June 2, 2025, by Dean Hoke: In the ongoing debate about the future of higher education, small colleges are often overlooked—yet they are indispensable. On May 21st, Higher Education Digest published my article, “Small Colleges Are Essential to American Higher Education,” in which I make the case for why these institutions remain vital to our national educational fabric.
Small colleges may not grab headlines, but they provide transformative experiences, especially for first-generation students, rural communities, and those seeking a deeply personal education. As financial pressures mount and demographic shifts continue, it’s easy to underestimate the impact of these campuses—but doing so comes at a cost. These schools are not only educators; they are regional economic engines, community partners, and laboratories for innovation.
In the article, I outline key reasons why we need to support and strengthen small colleges, including their unique role in economic development, workforce provider, and civic engagement. I also explore the consequences of neglecting this sector and what we can do about it.
I hope you’ll take a few minutes to read the whole piece and share it with your colleagues and networks. Read the article here.
As always, I welcome your thoughts and reflections.
Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean is the Executive Producer and co-host for the podcast series Small College America.
This high school wood shop, built in 1954, will not qualify for modernization funding until the district brings an outside entranceway added in the 1970s up to code – an additional expense that Anderson Valley cannot afford, according to Superintendent Louise Simson.
Courtesy: Anderson Valley Unified School District
Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature are wrestling over how to dole out facilities funding for the projected November ballot bond initiative, and my fear is that when all is said and done, small rural school districts will not get their fair funding share at the table. The result will be that students attending schools that have the least political power and the highest facility needs will be, once again, left behind. And more often than not, those are students who are socio-economically disadvantaged and of color. Sadly, the quality of a student’s educational facilities experience in California has become defined by a student’s ZIP code.
Too often, our small rural school systems, which are facing extreme enrollment decline and a lack of bonding capacity, lag far behind nearby more populated school districts. It is unfathomable to me why a student 45 minutes away can receive one educational experience, while students in a small rural district receive another.
During my superintendency at Anderson Valley Unified School District, a 70-year-old school system in rural Mendocino County, I was faced with facilities that were in an extreme state of deterioration. An unincorporated town of just 1,650 people had passed a bond measure back in 2012; but the $8 million they were able to get out was nowhere near enough to remediate the aging infrastructure.
When I arrived in 2021, the community stepped up again, passing an additional $13 million bond with an overwhelming 71% of the vote. With assessed valuations so low and with no real estate development on the horizon due to a lack of a municipal water and sewer system infrastructure, we were only able to pull out $6 million. Throw in on top of that two failed septic systems requiring replacement that topped$1 million with the indignity of students and staff using porta-potties for four months; a plethora of classrooms that hadn’t been touched since Dwight Eisenhower was president; and buildings that were out of compliance with mold and seismic codes, and you have the picture of instructional facilities inequity that just made the instructional divide even greater. And we are not alone. Similar conditions are common for those that don’t have a powerful voice in the Legislature and the lobbying community.
Small, rural districts like mine are run by a district office of three or four people. We are just trying to keep up with the tsunami of reports that the California Department of Education expects us to produce and, in our spare time, do what is best for kids. Wealthier districts exacerbate the disparity with their massive education foundations that create endowment programs that provide even more opportunity for those that need it the least.
It is time for the governor and the Legislature to give students in these crumbling school systems their fair share and create some educational equity on the facilities side. The bureaucracy of the hardship application process is not doable for small rural school systems to navigate by themselves. Small districts end up taking what little money they have for facilities and spending it on expensive consultants that know their stuff but cost the equivalent of a monthly teacher’s salary, to move the applications through the process.
Governor, if you want educational equity, this is how you create it:
I don’t need technical assistance. I need money to navigate the process. Allocate a funding stream for small rural schools systems to contract with architects and consultants to move applications through the facilities-hardship process outside my existing budget.
If a facility is more than 50 years old and hasn’t been remodeled, let’s use some common sense and engage in a different process. I shouldn’t have to demonstrate mold, seismic or structural hazards. This building is not an equitable learning environment for kids. Let’s get it done and stop the busy work.
I hope that the governor and legislative partners hear the plea of our rural students and leaders and don’t leave us behind again. What has gone on in the disproportionality of school facility funding for decades and decades will eventually be tested in the court systems, if something doesn’t change, and the poor condition of the deteriorating rural sites will attest to a judgment that will prevail.
Education in California should be based on equal opportunity to access quality programs and facilities, no matter where you live or whether your parents pick crops or work in tech. Something has got to change on the funding and facilities side if we want to talk about real equity for all kids.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
May 19, 2025, by Dean Hoke: In my recent blog series and podcast, Small College America, I’ve highlighted the essential role small colleges play in the fabric of U.S. higher education. These institutions serve as academic homes to students who often desire alternatives to larger universities, and as cultural and economic anchors, especially in rural and small-town America, where, according to IPEDS, 324 private nonprofit colleges operate. Many are deeply embedded in the towns they serve, providing jobs, educational access, cultural life, and long-term economic opportunity.
