Sweeping shifts in federal policy, the rapid emergence of AI technologies, and the growth of non-degree credentials are just some of the forces reshaping postsecondary education. Against this backdrop, the narrative around the value of college has become increasingly contested, with public skepticism rising even as the economic returns for degree holders remain substantial.
Yet responses have too often defaulted to institutional self-preservation: cost-cutting and short-term crisis management that cannot reverse deeper structural pressures that the sector faces. Stabilizing a campus is not the same as sustaining a sector—and if postsecondary education is serious about self-regulation, it must start acting like it knows the difference. We must work toward the needs of the many, even when doing so is difficult or uncomfortable for few or one.
We are pushing the limits of short-term fixes
Too often, sector reforms focus narrowly on accountability or affordability, while ignoring deeper structural challenges, such as demographic shifts, employer skepticism about degree value, credentials misaligned with workforce needs, and unsustainable pricing models. Current federal policy priorities increasingly frame postsecondary education as short-term workforce development, and reactive policy discussions often pit that mission against everything else, even though they can easily exist together (and have, for decades).
The problem is structural: current incentives reward competition for the same shrinking pool of students, high-price models, dependence on international students, and program expansion disconnected from labor demand. Meanwhile, the system fails to reward—if not even penalizes at times—the very behaviors that could strengthen the sector: voluntarily downsizing for system health, exiting overcrowded program markets, pooling administrative functions, coordinating closures or mergers, and prioritizing regional access over institutional growth.
Postsecondary education leaders know reform is needed. ACE’s most recent Pulse Point survey shows broad acknowledgement that the status quo can’t hold. However, awareness alone won’t produce change, and institutions can’t act alone.
Sector change is happening by default
The current moment requires distinguishing between the value of postsecondary education itself and public trust in the institutions that provide it. While confidence in colleges and universities has fluctuated in recent years, the need for postsecondary education—and the value it delivers to individuals, communities, and the broader economy—remains. The challenge for institutions is demonstrating how effectively they deliver on that promise.
To be sure, the market plays a substantial role in reshaping postsecondary education. Vulnerable institutions are already going through closures, mergers, and shifts to new operating models. But this is happening unevenly and reactively, not strategically. Markets are thus positioned to eliminate institutions, not preserve public value.
If we treat these big challenges as a form of “survival of the fittest,” we will not be able to transform the sector at scale. Market logic favors well-resourced institutions, those with elite brands, and those located near urban settings, while leaving behind institutions serving rural communities, first-generation students, and regional mobility pipelines.
Markets also tend to focus on the short-term returns to individuals, employers, and the economy; thus, they alone will not produce a healthy, equitable, or sustainable postsecondary education ecosystem. Often isolated reactions to markets contribute to fragmented access, deepened stratification, and increased likelihood of external regulation. Instead, the sector needs to lead with more intentional coordination within itself.
Self-regulation toward sustainability
Postsecondary education has claimed it is better positioned to self-regulate than to be regulated by the government. Yet if postsecondary education cannot demonstrate that it can course-correct itself, state legislatures, federal agencies, and accreditors operating under political pressure are more than happy to step in. This moment presents an opportunity to test not the limits of the current system but the potential of postsecondary education to act collectively on behalf of the students and communities we are built to serve.
True self-regulation requires leaders to act as fiduciaries of public trust, promote system-level coordination across institutions, and facilitate hard conversations—even when they make some leaders uncomfortable. The shift from protecting individual institutional interests to stewarding sector-wide sustainability is not optional but rather an obligation tied to postsecondary education’s social contract. The question is not which institutions survive but whether the sector maintains its collective capacity to serve learners and society, and what structural changes are necessary to do so.
National associations can play a convening role in this effort, but they cannot act alone. In the highly decentralized system of U.S. postsecondary education, an association is merely a vehicle. Without fuel, the car will just idly sit on a driveway. The fuel is the will of colleges and universities to act on behalf of the collective interests of the sector, not for the survival of individual institutions.
We know this fuel is not free, and that some will be asked to contribute more than others.
But without coordinated action, we risk losing the key feature that enables postsecondary education to build America: the diversity of institutional types and missions.
So, what does collective action actually look like in practice? For one, it does not require a single solution. It can take many practical forms. In some states and regions, institutions are already aligning program offerings and enrollment strategies with demographic realities. Shared services models—pooling administrative functions such as procurement, IT, and back-office operations—are gaining traction at several colleges to reduce costs while protecting academic programs. Additionally, through associations, work is taking place to improve credit evaluation processes, expand transfer and articulation agreements, and align workforce partnerships—work that could be expanded and formalized across more of the sector.
These efforts introduce a degree of coordination that helps maintain access, institutional diversity, and the long-term stability of the sector. However, none of these steps eliminate competition.
A moral obligation toward a more strategic vision
Beyond strategy and sustainability, there is also a moral dimension to the current trajectory. What benefit is there to delay the inevitable?
A sector that collapses one institution at a time harms students midway through their programs, employees in unstable positions, and communities where an institution is woven into daily life. Planned transitions are far less harmful than abrupt closures. Collective action can cushion local economies, protect access in places markets won’t serve, and ensure that when change comes, it is planned—not imposed.
The goal must be to build the future, not cling to the past. This means fewer but stronger institutions, clearer pathways through postsecondary education and beyond, and real alignment with labor market demands. Whether postsecondary education will lead this transformation deliberately and equitably, or whether it will allow market forces and external regulators to impose it chaotically—we know the path forward.
If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.
