When the Cliff Becomes the Ground: Strategic Portfolio Transformation in U.S. Higher Education
- Jonathan H. Westover, PhD
- 7 hours ago
- 20 min read
Listen to a review of this article:
Abstract: U.S. higher education has entered a period of structural transformation rather than cyclical adjustment. Recent program eliminations, workforce reductions, mergers, and campus closures at flagship and regional institutions reflect compounding pressures: a contracting traditional-age student pipeline, declining public confidence, escalating operating costs, and shifting labor-market signals. This brief synthesizes scholarly and practitioner evidence on the demographic, financial, and competitive dynamics reshaping the sector. It examines organizational and stakeholder consequences, and outlines evidence-informed responses across portfolio strategy, operating-model redesign, workforce architecture, and learner-centered value creation. Drawing on demographic forecasts, institutional case narratives, and management research, the analysis argues that the next decade will favor institutions capable of disciplined differentiation, operational agility, and authentic alignment between academic identity and economic sustainability. Three forward-looking pillars—portfolio governance, distributed academic leadership, and continuous learner-market sensing—are proposed for boards, presidents, and provosts navigating the post-cliff environment. The brief is intended for higher-education leaders, trustees, and consulting partners.
The announcements out of Penn State and East Carolina this week are not anomalies. They are tremors from a tectonic shift that has been forecast for over a decade and is now being felt under the floorboards of nearly every tuition-dependent institution in the United States. Program eliminations, workforce reductions, school consolidations, and quiet conversations about campus closures are migrating from the margins of strategic planning into its center.
For years, the "demographic cliff" was discussed as something approaching. It is no longer approaching. Institutions are inside it. The number of high-school graduates in the U.S. is projected to peak around 2025 and decline meaningfully in many regions through the early 2030s, with the steepest contractions in the Northeast and Midwest (Grawe, 2018, 2021). Layered on top of demography are deeper currents: erosion of public confidence in the value of a four-year degree (Brenan, 2023), rising sticker prices and discounting that have squeezed net tuition revenue (Zemsky et al., 2020), and a labor market that increasingly rewards specific skills and credentials alongside—or sometimes instead of—traditional bachelor's degrees (Sigelman et al., 2022).
The traditional "comprehensive everything-for-everyone" model—where regional universities offered a wide undergraduate menu, modest graduate programs, and a research aspiration—is increasingly difficult to finance. What emerges next is likely to be a more concentrated and differentiated sector. On one side: institutions with scale, research strength, endowment depth, and national brand. On the other: tuition-dependent institutions forced into rapid portfolio restructuring, partnerships, or closure. The middle is thinning.
The leadership work ahead is different from what dominated the past two decades. Enrollment management alone will not stabilize most institutions. The next era requires disciplined portfolio strategy, operational agility, workforce redesign, and the courage to align academic identity with long-term economic reality. This brief examines the landscape, the consequences, and the evidence-based moves available to leaders willing to act early rather than late.
The Higher Education Restructuring Landscape
Defining the "Demographic Cliff" and Portfolio Restructuring in Higher Education
Two terms anchor this discussion. The demographic cliff refers to the projected decline in the U.S. traditional college-age population beginning in the mid-2020s, driven by the sharp drop in U.S. births following the 2008 financial crisis (Grawe, 2018). The cliff is not uniform. Grawe's Higher Education Demand Index shows pronounced declines in the Northeast and upper Midwest, relative stability in parts of the Southeast and Mountain West, and disproportionate contraction among institutions that draw from regional, less-selective pools (Grawe, 2018, 2021).
Portfolio restructuring, borrowed from corporate strategy and adapted to higher education, refers to a deliberate reshaping of an institution's academic offerings, delivery modalities, and supporting operations to concentrate resources where mission, market demand, and economic viability intersect. In higher education, portfolio restructuring typically includes program review and discontinuation, school or college mergers, shared services, modality shifts (online, hybrid, accelerated), and selective investment in new credentials such as certificates and stackable programs (Zemsky et al., 2020; Selingo, 2013).