Unfortunately, a wave of proposed federal budget cuts may further severely compromise these institutions’ ability to function—and in some cases, survive. Without intervention, the ripple effects could devastate entire communities.
Understanding the DOE and USDA Budget Cuts
The proposed reductions to the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) budgets present a two-pronged threat to small colleges, particularly those in rural areas or serving low-income student populations.
Department of Education (DOE)
The most significant concerns center on proposed changes to Pell Grants, a vital financial resource for low-income students. One House proposal would redefine full-time enrollment from 12 to 15 credit hours per semester. If enacted, this change would reduce the average Pell Grant by approximately $1,479 for students taking 12 credits. Students enrolled less than half-time could become ineligible entirely.
Additionally, the Federal Work-Study (FWS) and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG) programs face serious threats. The House Appropriations Subcommittee has proposed eliminating both programs, which together provide over $2 billion annually in aid to low-income students.
Programs like TRIO and GEAR UP, which support first-generation, low-income, and underrepresented students, have been targeted in previous proposals; however, current budget drafts maintain level funding. Nonetheless, their future remains uncertain as negotiations continue.
The Title III Strengthening Institutions Program, which funds academic support services, infrastructure, and student retention efforts at under-resourced colleges, received a proposed funding increase in the FY 2024 President’s Budget, though congressional appropriations may differ.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
The USDA’s impact on small colleges, while less direct, is nonetheless critical. Discretionary funding was reduced by more than $380 million in FY 2024, reflecting a general pullback in rural investment.
Programs like the Community Facilities Direct Loan & Grant Program, which supports broadband access, healthcare facilities, and community infrastructure, were level-funded at $2.8 billion. These investments often benefit rural colleges directly or indirectly by enhancing the communities in which they operate.
While some funding has been maintained, the broader trend suggests tighter resources for rural development in the years ahead. For small colleges embedded in these communities, the consequences could be substantial: delayed infrastructure upgrades, reduced student access to services, and weakened town-gown partnerships.
Why Small Colleges Are Particularly Vulnerable
Small private nonprofit colleges—typically enrolling fewer than 3,000 students—operate on thin margins. Many are tuition-dependent, with over 80% of their operating revenue derived from tuition and fees. They lack the substantial endowments or large alumni donor bases that buoy more prominent institutions during hard times.
What exacerbates their vulnerability is the student profile they serve. Small colleges disproportionately enroll Pell-eligible, first-generation, and minority students. Reductions in federal financial aid and student support programs have a direct impact on student enrollment and retention. If students can’t afford to enroll—or stay enrolled—colleges see revenue declines, leading to cuts in academic offerings, faculty, and student services.
Additionally, small colleges are often located in areas experiencing population decline. The so-called “demographic cliff”—a projected 13% drop in the number of high school graduates from 2025 to 2041 will affect 38 states and is expected to hit rural and non-urban regions the hardest. This compounds the enrollment challenges many small colleges are already facing.
Economic and Social Impact on Rural Towns
The closure of a small college doesn’t just mean the loss of a school; it signifies a seismic shift in a community’s economic and social structure. Colleges often rank among the top employers in their towns. When a college closes, hundreds of jobs disappear—faculty, staff, groundskeepers, maintenance, food services, IT professionals, and more.
Consider Mount Pleasant, Iowa, where the closure of Iowa Wesleyan University in 2023 cost the local economy an estimated $55 million annually. Businesses that relied on student and faculty patronage—restaurants, barbershops, bookstores, and even landlords—felt the immediate impact. Community organizations lost vital volunteers. Town officials were left scrambling to figure out what to do with a sprawling, empty campus in the heart of their city.
Colleges also provide cultural enrichment that is often otherwise absent in small towns. Lectures, concerts, art exhibitions, and sporting events bring together diverse groups and add vibrancy to the local culture. Many offer healthcare clinics, counseling centers, or continuing education for adults—services that disappear with a campus closure.
USDA investments in these communities are often tied to colleges, whether in the form of shared infrastructure, grant-funded development projects, or broadband expansions to support online learning. As these federal investments diminish, so too does a town’s ability to attract and retain both residents and employers.
Real-Life Implications and Stories
The headlines tell one story, but the real impact is felt in the lives of students, faculty, and the surrounding communities.
