The very definition of a successful college major is undergoing a fundamental reevaluation within the Universities of Wisconsin system, driven by a strategic imperative to address persistent financial and enrollment challenges. A specially convened committee of administrators and faculty has developed a new, data-driven methodology that shifts the focus from historical graduation rates to current student enrollment, a change that signals a more aggressive and proactive approach to managing its academic portfolio. This initiative represents a pivotal move away from retrospective assessment and toward a forward-looking model designed to align the system’s offerings with contemporary student demand and secure its financial footing with greater agility. This overhaul is set to redefine which programs are deemed sustainable, potentially altering the academic landscape for students across the 13-campus system for years to come.
A New Yardstick for Program Success
The central element of this strategic pivot involves replacing a “lagging indicator” with a “leading indicator” to assess program health. For years, the system relied on a metric that triggered a review only if an undergraduate program conferred fewer than 25 degrees over a five-year period. A system task force identified this standard as inherently flawed, as it reflected student choices and program performance from years past. By the time a program registered a decline in graduates, significant institutional resources, including faculty time and operational funding, may have already been allocated to a dwindling student population for several years. The new standard, in contrast, functions as a real-time diagnostic tool. It specifically targets programs that have an average annual enrollment of 15 or fewer juniors and seniors over a three-year span. This focus on currently enrolled upper-level students provides an immediate and far more accurate snapshot of a program’s viability and its capacity to retain majors, empowering the university system to respond to declining interest much more swiftly and efficiently.
This new, more rigorous approach is projected to significantly increase the number of academic programs that come under formal review. While the previous graduation-based metric identified between 41 and 54 programs for examination in recent years, the new enrollment-based standard is expected to flag approximately 65 programs annually. This figure represents roughly 10% of the entire system’s undergraduate offerings, indicating a substantial escalation in the scale and intensity of the evaluation process. This is not a temporary measure but a fundamental policy shift, as confirmed by Regent Joan Prince, who noted its formal integration into the system’s governing policies. This underscores the administration’s firm commitment to a more disciplined and data-informed method of academic portfolio management. The change ensures that accountability is not just a concept but a measurable and consistently applied standard across all institutions within the Universities of Wisconsin, aiming to foster a more sustainable and responsive academic environment.
More Than Just the Numbers
Despite establishing a firm numerical threshold, the committee explicitly acknowledged that quantitative metrics alone cannot capture the full value of an academic program. The task force’s recommendation strongly advocates for a nuanced, dual approach that balances data with qualitative considerations. A program flagged by the new enrollment metric will not be subject to automatic elimination. Instead, the low enrollment figures will serve as a trigger for a “thorough and fair monitoring process” designed to examine the program’s “totality of contribution” to the university and the wider community. This comprehensive review will take into account a variety of less tangible, yet vital, factors. These considerations include a program’s essential role in a university’s core curriculum, its function in supporting other, larger academic programs, its unique contribution to the institution’s overarching mission, and its strategic importance to the regional workforce and economy. This holistic methodology ensures that decisions are not made in a vacuum and that valuable programs are not sacrificed solely due to low enrollment.
The impetus for this systemic overhaul is rooted in both external analysis and internal financial realities, presenting a complex operational picture. The task force’s work was initiated following a review by Deloitte consultants that found several campuses within the Universities of Wisconsin system were burdened by structural deficits and declining enrollment. However, this narrative is complicated by the fact that the system as a whole has recorded its third consecutive year of overall enrollment growth, with nine of the 13 institutions reporting an increase in their student bodies. This disparity suggests that the financial and enrollment challenges are not uniform across the system but are instead concentrated in specific institutions. This reality necessitates precisely the kind of targeted interventions that the new program review policy represents. It allows the system to address underperformance and financial strain where it exists without hampering the growth and success occurring at other campuses, fostering a more tailored and effective approach to ensuring system-wide stability.
A Reflection of a National Shift in Higher Education
Wisconsin’s actions are not an isolated event but are firmly situated within a broader national trend where public university systems are increasingly adopting data-driven performance metrics to guide difficult decisions. Amid tightening budgets and heightened calls for accountability, institutions across the United States are implementing similar frameworks to justify the continuation or elimination of academic programs. For instance, regents in Oklahoma recently voted to eliminate 41 programs and suspend 21 others based on metrics of degrees conferred and current enrollment. The State University System of Florida has a long-standing review process that uses minimum degree thresholds, which recently resulted in 18 programs being flagged for potential closure. The trend has even been codified into law in some states; legislatures in Indiana and Ohio have passed laws that legally mandate the elimination of programs at public colleges that fail to meet specific graduation quotas, leading to dozens of planned cuts.
In addition to this core change in program evaluation, the Universities of Wisconsin system is simultaneously exploring further efficiencies to streamline operations and enhance financial stability. The new policy framework is part of a larger, multi-faceted strategy that includes increased reporting requirements to better monitor program performance and resource allocation across campuses. Furthermore, system leaders are actively considering the potential for sharing courses between different institutions, which would allow smaller programs to remain viable by pooling student demand and faculty resources. Another key initiative involves the standardization of academic calendars across the 13 campuses, a move designed to simplify administrative processes, facilitate inter-campus collaborations, and make it easier for students to transfer credits or take courses at other UW institutions. These complementary efforts demonstrate a comprehensive approach to building a more resilient and efficient public university system for the future.
The Path Forward for Wisconsin’s Universities
In response to localized financial pressures and a changing higher education landscape, the Universities of Wisconsin system embarked on a significant policy overhaul. This strategic pivot involved replacing a retrospective, graduation-based review metric with a proactive, enrollment-based one that was expected to nearly double the number of programs flagged for potential closure. The system’s new approach, however, was not purely numerical; a stated commitment was made to also consider the qualitative and holistic value of each program during the review process, ensuring a fair and comprehensive evaluation. This move was not made in isolation but reflected a widespread national trend in public higher education, where states and university systems increasingly relied on performance metrics to make difficult decisions about academic offerings, streamline operations, and ensure long-term financial stability. The decision represented a deliberate effort to create a more agile, responsive, and sustainable public university system for the state.