It is worth defining one more term: a tuition-dependent institution is one in which net tuition and fees represent the dominant share of operating revenue, with limited cushion from endowment, state appropriation, auxiliary enterprises, or research funding. For many regional comprehensives and small private colleges, a 1–3% enrollment shortfall translates almost directly into a structural deficit (Zemsky et al., 2020).
State of Practice: Drivers, Distribution, and Signals
Several forces are converging.
Demography. High-school graduate counts are projected to peak around 2025 and then decline, with the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education projecting fewer graduates through the early 2030s in most regions (WICHE, 2020). Institutions that recruit nationally can partially hedge regional decline; institutions that draw 70–90% of their first-year class from a single state cannot.
Confidence and value perception. Gallup polling shows U.S. adults' confidence in higher education has fallen substantially over the past decade, with only about 36% expressing "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in 2023, down from 57% in 2015 (Brenan, 2023). The shift is not partisan alone; it reflects concerns about cost, debt, and labor-market relevance.
Cost structure. Higher education's cost disease—rising instructional, facilities, compliance, and student-services costs without proportional productivity gains—has been documented for decades (Bowen, 2013). The result is a long climb in sticker price and an even more aggressive climb in tuition discounting; private nonprofit first-year discount rates now exceed 56% on average (NACUBO, 2023).
Labor-market signaling. Employers, particularly in technology and business services, have begun removing four-year degree requirements from a meaningful share of postings, emphasizing demonstrated skills (Sigelman et al., 2022). This does not eliminate the bachelor's degree's value; the wage premium remains substantial for most fields (Carnevale et al., 2021). But it changes the competitive frame for the credential.
Visible institutional moves. The past two years have produced a rolling tape of announcements: program discontinuations at large public systems, mergers among small private colleges, system-level consolidations in states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and outright closures averaging more than one private college per month, by some estimates (Hire Education Tracker reporting summarized in Lederman, 2024). Penn State's recent commonwealth-campus consolidation discussions and East Carolina's program-cut announcements sit on a continuum that includes West Virginia University's 2023 academic transformation, the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education's integration of six universities into two, and the merger of Delaware College of Art and Design into another institution after its closure announcement.
The pattern is not a wave that will pass. It is a new operating environment.
Organizational and Individual Consequences of Restructuring
Institutional Performance Impacts
The financial mechanics are unforgiving. Zemsky and colleagues' (2020) "college stress test" identifies first-year enrollment trend, tuition dependence, retention, and majors-distribution stability as key indicators. Institutions failing on multiple indicators rarely recover without structural change. Their analysis of more than 1,000 four-year institutions suggested that roughly 10% face significant market stress, with another tier in early-warning territory.
Three performance impacts recur across stressed institutions:
Margin compression. As discount rates climb, net tuition revenue per enrolled student stagnates or falls even as expenses grow. Without endowment income, federal research overhead, or strong auxiliary margins, institutions burn reserves to balance budgets. Moody's has repeatedly flagged a higher share of negative outlooks among small private colleges and regional publics (Moody's Investors Service, 2024).
Credit and capital constraints. Once an institution falls below covenant thresholds or sees a downgrade, capital projects, debt refinancing, and even routine deferred maintenance become harder. This compounds the deferred-investment problem that already plagues older campuses.
Brand and accreditation risk. Accreditors increasingly require demonstration of financial sustainability and student outcomes. Probationary status, even when later resolved, depresses applications and donor confidence in measurable ways (Eaton, 2022).
A more subtle but equally important effect is strategic drift. When leadership cycles through short-term enrollment fixes—new majors launched without market evidence, discount-rate increases without retention investment, marketing spend without product differentiation—the institution loses coherence. Faculty distrust grows. Cabinet turnover accelerates. Strategic plans become artifacts rather than guides.