Presentation College in Aberdeen, South Dakota, ceased operations on October 31, 2023, after citing unsustainable financial and enrollment challenges. Hundreds of students, many drawn to its affordability, rural location, and nursing programs, were forced to reconsider their futures. The college quickly arranged teach-out agreements with over 30 institutions, including Northern State University and St. Ambrose University, which offered pathways for students to complete their degrees. The Presentation Sisters, the founding order, are now seeking a buyer for the campus aligned with their values, while local officials explore transforming the site into a technical education hub to continue serving the community.
Birmingham-Southern College in Alabama, a 168-year-old institution, closed its doors on May 31, 2024, after a $30 million state-backed loan request was ultimately rejected despite initial legislative support. The college had a $128 million annual economic impact on Birmingham and maintained partnerships with K–12 schools, correctional institutions, and nonprofits. The closure triggered the transfer of over 150 students to nearby colleges like Samford University, but left faculty, staff, and the broader community facing economic and cultural losses. A proposed sale of the campus to Miles College fell through, leaving the site’s future in limbo.
Even college leaders who have weathered the past decade worry they’re nearing a breaking point. Rachel Burns of the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) has tracked dozens of recent closures and warns that many institutions remain at serious risk, despite their best efforts. “They just can’t rebound enrollment,” she says, noting that pandemic aid only temporarily masked deeper structural vulnerabilities.
Potential Closures and Projections
College closures are accelerating across the United States. According to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO), 467 institutions closed between 2004 and 2020—over 20% of them private, nonprofit four-year colleges. Since 2020, at least 75 more nonprofit colleges have shut down, and many experts believe this pace is quickening.
A 2023 analysis by EY-Parthenon warned that 1 in 10 four-year institutions—roughly 200 to 230 colleges—are currently in financial jeopardy. These schools are often small, private, rural, and tuition-dependent, serving large numbers of first-generation and Pell-eligible students. Even a modest drop of 5–10% in tuition revenue can be catastrophic for colleges already operating on razor-thin margins.
Compounding the challenge, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia released a 2024 predictive model forecasting that as many as 80 additional colleges could close by 2034 under sustained enrollment decline driven by demographic shifts. This figure accounts for closures only—not mergers—and spans public, private nonprofit, and for-profit sectors.
Layered onto these economic and demographic vulnerabilities are the potential impacts of proposed federal education funding cuts. The Trump administration’s FY 2026 budget blueprint once again targets student aid programs, proposing the elimination or severe reduction of subsidized student loans, TRIO, GEAR UP, Federal Work-Study, and the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (SEOG). Although similar proposals from Trump’s first term (FY 2018–2021) were rejected by Congress, the renewed push signals ongoing political pressure to curtail support for low-income and first-generation students.
To assess the potential impact of these policy shifts, a policy stress test was applied to both the Philadelphia Fed model and the historical closure trend. The analysis suggests that if these cuts were enacted, an additional 50 to 70 closures could occur by 2034.
Philadelphia Fed model baseline: 80 projected closures
With policy cuts: Up to 130 closures
Historical average trend (2020–2024): ~14 closures/year
10-year projection (status quo): ~140 closures
With policy cuts: Up to 210 closures
In short, depending on the scenario, anywhere from 130 to 210 additional college closures may occur by 2034. Institutions most at risk are those that serve the very populations these federal programs are designed to support. Without intervention—through policy, partnerships, or funding—the number of closures could rise sharply in the years ahead.
These scenario-based projections are summarized in the chart below.
Why Should Congress Care
According to the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), a private, nonprofit college or university is located in 395 of the 435 congressional districts. These institutions are not only centers of learning but also powerful economic engines that generate:
$591.5 billion in national economic impact
$77.6 billion in combined local, state, and federal tax revenue
3.4 million jobs supported or sustained
1.1 million people are directly employed in private nonprofit higher education
1.1 million graduates are entering the workforce each year
As such, the fate of small private colleges is not just a higher education issue—it is a national economic and workforce development issue that should command bipartisan attention.
Strategies for Resilience and Policy Recommendations
There are clear, actionable strategies to reduce the risk of widespread college closures:
Consortium and shared governance models: Small colleges can boost efficiency and sustainability by sharing administrative functions, faculty, academic programs, technology infrastructure, and enrollment services. This allows institutions to reduce operational costs while maintaining their distinct missions and brands. In some cases, these arrangements evolve into formal mergers. An emerging example is the Coalition for the Common Good, a new model of mission-aligned institutions that maintain individual identities but operate under shared governance. This structure offers long-term financial stability without sacrificing institutional purpose or community impact.
Strategic partnerships: Collaborations with community colleges, online education providers, regional employers, and nonprofit organizations can expand reach, enhance curricular offerings, and improve student outcomes. These partnerships can support 2+2 transfer pipelines, workforce-aligned certificate programs, and hybrid learning models that meet the needs of adult learners and working professionals, often underserved by traditional residential colleges.
State action: States should establish stabilization grant programs and offer targeted incentive funding to support mergers, consortium participation, and regional collaboration. Policies that protect institutional access in rural and underserved areas are especially urgent, as closures can leave entire regions without viable higher education options. States can also play a role in convening institutions to plan for shared services and long-term viability.
Federal investment: Continued and expanded funding for Pell Grants, TRIO, SEOG, Title III and V, and USDA rural development programs is essential to sustaining the institutions that serve low-income, first-generation, and rural students. These investments should be treated as critical infrastructure, not discretionary spending, given their role in expanding educational equity, enhancing workforce readiness, and promoting rural economic development. Consistent federal support can help stabilize small colleges and enable long-term planning.
College leaders, local governments, and community groups must advocate in unison. The conversation should move beyond institutional survival to one of community survival. As the saying goes, when a college dies, the town begins to die with it.
Conclusion
Small colleges are not expendable. They are vital threads in the educational, economic, and cultural fabric of America, especially in rural and underserved communities. The proposed federal budget cuts across the Departments of Education and Agriculture represent a direct threat not only to these institutions but to the communities that depend on them.
If policymakers fail to act, the consequences will be widespread and enduring. The domino effect is real: reduced funding leads to fewer students, tighter budgets, staff layoffs, program cuts, and eventually, campus closures. And when those campuses close, entire towns are left to absorb the fallout—economically, socially, and spiritually.
We have a choice. We can invest in the future of small colleges and the communities they anchor, or we can stand by as they vanish—along with the promise they hold for millions of students and the towns they call home.
References
U.S. Department of Education, FY 2025 Budget Summary and Justifications
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA), Analysis of Proposed Pell Grant and Campus-Based Aid Reductions
State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) and Higher Ed Dive, Data on College Closures and Institutional Viability Trends
Fitch Ratings, Reports on Financial Pressures in U.S. Higher Education Institutions
Iowa Public Radio and The Hechinger Report, Case Studies on Rural College Closures and Community Impact
Council for Opportunity in Education (COE), Statements and Data on TRIO Program Reach and Effectiveness
Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Predictive Modeling of U.S. College Closures (2024)
EY-Parthenon, 2023 Report on Financial Vulnerability Among Four-Year Institutions
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Development and Community Facilities Loan & Grant Program Summaries
Interviews and commentary from institutional leaders, TRIO program directors, and SHEEO policy staff
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Data on Enrollment, Institution Type, and Geographic Distribution
Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean is the Executive Producer and co-host for the podcast series Small College America.
Mark Twain Union is a small rural elementary school district in Calaveras County serving some 700 students.
Credit: Louise Simson / Mark Twain Union Elementary School District
I believe in accountability and performance. My years in the private sector showed me a way of doing business that is accountable for funds spent and services delivered.
But one government accountability measure — the Federal Program Monitoring (FPM) review — is an exercise in compliance that places a disproportionate burden on small school districts and takes desperately needed resources away from our kids. It is set up for large districts that can devote a full-time staff person to manage the process, attend the trainings, and upload the tsunami of documents that are required, but it forces small districts like mine to invest thousands of dollars in consultants and software just to file the paperwork.
The intention of this process is to ensure that a local education agency is meeting statutory program and fiscal requirements for categorical funding — targeted for programs serving low-income and special needs students, among others. These funds can range from thousands of dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars or more based on the size of the district. That’s all good in theory, but in reality, it has turned into a paper-pushing time suck for small school districts.
I recently assumed the helm of an impoverished small school district in the Calaveras foothills after rehabbing facilities in dire need in Mendocino County for another district. In my current district office, there are four staff members, two principals, plus me to serve 700 kids. There are no curriculum or special ed directors, no director of student services and no program managers. An $11 million budget for 700 kids doesn’t go very far with facilities that are 70 years old, and everyone wears multiple hats to make the system go.
When I arrived last July, I learned that we were in the monitoring review. I was grateful that California Department of Education (CDE) representatives who oversee the process agreed to push the review out to this September to allow me time to get situated.
However, the whole exercise needs to be examined through the lens of the resources of a small district. Here’s what we faced:
First, there is a week of webinars in August that district coordinators — or in the case of small districts, superintendents — are supposed to attend. Let’s get real. My first priority in August is getting school open for kids, not sitting in front of a webcam. When I raise this concern, I’m told, “Can’t you have someone else watch them?”
