutiny of their mothers and a few watchful students taking turns attending to them.

The lambs’ successful births have been a needed bright spot at tiny Sterling College, which uses a 130-acre farm to teach agriculture and other disciplines in a part of northeastern Vermont so isolated there’s no cell service and it’s rare to see a passing car.

LillyAnne Keeley, a senior, likes that remoteness. “We have a beautiful view,” said Keeley, in the barn where she’s come for her turn checking on the lambs. “There are beautiful sunsets here. I kind of take it for granted every day.”

Advertisement

She and her classmates have started taking such experiences less for granted now, since Sterling has announced that it will close in May at the end of this semester.

They’re not the last students around the country who will suffer such disruption. A new estimate projects that 442 of the nation’s 1,700 private, nonprofit four-year colleges and universities, with a combined 670,000 students, are at risk of closing or having to merge within the next 10 years.

LillyAnne Keely holds a newborn lamb in the barn at Sterling College in Craftsbury Common, Vermont, which focuses on agriculture and related disciplines. The college has announced that it will close at the end of this semester.

LillyAnne Keely holds a newborn lamb in the barn at Sterling College, which focuses on agriculture and related disciplines.

Oliver Parini for The Hechinger Report


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Oliver Parini for The Hechinger Report

More than 120 institutions are at the very highest risk, according to the forecast by Huron Consulting Group, which helps clients in industries including higher education formulate business strategies. For its assessment, the company analyzed enrollment trends, tuition revenue, assets, debt, cash on hand and other measures.

Many are, like Sterling, small and rural. “Now that this might be gone, I just really worry about some students out there that are going to have less and less choices,” Keeley said.

Advertisement

It’s a crisis whose magnitude has been overshadowed by political and culture-war attacks on higher education and is propelled by the simple law of supply and demand after a long decline in the number of Americans who are going to college.

“We have too many seats. We have too many classrooms,” Peter Stokes, a managing director at Huron, said of U.S. colleges and universities. “So over the coming five to 10 years, this shakeout is going to take place.”

Sterling — the seventh private college in Vermont to close since 2016 — offers a rare glimpse into the human impact of this trend. That’s because it gave students a final semester to stay and complete their degrees or transfer, rather than locking the doors with hardly any notice, as many other colleges have done.

Fewer than half of students at colleges that close continue their educations, according to the most comprehensive study of the issue, produced by the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, or SHEEO. Of those who do, many lose credits they’ve already earned and paid for, and fewer than half eventually earn degrees.

Twenty-year-old Izzy Johnson has already been buffeted by this. The college he originally wanted to attend closed the month before he graduated from high school. So he enrolled as a freshman in the fall at Sterling — only to learn a few months later that it would also close.

Advertisement
Student Lew Collet works on his tractor skills at Sterling.

Student Lew Collet works on his tractor skills at Sterling.

Oliver Parini for The Hechinger Report


hide caption

toggle caption

Oliver Parini for The Hechinger Report

Advertisement

“Having to pick up everything and find a new place to settle down is really miserable,” said Johnson, who studies agricultural and food systems — the process by which food is produced and consumed — and is weighing where to go next.

Started in 1958 as a prep school for boys, the remote rural college was never very large. Its enrollment peaked at 120 and fell to about 40 students this year, spread around a few white clapboard buildings indistinguishable from the houses of the surrounding farm town of about 1,300 people.

Those numbers weren’t sustainable, even at one of the nation’s nine so-called “work colleges,” whose undergraduates combine work and learning. At Sterling, they do this by pitching in on the farm and in the dorms and kitchen, said the college’s president, Scott Thomas. Though financial documents show Sterling had been breaking even, margins were thin.

In its last semester, the campus appeared surprisingly upbeat. At a weekly community meeting, students, faculty and staff lugged tables to the edge of the dining hall and formed a circle to talk about routine business, including warnings of bears coming out of hibernation and a reminder to provide contact information so everyone could stay in touch after commencement in May.

Advertisement

Students have decided “that we’re just going to have a really good last semester and go out on a really positive note,” said Keeley. Like several of her classmates, she is cramming to earn the credits needed to graduate this spring. “And I feel like we’ve been really able to do that so far, but it’s still really sad.”

Most said they were drawn here precisely because of the college’s small size and far-flung location.

“I don’t think I would have done well at a big, traditional college,” said Jack Beatson, a first-year student from California. “I just sort of get freaked out in a big space like that.”

As more small colleges close, said Keeley, it’s getting harder for students to find this kind of an alternative to what she called “the larger, monotonous type of education.”

Impact on the community

People around town are equally concerned — not only for the loss of jobs and spending, but an end to the pipeline through which many graduates have stayed to work or start businesses of their own.