Stakeholder Wellbeing and Community Impacts
Restructuring is not a spreadsheet exercise. Its effects are deeply human.
Students experience disruption. Program closures force teach-out plans, transfer decisions, and revised graduation timelines. Even well-managed teach-outs introduce anxiety and friction; poorly managed ones damage students' progress and trust. Research on closure events shows that students of closed institutions complete degrees at substantially lower rates than peers, and a meaningful share never re-enroll anywhere (Tarrant et al., 2018).
Faculty and staff face workforce shock. Tenured faculty in eliminated programs face redeployment, early retirement, or—in extreme cases—termination under financial-exigency provisions. Staff layoffs ripple through advising, student affairs, and operations, often degrading the very services that drive retention. The American Association of University Professors has documented growing tension between expedient restructuring and shared-governance norms (AAUP, 2023).
Communities absorb economic and identity loss. In many small towns, the local university or college is the largest employer, the principal cultural institution, and a central source of healthcare, the arts, and youth programming. Closures and significant downsizings produce measurable declines in local employment, housing values, and small-business revenue (Tarrant et al., 2018). The civic loss is not easily counted but is widely felt.
Donors and alumni recalibrate. Trust, once disturbed, takes years to rebuild. Alumni respond to perceived mission drift with reduced giving and lower advocacy. Yet alumni also respond positively to clear-eyed leadership: institutions that articulate honest strategy and follow through often see donor engagement deepen, even amid contraction (Drezner, 2018).
Evidence-Based Organizational Responses
Table 1: Institutional Case Studies of Higher Education Restructuring
Institution Name | Restructuring Type | Specific Actions Taken | Primary Driver | Key Outcomes or Status | Implementation Strategy (Inferred) |
West Virginia University | Program Discontinuation | Commissioned external consulting analysis (rpk GROUP) and announced potential discontinuation of dozens of programs and faculty positions. | Structural deficit | Marked as a multi-year strategic necessity; scope was narrowed after faculty input and data review. | Top-down, data-driven transformation focused on rapid portfolio rationalization to address urgent financial gaps, later adjusted for stakeholder feedback. |
Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE) | System Integration | Integrated six universities into two: Pennsylvania Western University and Commonwealth University. | Operational redundancy and financial sustainability | Created shared back-office and academic structures; some cost-per-student stabilization noted. | Large-scale consolidation of administrative and academic infrastructure to leverage economies of scale across multiple regional campuses. |
Connecticut State Community College | System Integration / Operational Redesign | Consolidated twelve community colleges into a single statewide community college with consolidated administration. | Operational efficiency / Enrollment declines | Implementation ongoing since 2023; involves complex transitions in accreditation and student systems. | Centralized governance and administrative model intended to reduce overhead while maintaining a broad geographic service footprint. |
Bloomfield College | Merger | Merged into Montclair State University. | Market stress / Mission protection | Preserved access for a predominantly minority-serving student body; finalized in 2023. | Proactive mission-protective affiliation by seeking a stronger partner to ensure survival of the student service mandate. |
Mills College | Merger | Integrated into Northeastern University as a named college. | Strategic expansion and mission preservation | Preserved mission focus on women's education; enabled Northeastern's West Coast expansion. | Strategic alignment between a mission-specific institution and a larger partner seeking geographic growth, initiated before terminal crisis. |
Georgia State University | Operational Redesign | Investment in student success analytics, proactive advising, and chatbot-enabled support. | Retention and completion rates | Eliminated achievement gaps by race and Pell status; increased revenue through improved retention. | Evidence-based, learner-centered transformation focusing on technological integration and predictive data to drive institutional stability. |
Southern New Hampshire University | Operational Redesign | Decoupled online growth from on-ground campus economics; heavy investment in marketing and online program management. | Market agility and enrollment growth | Transformed from a regional college into one of the largest U.S. online providers. | Differentiated business model strategy that treats online education as a scalable, distinct product from traditional residential offerings. |
University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point | Program Discontinuation | Attempted to eliminate liberal-arts programs. | Financial pressure | Cuts were walked back following faculty and public backlash; cited as a cautionary tale. | Failed change management characterized by a lack of upfront transparency and mission-anchoring, leading to contested data and criteria. |
The institutions managing this transition well share a set of practices. None is a silver bullet. Together, they form a credible playbook.
Disciplined Academic Portfolio Review
The most consequential lever is academic portfolio strategy. This is not a euphemism for cutting programs. It is a systematic process of evaluating each program against mission contribution, student demand, market relevance, financial performance, and quality, then making explicit invest, sustain, transform, or sunset decisions (Dickeson, 2010; Zemsky et al., 2020).
Effective portfolio reviews share several features:
Hallmarks of credible portfolio review:
Transparent criteria established before data is reviewed, ideally co-developed with faculty leadership
Multi-year data on enrollment, completion, contribution margin, and labor-market outcomes—not a single bad year
Quality and mission weight, not just financial performance, so foundational disciplines aren't reflexively cut
Investment as well as divestment decisions, signaling that the exercise is strategic, not purely defensive
Clear governance pathway from review committee through senate, cabinet, and board
The University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point's 2018 effort to eliminate liberal-arts programs collapsed under faculty and public backlash, in part because the process was perceived as financially driven rather than mission-anchored, and because data and criteria were contested late in the process (Flaherty, 2018). The institution ultimately walked back the most aggressive cuts but absorbed reputational cost. Its experience is a frequently cited cautionary tale, and several universities have since invested heavily in upfront process design.
West Virginia University's 2023 academic transformation took a different approach. Facing a structural deficit, leadership commissioned an external consulting analysis (rpk GROUP) and announced potential discontinuation of dozens of programs and faculty positions. The process drew sharp criticism for speed and methodology, but it also marked one of the first times a flagship public research university openly framed program discontinuation as a multi-year strategic necessity rather than a one-off cut. Subsequent revisions narrowed the scope after faculty input and additional data (Knox, 2023). The lesson is not that WVU "got it right" or "got it wrong," but that even flagship publics now must address portfolio rationalization explicitly, and that process design materially affects outcomes.
In the small private sector, the merger of Bloomfield College into Montclair State University in New Jersey (finalized in 2023) illustrates a different portfolio move: rather than restructuring within, Bloomfield's leadership concluded that becoming a campus of a larger public institution was the most mission-protective path. The merger preserved access for a predominantly minority-serving student body that would otherwise have lost its institution (Moody, 2023).
Operating Model and Shared Services Redesign
The second lever is operational. Most colleges and universities are organized as confederations of departments, schools, and central units, each with parallel administrative functions. As enrollment declines, the duplication becomes unaffordable.
Operating-model redesign typically targets:
Common shared-services candidates:
Finance, HR, IT, and procurement consolidation across schools or campuses
Enrollment, marketing, and student-services integration to remove handoffs that hurt yield and retention
Course-scheduling and space-utilization analytics to right-size facilities and reduce small-section subsidization
Centralized course design and online program management to scale digital learning without per-school redundancy
Procurement consortia and system-level contracting to reduce supplier costs
The Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE) integration of six universities into two—Pennsylvania Western University (combining California, Clarion, and Edinboro) and Commonwealth University (combining Bloomsburg, Lock Haven, and Mansfield)—is one of the largest operational restructurings in U.S. public higher education (Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, 2022). The integrations have not been painless: enrollment has continued to decline at some campuses, faculty have raised concerns about workload and shared governance, and the long-term outcome is still being evaluated. But the integration created a shared back-office and academic structure that would have been impossible to fund independently. Early indicators suggest some stabilization in cost-per-student measures, though academic-program rationalization within the integrated universities remains in progress.