My response: “Who? The two principals, one of whom is brand new, who are getting their school sites ready for the fall term? The person in my office who does purchasing and has curriculum orders flowing in? The personnel assistant coordinating critical hires and also managing payroll, or the executive assistant who is also the food service director? Which person won’t be able to do their job because of a multiday seminar ill-timed for August?
I understand that this is a federal requirement. But I also know CDE has influence over the review requirement process. It is time for CDE to start advocating on behalf of small under-resourced districts with the federal government.
The department should know that the monitoring process for small districts diverts money from their limited, cash-strapped budgets to pay for part-time consultants or expensive software, because no small district office can manage the requirements alone.
Let’s also be realistic about the number of areas of reporting required in the review. I acknowledge my new district is in need of improvement in a couple of important areas. I would be happy to explore those two items. But it is not realistic to expect a district with a small staff to report on a smorgasbord of “indicators” that the review committee has determined require examination.
CDE staff, many of them who are still enjoying the luxury of working at home two or three days a week, need to come out into the field, walk my walk, and start making regulations and reports that reflect the best interest of all involved, not just the accountants and program reviewers.
Here’s how we can improve:
Record and post all FPM audit seminars. Asking district staff to attend a solid week of webinars the week before school opens proves that Sacramento is out of touch with life in the field. (As of mid-July, some session recordings were posted, but it wasn’t an option that was offered when I asked.)
Limit the number of areas of scope for small school districts proportionate to the staff ratio in the district office.
Provide funding directly to districts, not the county office, for a consultant to support the process. CDE has invented another industry with the review process. Just look online and see all the different software and consultants who make money off of assisting districts, taking money away from kids. Instead, just apportion each district $50,000 for the review so that we can staff it appropriately.
Work with school sites on the dates and areas of review before you assign them. Reach out the year in advance and ask for some potential windows for the audit and self-identified areas of reflection. Work as a partner, not as a dictator. A small school district (or any district) notified in May of a September review (which means all documents must be submitted by August), where the program instruments are not ready until July, training is not held until August, and the place you upload documents is not ready until July …is ridiculous. Avoid August-October reviews for small districts — or, if there is no alternative — notify them earlier and have the resources ready to go in a timely manner. Move up the CDE deadlines to make more sense for schools.
The federal review is not intended to be a gotcha exercise. But small, rural districts don’t have the workforce to devote to the process. The bureaucracy of one size fits all is strangling us. It’s time for a change.
•••
Louise Simson is the superintendent of Mark Twain Union Elementary School District and former superintendent of Anderson Valley Unified School District.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
Louise Simpson, superintendent of Mark Twain Union Elementary School District in Angles Camp, near Yosemite, is frustrated by state rules restricting how small rural districts like hers can spend expanded learning funding.
That was such a well-intentioned and important program for so many districts. It’s known by the acronym ELOP, and it was designed to make additional learning and enrichment opportunities in the school day. But it brought some really burdensome requirements with it, including a 9-hour day and 30 extra days of school.
And while that sounds really great, what’s happened for our small rural districts, is the reality of creating a program just isn’t feasible. And I’ll tell you why:
First, my kids are on the bus for more than an hour each way. They already have a big long day, and adding academics after school for enrichment is not super feasible for two reasons: One is we have a very difficult time finding qualified staff to run it. And the second one is, with the bus-driver shortage, we just don’t have the transportation.
So, many kids that would benefit from this program really don’t have the opportunity, and they are being left behind.
Our budget situation is so, so dire with steep declining enrollment, and we need to use the money that we’re already allocated for super-effective programs.
I came out of retirement this year because this little system was struggling, and only one in 10 kids are proficient in math and only one in four can read — and that’s unconscionable.
And I can fix it, but I need some help using the money that’s already been given to me to use during the day. We have a really cool program that we built with the Sierra K-16 Collaborative Partnership involving peer tutors. It allowed me to get $320,000 to fund an intervention teacher and pay 20 high school kids to come in and tutor my kids. And it’s working, but those funds expire in a year.
I need that ELOP money to be made flexible so that I can teach our kids the core foundational skills they need to be successful. That includes being able to use it during the school day. So many folks can’t find a way to make this funding effective that they’re actually giving it back, and that’s not okay.
We need to come to some agreements where it can be working for everyone. Let me take and share with you what unrestricting these funds could really do for kids.
This is our peer tutoring program. It’s funded in conjunction with Sierra K16.
(short video of tutors working with students)
I hope you’ll join me in reaching out to all of our legislators and asking them to provide small rural districts flexibility in how we use those funds.
February 17, 2025, by Dean Hoke: This profile of Earlham College is the second in a series presenting small colleges throughout the United States.
Background
Founded in 1847 in Richmond, Indiana, Earlham College is a private liberal arts institution with deep Quaker roots. The college maintains its commitment to principles such as integrity, peace, social justice, and community engagement, which shape both its academic and extracurricular life. Despite its modest size, Earlham has built a reputation for academic rigor, experiential learning, and global perspectives. Dr. Paul Sniegowski, a biologist and former dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania, has served as President since August 2024.
For the 2023-24 academic year, U.S. News & World Report estimates Earlham’s total annual cost (including tuition, housing, and other expenses) at $53,930, with an average net price after aid of $25,496.
Curricula
Earlham College offers a diverse range of undergraduate programs, with popular majors including Biology, Environmental Science, International Studies, Business, and Psychology. The college places a strong emphasis on interdisciplinary learning, allowing students to engage in cross-disciplinary courses and independent research. The Epic Advantage Program provides students with up to $5,000 in funding for hands-on learning experiences, such as internships, field studies, and international travel.
The college also offers a 3+2 Engineering Program, where students spend three years at Earlham before transferring to an affiliated university, such as Columbia or Case Western Reserve, to complete an engineering degree. This dual-degree approach combines the benefits of a liberal arts education with technical training, preparing students for careers in engineering, business, and technology fields.
Strengths
Commitment to Experiential Learning – Programs like Epic Advantage provide students with real-world experience, enhancing their competitiveness in the job market.
Strong International Focus – Nearly 70% of Earlham students study abroad, and the college has partnerships with institutions worldwide.
Small Class Sizes – With a 9:1 student-faculty ratio, Earlham offers personalized attention and mentoring opportunities.
Values-Driven Education – Quaker principles of peace, social justice, and ethical leadership are embedded in the curriculum and campus culture.
Strong Science and Environmental Programs – The Joseph Moore Museum and expansive natural study areas provide unique hands-on research opportunities.
Weaknesses
Financial Stability Challenges – Like many small liberal arts colleges, Earlham faces financial pressures, including declining enrollment and reliance on tuition revenue.
Leadership Continuity – Since 2011, Earlham has had four Presidents and one interim.
Limited Graduate Programs – Earlham focuses almost exclusively on undergraduate education, which may limit options for students seeking to continue their studies within the same institution.
Limited Name Recognition – Despite its strong academic reputation, Earlham struggles with brand recognition outside the Midwest and higher education circles.
Economic Impact
Earlham College is a major economic driver in Richmond, Indiana, and the surrounding region. The college employs hundreds of faculty and staff, supports local businesses, and contributes significantly to the local economy.
According to the Independent Colleges of Indiana, Earlham College has a total economic impact of $76 million on the state and has created nearly 725 jobs in Indiana. LinkedIn data suggests the college has nearly 9,000 alumni, with 1,400 residing in Indiana and 366 in the Richmond area.
Through programs like the Center for Social Justice and the Bonner Scholars Program, Earlham students engage in community service projects throughout Richmond. The college also frequently hosts cultural and educational events open to the public, further integrating itself into the civic life of the region.
Enrollment Trends
Earlham College has experienced a decline in full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment over the past decade. In the 2013-14 academic year, enrollment stood at 1,159 students, dropping to 677 students in 2022-23. In the 2024 academic year, undergraduate FTE enrollment was 691.33 in the fall and 620.33 in the spring, reflecting ongoing challenges in retention and recruitment.
Degrees Awarded by Major
In 2024, Earlham College awarded 123 undergraduate degrees, including 84 single majors, 18 double majors, and one triple major. The distribution by major category is as follows:
Alumni
According to Earlham’s First-Destination Survey Report (2019-23):
28% of graduates continue their education within six months of graduation.
57% are employed within six months.
The top five employment industries are Education, Healthcare, Internet & Software, and Research.
Nearly 50% of alumni pursue graduate or professional school within 10 years.
Notable Alumni:
Michael C. Hall (1993) – Emmy-nominated actor (Dexter, Six Feet Under).
Margaret Hamilton (1958) – NASA software engineer, led Apollo Program flight software development.
Michael Shellenberger (1993) – Author and journalist on free speech and environmental policy.
Venus Williams (2015) – Former World No. 1 tennis player and Olympic gold medalist.
Wendell Meredith Stanley (1926) – Nobel Prize-winning chemist in virus research.
Endowment and Financial Standing
Earlham College’s current endowment is $419 million, down from $475 million in 2021. Financial challenges stem from declining enrollment and reduced tuition revenue. In FY 2023, the college reported a net loss of $11.1 million.
Despite these challenges, Forbes (2024) rated Earlham A- with a 3.499 GPA, signaling relative financial resilience. The college is actively implementing strategic budget adjustments and seeking alternative revenue sources to ensure long-term sustainability.