Advertisement

“We always joke that Sterling kids stick around. But it’s true, they do, and they contribute to the community,” said Liz Chadwick, who moved from New Jersey in 2013 to finish her bachelor’s degree at the college, where she now teaches food systems. “They build families here.”

Losing colleges like Sterling “leaves craters in the small rural communities that they have been a part of for, in some instances, decades or a century,” said Thomas.

Liz Chadwick came to Sterling College as a student and, like many alumni, settled in the area; she now teaches food systems at the college. Graduates “build families here,” says Chadwick.

Liz Chadwick came to Sterling College as a student and, like many alumni, settled in the area; she now teaches food systems at the college. Graduates “build families here,” she says.

Oliver Parini for The Hechinger Report


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Oliver Parini for The Hechinger Report

There are about 3,700 two- and four-year public and private degree-granting colleges and universities in the United States. That’s already down from a peak of 4,726 in 2012. Almost all that have closed since then were private, for-profit schools, which enjoyed a brief boom before crashing under the weight of consumer discontent and increased regulation.

Many converging reasons explain why private, nonprofit colleges and universities, too, are now under existential strain.

Advertisement

There are already 2.3 million fewer students than there were in 2010. A drop in the birthrate that began around the same time means there is about to be a further downward slide in the number of 18-year-olds through at least 2041.

Among the other factors:

  • The proportion of high school graduates who go on to college is also down, from 70% in 2016 to 61% in 2023, the most recent year for which the figure is available. 
  • The number of visas issued for new full-tuition-paying international students coming to the United States plummeted by nearly 100,000 this year, or 36%. 
  • And looming caps on federal loans for graduate study, which take effect in July, threaten to reduce demand for yet another crucial revenue source. 

While higher education institutions previously weathered short-lived declines in enrollment and increases in costs, today “every major revenue stream and expense category is under pressure at the same time,” the higher education consulting firm EAB warns in a new analysis.

Eighty-six percent of college and university leaders are worried about their schools’ long-term financial viability, according to a survey in December by the American Council on Education, the principal industry association. A fifth of college and university presidents say they’ve had serious discussions about merging with another university or college, a separate survey by Hanover Research and the industry news site Inside Higher Ed found.

Signs of strain are spreading

And nearly a third of private, nonprofit colleges and universities nationwide posted deficits in 2024, according to research by Robert Kelchen, director of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

And it’s not just small schools that are affected.

Advertisement

Even public universities and colleges are facing deepening financial problems, reports the Fitch bond-rating agency, citing slowing economic growth and federal policy changes.

The University of Southern California has sent pink slips to more than 900 employees. Stanford University, Northwestern University, and Depaul University have also seen layoffs.

And, as part of what its president called a “broader strategy to strengthen GW’s long-term financial health,” George Washington University announced in March that it had sold a satellite science and technology campus in Virginia for what the student newspaper reported was $427 million.

Community colleges, too — which enroll nearly 5.6 million students — are suffering financial squeezes that leave them less able to adapt or respond to change, according to Daniel Greenstein, former chancellor of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, who now tracks financial exposure in the industry.

In the case of community colleges, wrote Greenstein, “The risk is not a sudden collapse of the sector. The risk is a slow erosion of capacity in precisely the institutions on which communities rely most.”

Advertisement

Still, after two and a half decades in which the price of tuition has increased faster than inflation, for a payoff many consumers no longer think is worth the money, higher education often gets little sympathy for its predicament — and even less after years of political and culture war attacks on the ideological leanings of faculty and leadership.

“Free market wins!” quipped one commenter on social media, in response to Sterling College’s announcement that it would close. “They woked themselves right out of business,” wrote another. Added a third: “Now where will they teach all the 20 year olds to protest and whine?”

Among its students, however, Sterling elicits something increasingly rare among higher education institutions: gratitude.

“I’m so glad I got to spend at least a year here,” said first-year student Jack Beatson. “Just feeling like you’re really part of something, and other people depend on you — that’s very important to young people especially, and today especially.”

Samuel Stover goes to Sterling College in Craftsbury Common, Vermont, which his mother also attended. He likes the size of the small school, where he has teachers “who I feel like I really connect with on a deeper level than just, ‘I’m a student and I hand in papers,’ ” Stover says.

Samuel Stover goes to Sterling College, which his mother also attended. He likes the size of the small school, where he has teachers “who I feel like I really connect with on a deeper level than just, ‘I’m a student and I hand in papers.’”

Oliver Parini for The Hechinger Report

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Oliver Parini for The Hechinger Report

Advertisement

Beatson is transferring to another small college in upstate New York. But even after Sterling closes, he said, “We’ll all take this place with us, wherever we end up.”