The Connecticut State Colleges and Universities system pursued a different operating-model move with the consolidation of twelve community colleges into a single Connecticut State Community College in 2023. Implementation has been complex—accreditation, student information systems, and labor-relations transitions are nontrivial—but the structural rationale (a single statewide community college serving roughly 80,000 students with consolidated administration) reflects the operating-model logic now being tested across multiple states (Connecticut State Colleges and Universities, 2023).
Outside higher education, the integrated-delivery network movement in healthcare offers an instructive analog: shared services succeed where governance is clear, data systems are unified early, and clinical (in higher ed, academic) decision-making remains close to the work, while transactional functions consolidate. Higher education leaders adopting this model often underestimate the change-management investment required and overestimate near-term savings (Deloitte, 2022).
Workforce Architecture and Faculty Model Redesign
The third lever is the workforce. Higher education's labor model evolved over a century around tenure-track faculty, full-time staff, and a long-cycle academic calendar. Demand patterns no longer match this design. The composition of instruction has already shifted dramatically: contingent and non-tenure-track faculty now teach the majority of undergraduate credit hours at many institutions (AAUP, 2023). The question is whether that shift was strategic or merely expedient.
Evidence-informed workforce redesign considers:
Workforce redesign components:
Faculty role differentiation, with deliberate pathways for teaching-intensive, research-intensive, and professional/clinical faculty
Hiring and retention practices that align with strategic disciplines rather than departmental headcount inertia
Phased retirement and succession-planning programs that allow respectful transitions and intentional renewal
Staff capability investments in advising, instructional design, and data analytics—roles that disproportionately drive retention
Shared appointments and inter-institutional teaching arrangements, especially in low-enrollment graduate fields
Arizona State University, while not a tuition-dependent institution, has been studied widely for its workforce architecture: a deliberately differentiated faculty model, large investment in instructional designers and learning engineers, and a centralized digital-delivery capability through EdPlus that supports both online and on-ground students (Crow & Dabars, 2015). Smaller institutions cannot replicate ASU's scale, but the underlying logic—match the workforce to the actual delivery model rather than to inherited categories—is broadly applicable.
In the community-college sector, Miami Dade College has invested in stackable workforce-aligned credentials and a faculty model that integrates industry practitioners with traditional faculty in fields like cybersecurity and healthcare. The result has been programmatic agility: the institution can launch or retire short-cycle programs in response to regional labor demand within months rather than years (Jenkins & Fink, 2020, examining similar community-college transformations).
For private liberal-arts institutions, the workforce challenge is sharper. Tenure-density and small-enrollment-program economics collide. Some institutions have moved to consortial teaching arrangements—the Associated Colleges of the South and similar consortia have expanded shared online courses in low-enrollment languages and specialized fields, allowing each campus to maintain breadth without unsustainable per-section costs (Council of Independent Colleges, 2021).
Learner-Centered Value Proposition and Credential Innovation
The fourth lever is the product itself: what the institution offers, to whom, in what format, with what outcome guarantees. The traditional 120-credit, four-year, residential, on-ground bachelor's degree remains valuable, but it is no longer the only product the market wants—and for many adult and post-traditional learners, it is not the right product at all.
Learner-centered value strategies include:
Credential and modality innovation:
Stackable certificates and microcredentials that ladder into degrees and carry standalone labor-market value
Competency-based and accelerated pathways for adult learners with prior learning
Hybrid and online degrees offered with the same brand and rigor as on-ground programs
Employer-embedded programs co-designed with industry partners
Outcomes transparency, including labor-market and earnings data, by program
Western Governors University, a competency-based online institution, enrolled more than 150,000 students by the early 2020s, with a faculty model organized around mentorship and assessment rather than seat-time-based instruction (Pulsipher, 2018). WGU is not a model every institution should copy, but its growth illustrates the depth of demand for asynchronous, competency-based, work-aligned credentials that traditional institutions have been slow to offer at quality.
Southern New Hampshire University's transformation from a regional New England college into one of the largest providers of online education in the country is another widely studied example. SNHU's leadership invested heavily in marketing, online program management, and an operating model that decoupled online growth from on-ground campus economics (Kahn, 2014). Importantly, SNHU has continued to invest in its on-ground residential experience even as online enrollment dwarfed it, illustrating that digital growth and traditional excellence are not mutually exclusive when capital and leadership attention are sufficient.
Georgia State University offers a different learner-centered case—not credential innovation but radical investment in student success analytics and advising. Through predictive analytics, proactive advising, and chatbot-enabled student support, GSU eliminated achievement gaps by race and Pell status in its graduation rates, an outcome rare in U.S. higher education (Renick, 2020). GSU's experience suggests that learner-centered transformation is as much about retention and completion architecture as about new credentials, and that retention improvements often produce more revenue and mission impact than equivalent new-student recruiting investments.
Financial Strategy, Pricing, and Mergers
The fifth lever is financial. Pricing, discount strategy, debt management, and—when warranted—mergers and affiliations are now central strategic tools rather than back-office concerns.
Financial strategy options include:
Financial and structural moves:
Tuition resets that lower sticker price and reduce discount-rate growth, often paired with messaging campaigns
Differentiated pricing by program or modality, reflecting actual costs and market willingness to pay
Strategic mergers and affiliations, ranging from full integration to shared-services partnerships
Endowment and gift strategy aligned to differentiated portfolio priorities, not legacy categories
Asset rationalization, including underutilized real estate and auxiliary enterprises
Some private institutions have executed tuition resets with mixed but instructive results. A reset typically reduces sticker price by 20–40% while compressing discount, ideally yielding stable or improved net tuition revenue alongside an enrollment lift. Outcomes have varied: institutions that paired resets with strong value-proposition messaging and program investment have generally fared better than those that reset price alone (Hillman, 2018).
The merger of Marymount California University into Saint Leo University (and its eventual closure) in 2022, and the closure-and-merger pattern of several small Catholic and liberal-arts colleges, illustrate the harder end of the spectrum. Many late-stage mergers are effectively orderly closures rather than true integrations, reflecting how long institutions often wait before initiating structural conversations. By contrast, the integration of Mills College into Northeastern University in 2022 preserved Mills's historic mission focus on women's education through a named college within a larger institution—a structurally different outcome enabled by earlier leadership engagement and a partner with strategic interest in West Coast expansion (Burke, 2022).
The honest reading of the merger literature is that mergers are not panaceas. They are difficult, expensive, and culturally fraught. But they are sometimes the only mission-protective option, and the institutions that engage from a position of relative strength—two to five years before exigency—generally achieve better outcomes than those that wait (Azziz et al., 2017).
Building Long-Term Institutional Resilience
Beyond the specific levers, three forward-looking pillars deserve sustained leadership attention.
Portfolio Governance as a Permanent Capability
Most institutions still treat program review as episodic. The next era requires portfolio governance as an ongoing capability, embedded in regular cycles rather than triggered by crisis (Dickeson, 2010). This means standing data infrastructure, agreed criteria, faculty-led evaluation processes, and a board that understands portfolio strategy as part of fiduciary duty.
Critically, portfolio governance includes investment, not just discontinuation. Boards and presidents who only ever cut signal a defensive posture that depresses morale and donor confidence. Boards and presidents who simultaneously prune and plant—reallocating resources to high-mission, high-demand, high-quality areas—signal strategic intent. The cadence might look like an annual data review of all programs against shared metrics, a triennial deep review of each school, and an ongoing pipeline of new-program proposals evaluated against the same criteria as existing ones.
Faculty engagement is essential. Portfolio governance imposed top-down rarely succeeds. Portfolio governance co-designed with senate leadership, with clear decision rights and timelines, can succeed even when the underlying decisions are difficult. The principle is procedural fairness: people accept hard outcomes when they perceive the process as legitimate (Tyler, 2006, in organizational-justice literature widely applied to higher education).
Distributed Academic Leadership and Change Capacity
The second pillar is leadership architecture. The "heroic president" model—where a charismatic leader drives transformation alone—no longer fits the complexity or the timeline. What is needed instead is distributed academic leadership: deans, chairs, and faculty leaders equipped with strategic, financial, and change-management literacy, supported by a cabinet that operates as a genuine team.
This is partly a development issue. Most academic leaders enter their roles having been excellent scholars and teachers; few have received formal preparation in financial modeling, portfolio strategy, or organizational design. Investing in academic leadership development—through internal programs, ACE Fellows, AGB programs, and similar offerings—pays compounding dividends as restructuring decisions cascade through schools and departments (Buller, 2015).
It is also a structural issue. Decision rights must be clear: what does a dean own, what does the provost own, what does the board own? Ambiguity here produces either gridlock or unilateralism, both of which damage trust and slow execution. Institutions that have navigated structural change well typically clarified decision rights early and revisited them as the change progressed.
Change capacity, finally, requires a sustained organizational development investment that most institutions underfund. Change-management staff, internal facilitators, and project-management capacity are not luxuries; in the next decade, they are infrastructure.
Continuous Learner-Market Sensing and Identity Coherence
The third pillar is the disciplined practice of listening—to learners, employers, alumni, and communities—and translating what is heard into coherent strategy. Too many institutions oscillate between two failure modes: chasing every market signal (launching programs that dilute identity and fail to build scale) or ignoring market signals entirely (defending a portfolio that no longer serves the learners or the labor market).
The healthier middle is continuous learner-market sensing: regular qualitative and quantitative engagement with prospective students, current students, employers, and alumni, integrated with labor-market data, regional demographic data, and competitive analysis. The output is not a list of programs to launch but a clearer picture of where the institution's distinctive contribution—its mission, expertise, and community—intersects with durable demand (Selingo, 2013).
The companion to market sensing is identity coherence. Institutions that try to be everything end up being nothing in particular. The institutions that thrive in concentrated and differentiated sectors are those that can articulate, with specificity, what they are excellent at, for whom, and why it matters. That clarity then guides portfolio choices, hiring, marketing, and donor engagement. It does not mean abandoning breadth; it means ensuring that breadth serves a coherent identity rather than substituting for one.
Christensen and Eyring (2011) observed that universities have historically resisted disruption by emulating each other—each adding programs, research, and amenities until cost structures became unsustainable. The way out, they argued, is differentiation grounded in mission, not imitation grounded in prestige. That argument is more relevant now than when it was written.
Conclusion
The structural transformation of U.S. higher education is not a temporary turbulence. It is a re-baselining of the sector. The institutions that adapt early will shape the next era. The institutions that delay may not survive it.
The work is not mysterious, even if it is hard:
Treat portfolio strategy as ongoing, not episodic, with transparent criteria, faculty engagement, and both pruning and planting.
Redesign the operating model to fit current and projected scale, consolidating shared services where appropriate and using data to right-size facilities and course portfolios.
Match the workforce to the delivery model the institution actually has and intends to have, with deliberate faculty differentiation and investment in the staff roles that drive student success.
Innovate the credential and the experience, meeting learners where they are, with transparent outcomes and quality on par with traditional offerings.
Use financial and structural tools—pricing, discount management, mergers, asset rationalization—proactively, before exigency narrows the choice set.
Across all of this, leadership matters more than ever. Boards and presidents who engage early, communicate honestly, design fair processes, and protect mission while reshaping operations will give their institutions a chance not just to survive the cliff but to define the landscape that comes after it. Those who defer the work, communicate evasively, or treat restructuring as a purely financial exercise will find their options narrowing each cycle.
The "comprehensive everything-for-everyone" model is fading. What replaces it can be richer, more focused, and more deeply aligned with the learners and communities each institution exists to serve—if leadership chooses to do the strategic work, and chooses now.
Research Infographic
References
American Association of University Professors. (2023). The annual report on the economic status of the profession, 2022–23. AAUP.