Why Earlham Remains Relevant
In an era where liberal arts colleges must justify their value, Earlham College stands out for its values-driven, experiential education. Its commitment to academic excellence, social responsibility, and global engagement makes it an attractive option for students looking for more than just a degree.
Earlham’s focus on sustainability, diversity, and international collaboration positions it as a model institution that integrates ethical leadership with practical learning. As higher education continues to evolve, Earlham demonstrates that a small college can have a big impact on both students and the world.
Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy, and formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean, along with Kent Barnds, are co-hosts for the podcast series Small College America. Season two begins February. 25, 2025
March 3, 2025, by Dean Hoke: This profile of the College of Wooster is the fourth in a series presenting small colleges throughout the United States.
Background
The College of Wooster, founded in 1866, is a private liberal arts institution located in Wooster, Ohio. Known for its commitment to mentored undergraduate research, Wooster offers a comprehensive liberal arts education in a residential setting. The college enrolls approximately 1,800 students representing diverse backgrounds from 47 U.S. states and 76 countries. The student-to-faculty ratio is 11:1, ensuring personalized attention and mentorship. For the 2022-2023 academic year, the total cost of attendance, including tuition, fees, room, and board, is $71,000. Notably, more than 85% of students receive financial aid, with an average award of $50,000.
Curricula
Wooster offers over 50 academic programs in the sciences, humanities, social sciences, and arts. A distinctive feature of the Wooster experience is the Independent Study program. In this program, students engage in a year-long research project under faculty mentorship, culminating in a thesis or creative work. This program fosters critical thinking, problem-solving, and effective communication skills.
Strengths
Mentored Research: The Independent Study program exemplifies Wooster’s dedication to undergraduate research. It provides students with hands-on experience in their chosen fields.
Diverse Community: With 27% U.S. students of color and 14% international students, Wooster boasts a vibrant and inclusive campus environment.
High Graduate Success Rate: Within six months of graduation, 96% of alums are employed or enrolled in graduate programs, with 94% accepted into their top-choice graduate schools.
Weaknesses
Cost of Attendance: Despite substantial financial aid offerings, the total cost may be a barrier for some prospective students.
Limited Graduate Programs: As an institution focused primarily on undergraduate education, Wooster offers limited opportunities for postgraduate studies.
Economic Impact
The College of Wooster significantly contributes to the local economy of Wooster, Ohio, which has a population of 27,012 and is the county seat of Wayne County, which has a population of 116,500. The college is a major employer in the region and attracts students, faculty, and visitors, bolstering local businesses and services. Additionally, cultural and academic events hosted by the college enrich the community’s cultural landscape. According to LeadIQ, approximately 1,200 people are employed by the college, and its annual operating expenses are over $88 million.
LinkedIn data shows that the college has nearly 17,000 alums, 4,700 of whom reside in Ohio and 1,120 in the Wooster, Ohio, area.
Enrollment Trends
Over the past decade, Wooster’s enrollment has slightly declined, from 2,100 to 1875 over a 10-year period. The student base is 35% in-state and 65% out-of-state and international. The college consistently attracts a diverse student body from across the United States and around the world. 98% of the student population lives in campus housing, and the age range is 18-24. Wooster does not have any graduate degree programs.
Degrees Awarded by Major
In the most recent report, 18 majors had graduates Wooster Degrees Conferred.
Alumni
Employment and or attending graduate school is very high. In the class of 2023, 97% of Wooster graduates secured employment or enrolled in graduate programs within six months post-graduation. 78% entered the workforce, 15% are attending graduate or professional school, 4% were applying for graduate school, and only 3% are seeking employment. Also, an average over the past three years shows that 91% of the Wooster graduates were accepted into their top choice graduate school. (Source: College of Wooster Destination Report, Class of 2023)
LinkedIn data shows the college has nearly 17,000 alumni. 28% live in Ohio, 18% in the greater Cleveland area, and 7% in the city of Wooster.
Notable Alumni:
J.C. Chandor ‘96 Acclaimed filmmaker known for works such as “Margin Call” and “All Is Lost.” Nominated for the Academy Awards in 2011
Laurie Kosanovich ’94, general counsel for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
John Dean ’61 Former White House Counsel for President Richard Nixon, notable for his role in the Watergate scandal.
Duncan Jones, ‘95, award-winning filmmaker director of Source Code and Moon. He is the son of David Bowie.
Jennifer Haverkamp ’79, Professor of Practice Gerald R Ford School of Public Policy, the University of Michigan
Donald Kohn ’64, former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve
Dr. Sangram Sisodia ’77, The Department of Neurobiology, specializing in Alzheimer’s disease. University of Chicago.