This story was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Contact writer Jon Marcus at 212-678-7556, jmarcus@hechingerreport.org or jpm.82 on Signal.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

Published

on

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

The U.S. Supreme Court

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.

The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.

The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.

Advertisement

The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.

Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.

But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.

What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.

Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.

Advertisement

This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.

The case, however, was not over.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”

So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.

The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”

Advertisement

The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”

Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.

Continue Reading

News

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Published

on

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Advertisement

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

A minor, 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck in the San Francisco Bay Area on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 9:44 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles southeast of Cloverdale, Calif., data from the agency shows.

Advertisement

U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 3.6.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Aftershocks detected

Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Advertisement

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Advertisement

When quakes and aftershocks occurred

 All times are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

Advertisement

Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 12:59 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 1:59 p.m. Eastern.

Continue Reading

News

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

Published

on

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation.  My Administration has unleashed tremendous technological growth and economic investment in AI by slashing the bureaucratic constraints that the prior administration placed on America’s AI developers and researchers, and by instead encouraging AI innovation and accelerating responsible AI adoption across government and industry. 

Advanced AI capabilities make our Nation stronger, but also introduce new national security considerations that require coordinated action across executive departments and agencies (agencies), and components.  As these capabilities evolve, my Administration will continue to work closely with industry to ensure that the best and most secure technology is deployed rapidly to confront any and all threats to our country.  We will continue to lead an America First cybersecurity effort that enhances both our national security and our global AI dominance.

It is the policy of the United States to promote AI innovation and security by working collaboratively with the private sector to modernize government and private sector information systems and harden them against external threats; to protect American ingenuity and intellectual property from exploitation and theft by adversaries; and to cultivate America’s advanced AI-enabled capabilities.

Sec. 2.  Upgrading American Systems for Advanced AI.  (a)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Committee on National Security Systems shall prioritize the cyber defense of National Security Systems, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(6)(A), by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

Advertisement

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall prioritize the cyber defense of Department of War information systems by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

(c)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the National Cyber Director, shall release Binding Operational Directives and other guidance as appropriate to:

(i)    expedite and prioritize the cyber defense of civilian Federal Government information systems in order to protect our Nation’s vital functions;

(ii)   establish or expand Federal programs and cybersecurity services that enhance AI-enabled defensive tools; and

(iii)  facilitate access to cybersecurity tools and services including, where appropriate, covered frontier models for agencies, State and local authorities, and operators of critical infrastructure such as rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities.

Advertisement

(d)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the Secretary of War, through the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, shall form an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, in voluntary collaboration with the AI industry and operators of critical infrastructure, that coordinates and deconflicts scanning for software vulnerabilities, discovers and validates such vulnerabilities, and coordinates and prioritizes remediation and distribution of vulnerability patches.

(e)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in coordination with the National Cyber Director and the Director of CISA, shall determine whether any Federal grant programs have available and relevant funding that can be directed toward applicants developing advanced AI vulnerability detection.

(f)  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall expand the United States Tech Force Information Cybersecurity Specialist hiring and placement pathways.

Sec. 3.  Secure Frontier Model Deployment.  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, through the Director of NSA, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, in consultation with the White House Chief of Staff, through the National Cyber Director, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), and the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in coordination with other agencies, as appropriate, shall:

(a)  develop and maintain a classified benchmarking process to assess the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models and determine the threshold at which an AI model should be designated a “covered frontier model” for the purposes of this order, sharing such assessments with AI developers and researchers as appropriate.  Such a determination shall be made by the Director of NSA, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the APST, the Director of CISA, and other representatives of the Department of War, as appropriate.

Advertisement

(b)  design a voluntary framework with AI developers through which developers would be able to:

(i)    engage the Federal Government to determine whether model(s) under development meet the designation of “covered frontier model”;

(ii)   provide the Federal Government with access to covered frontier models, subject to appropriate confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protection, use, and nondisclosure requirements, for a period of up to 30 days before they plan to release such models to other trusted partners; and 

(iii)  collaborate with the Federal Government to select trusted partners that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure.

(c)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models.

Advertisement

Sec. 4.  Protection Against Criminal Actors.  The Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1028, 18 U.S.C. 1030, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and all other applicable Federal criminal laws against anyone who utilizes AI to illegally access or damage a computer without authorization, or who utilizes AI while engaged in such illegal access to further any other crime.  This includes breaching any public or private information technology system, or employing AI agents to unlawfully access data or information that is subsequently used for a criminal or unlawful purpose.

Sec. 5.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

Advertisement

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d)  The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of War.

                             DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    June 2, 2026.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending