The Uncomfortable Truth About Higher Education’s Evolution
The recent announcement from Doane University about cutting several majors and minors by 2027 has sparked a lot of conversation—and for good reason. On the surface, it’s a story about a university streamlining its programs to stay relevant. But if you take a step back and think about it, this is about so much more than just budget cuts or enrollment numbers. It’s a reflection of a broader, uncomfortable truth: higher education is being forced to evolve, and not everyone is going to like how it looks.
The Survival Instinct of Universities
Doane’s decision to eliminate programs like New Media, Policy and Values, and Interfaith Studies isn’t just about trimming the fat—it’s about survival. President Roger Hughes framed it as an opportunity to “remake” the university, and I think that’s exactly right. What’s fascinating here is the acknowledgment that some fields of study are no longer in demand, either from students or the job market. Personally, I find this both pragmatic and unsettling. On one hand, it makes sense to allocate resources to programs that align with current economic needs, like engineering, data analytics, and artificial intelligence. On the other hand, it raises a deeper question: What happens to disciplines that don’t immediately translate into job placements? Are we risking the loss of intellectual diversity in the name of efficiency?
What many people don’t realize is that this isn’t just a Doane problem—it’s an industry-wide trend. Nebraska Wesleyan and the University of Nebraska are making similar cuts, and I suspect we’ll see more institutions follow suit. The traditional liberal arts model is under pressure, and universities are being forced to act like businesses, prioritizing ROI over academic idealism.
The Human Cost of Progress
One thing that immediately stands out is the human cost of these decisions. Seventy-eight students will be impacted, and several faculty members will lose their jobs. Hughes acknowledged that it “stinks,” and I appreciate his honesty. It’s easy to talk about strategic realignment in abstract terms, but behind every cut are real people whose lives are disrupted. What this really suggests is that the transition to a more market-driven education system isn’t painless. It’s a reminder that progress often comes at a cost, and not everyone will benefit equally.
From my perspective, this highlights a tension between institutional sustainability and the human element of education. Doane’s commitment to letting affected students finish their programs is commendable, but it doesn’t erase the broader implications. Faculty members who’ve dedicated their careers to these disciplines are being phased out, and that’s a loss not just for the university, but for academia as a whole.
Investing in the Future—But at What Cost?
What makes this particularly fascinating is Doane’s simultaneous investment in new programs and facilities, like the Performing Arts Center and the Innovation Center. It’s a clear signal that the university isn’t just cutting—it’s also building. This dual approach is smart, but it also underscores the high-stakes nature of these decisions. Hughes is betting that these new initiatives will position Doane for long-term success, but it’s a gamble. The $100 million capital campaign is ambitious, and while they’ve raised $86 million so far, it’s not a done deal.
In my opinion, this is where the rubber meets the road for higher education. Universities can’t afford to be static in a rapidly changing world, but the question is whether they can strike the right balance between innovation and tradition. Doane’s strategy seems to be about creating a hybrid model—one that embraces emerging fields while still honoring its liberal arts roots. But will it work? Only time will tell.
The Value of a Degree in 2027 and Beyond
Hughes’ assertion that a four-year degree is “still one of the best investments you can make in yourself” is a bold statement in an era of skyrocketing tuition costs and student debt. Personally, I think he’s right—but with a caveat. The value of a degree isn’t just about the piece of paper; it’s about the skills and experiences it provides. What’s interesting here is Hughes’ emphasis on “revenue following the experience.” It’s a shrewd observation: if universities can deliver programs that are both meaningful and marketable, they’ll thrive.
But this raises another question: Are we moving toward a model where education is primarily about job preparation? If so, what does that mean for the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake? I worry that in our rush to align education with market demands, we might lose sight of the transformative power of learning.
Final Thoughts: A Necessary but Uncomfortable Shift
Doane’s decision to cut programs is a microcosm of a much larger shift in higher education. It’s a necessary move, but it’s also an uncomfortable one. It forces us to confront hard questions about the purpose of education, the role of universities in society, and the trade-offs we’re willing to make in the name of progress.
From my perspective, the key takeaway is this: higher education can’t afford to be a static institution in a dynamic world. But as we embrace change, we need to be mindful of what we might leave behind. The disciplines being cut at Doane may not be in high demand today, but they represent important ways of thinking and understanding the world. Losing them entirely would be a loss for all of us.
So, while I applaud Doane’s efforts to adapt and innovate, I also hope we can find a way to preserve the richness and diversity of knowledge that makes higher education so valuable in the first place. After all, education isn’t just about preparing for the future—it’s about shaping it.