Endowment and Financial Standing
As of June 30, 2023, The College of Wooster’s endowment stands at $395.5 million, reflecting prudent financial management and generous alum support. This endowment supports scholarships, faculty positions, and various institutional initiatives, ensuring the college’s long-term financial health. According to the 2023 Forbes financial report, The College of Wooster is rated 2.421 and a B- grade. Wooster has maintained a stable financial position.
Why is The College of Wooster Important?
Commitment to Mentored Undergraduate Research – The College of Wooster is distinguished for its dedication to undergraduate research, providing students with personalized mentorship that fosters inquiry, intellectual growth, and academic excellence.
Independent Study Program – A hallmark of Wooster’s education, the year-long Independent Study program requires every student to complete a rigorous research project, developing critical thinking, effective communication, and independent judgment skills.
Diverse and Inclusive Community – Wooster attracts students from all 50 states and over 60 countries, creating a dynamic and inclusive environment where cross-cultural dialogue and global perspectives thrive.
Strong Financial Foundation –Wooster maintains financial stability through prudent management and strategic investments, ensuring long-term institutional sustainability.
Economic Impact – The College plays a vital role in the local economy, contributing to job creation, community development, and regional growth through its sustained presence and financial stewardship.
Distinguished Alumni Network – Wooster graduates excel in various fields, including academia, business, public service, and the arts. The College’s alumni include Nobel laureates, influential public figures, and innovators who make significant contributions to society.
This structured format highlights The College of Wooster’s key strengths, reinforcing its importance as a leading liberal arts institution.
Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy, and formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean, along with Kent Barnds, are co-hosts for the podcast series Small College America. Season two begins on March 11, 2025.
Small colleges have long played a significant role in shaping American higher education. They may not make national headlines every day, but their impact on students, communities, and the broader landscape of learning is undeniable. That’s why Kent Barnds and I, Dean Hoke, created Small College America. Its mission is to present critical discussions at the forefront by interviewing small college higher education leaders, policy experts, and innovators. The podcast delves into the evolving role of small colleges, their economic impact, innovative strategies for sustainability, and how they can continue to provide a highly personalized educational experience.
Each episode explores the distinctiveness of small colleges—through conversations with presidents, provosts, foundation leaders, and changemakers who are deeply engaged in the work of shaping the future. We focus on the real issues small colleges face—from enrollment shifts and financial pressures to mission clarity, leadership, and collaborative innovation.
Why is now the perfect time for this podcast? Higher education faces unprecedented challenges, and small colleges, with their adaptability and personalized approaches, offer valuable lessons and innovative solutions critical to the broader education landscape.
Our most recent episodes include:
Wendy Sherman Heckler and Chet Haskell – From Otterbein University and Antioch University, respectively these two leaders discuss their groundbreaking collaboration known as the Coalition for the Common Good. It’s a bold new model for partnership between mission-driven institutions focused on shared values and long-term sustainability.
Eric Lindberg—Executive Director of the Austin E. Knowlton Foundation in Cincinnati, Ohio, shares insights into the Foundation’s commitment to supporting small colleges, reflects on his own liberal arts experience, and outlines how strategic philanthropy can strengthen institutional resilience.
Dr. Paaige Turner, Provost and Executive Vice President at Aurora University discusses her transition into the role after serving as Dean at Ball State University. She brings a fresh perspective on leadership, regional relevance, and the evolving communication needs of today’s students.
Upcoming Guests:
We’re excited to welcome several new voices to the podcast in upcoming episodes:
Charles Kim, retired Managing Director at Kaufman Hall and former head of its Higher Education division, now serves on the boards of Augustana College and Westminster College.
Scott Wiegandt, Director of Athletics at Bellarmine University, who helped lead the university’s move from NCAA Division II to Division I.
Karin Fischer, senior writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education and author of the Latitudes newsletter, brings deep insight into the global and domestic challenges facing small colleges.
Steve Bahls, President Emeritus of Augustana College and national expert on shared governance, discusses how collaboration can lead to institutional agility and long-term success.
Matthew Ward, Vice President of Enrollment Management at California Lutheran University.
Liz Nino, Executive Director of International Enrollment at Augustana College.
Dr. Marco Clark, President of Holy Cross College at Notre Dame, Indiana.
Whether you’re a small college president, a prospective student, an alum, or simply someone passionate about the future of higher education, we invite you to join us. Each episode of Small College America is a chance to learn, reflect, and engage with the people who are shaping this vital sector.
Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform or listen directly at https://www.podpage.com/small-college-america/. We hope you’ll tune in. If there’s a story or college you think we should feature, let us know.
Small colleges are changing higher education—be part of the conversation.
Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy, and a Senior Fellow with the Sagamore Institute. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean, along with Kent Barnds, is a co-host for the podcast series Small College America.