Azziz, R., Hentschke, G. C., Jacobs, B. C., Jacobs, L. A., & Ladd, H. (2017). Mergers in higher education: A proactive strategy to a better future? TIAA Institute.
Bowen, W. G. (2013). Higher education in the digital age. Princeton University Press.
Brenan, M. (2023, July 11). Americans' confidence in higher education down sharply. Gallup News.
Buller, J. L. (2015). The essential academic dean or provost: A comprehensive desk reference (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Burke, L. (2022, June 30). Mills, Northeastern complete merger. Inside Higher Ed.
Carnevale, A. P., Cheah, B., & Wenzinger, E. (2021). The college payoff: More education doesn't always mean more earnings. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
Christensen, C. M., & Eyring, H. J. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. Jossey-Bass.
Connecticut State Colleges and Universities. (2023). CT State Community College: Year one report. Connecticut Board of Regents for Higher Education.
Council of Independent Colleges. (2021). Online course sharing among CIC institutions: Lessons from the consortium. CIC.
Crow, M. M., & Dabars, W. B. (2015). Designing the new American university. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Deloitte. (2022). 2022 higher education industry outlook. Deloitte Center for Higher Education Excellence.
Dickeson, R. C. (2010). Prioritizing academic programs and services: Reallocating resources to achieve strategic balance (Rev. ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Drezner, N. D. (2018). Philanthropic mirroring: Exploring identity-based fundraising in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(3), 261–293.
Eaton, J. S. (2022). An overview of U.S. accreditation. Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
Flaherty, C. (2018, March 6). Killing liberal arts at Stevens Point. Inside Higher Ed.
Grawe, N. D. (2018). Demographics and the demand for higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Grawe, N. D. (2021). The agile college: How institutions successfully navigate demographic changes. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hillman, N. W. (2018). Tuition discounting and institutional aid patterns at public and private colleges and universities. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 33, pp. 1–48). Springer.
Jenkins, D., & Fink, J. (2020). Unlocking opportunity through broadly accessible institutions. Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Kahn, G. (2014, January 2). The amazing untold story of how Southern New Hampshire University reinvented itself. Slate.
Knox, L. (2023, September 18). What WVU's transformation means for the rest of higher ed. Inside Higher Ed.
Lederman, D. (2024). The college closure landscape. Inside Higher Ed.
Moody, J. (2023, June 30). Bloomfield-Montclair merger complete. Inside Higher Ed.
Moody's Investors Service. (2024). Higher education sector outlook: 2024. Moody's.
National Association of College and University Business Officers. (2023). 2022 NACUBO tuition discounting study. NACUBO.
Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. (2022). Integrations: Pennsylvania Western University and Commonwealth University. PASSHE.
Pulsipher, S. (2018). Beyond the iron triangle: Containing the cost of college and student debt. American Enterprise Institute.
Renick, T. (2020). How to best deliver student success: Lessons from Georgia State University. In M. R. Brown & T. Renick (Eds.), Building a culture of student success. American Council on Education.
Selingo, J. J. (2013). College (un)bound: The future of higher education and what it means for students. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Sigelman, M., Taska, B., O'Kane, L., Nitschke, J., & Strack, R. (2022). Skills-based hiring: The long road from pronouncements to practice. Burning Glass Institute.
Tarrant, M., Bray, N., & Katsinas, S. (2018). The invisible colleges revisited: An empirical review. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(3), 341–367.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. (2020). Knocking at the college door: Projections of high school graduates (10th ed.). WICHE.
Zemsky, R., Shaman, S., & Baldridge, S. C. (2020). The college stress test: Tracking institutional futures across a crowded market. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Research Officer (Nexus Institute for Work and AI); Associate Dean and Director of HR Academic Programs (WGU); Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD/HR/Leadership Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2026). When the Cliff Becomes the Ground: Strategic Portfolio Transformation in U.S. Higher Education. Human Capital Leadership Review, 34(2). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.34.2.5
