With two decades in education management and a post-pandemic focus on open and e-learning, I’ve helped public universities recalibrate portfolios under real fiscal pressure while keeping students whole. East Carolina University’s decision to discontinue 44 programs and pursue $25 million in reductions over three years is a classic case of aligning mission, market, and money. What follows pulls back the curtain on how such choices get made: the role of faculty, data thresholds like bottom-10% performance, and how consolidations—across eight colleges and overlapping research and library units—can strengthen student experience even as enrollment dips about 6% to 26,940 and tuition revenue falls 7.8% to $175.2 million. It’s gritty work, but with clear metrics, careful teach-outs, and a focus on online growth and retention, it can be done without layoffs while still banking $6.2 million toward a $25 million goal.
You’re planning to discontinue 44 undergraduate and graduate programs while cutting $25 million over three years. What specific goals drove those choices, and how did you weigh academic mission against budget targets? Please walk through the decision-making steps and any key trade-offs you faced.
The north star was to protect student success and research vitality while hitting a $25 million reduction over three years—about 2% of the budget. We started by asking which programs, among 107 reviewed across eight colleges, were underperforming relative to enrollment, completion, and labor-market alignment, because cutting indiscriminately would only create hidden costs. The trade-off came down to breadth versus depth: preserve a wide catalog or invest in areas where student demand and ROI were strongest. We sequenced decisions—first, bottom-10% enrollment and graduation programs to stabilize structural deficits; second, unit consolidations that reduce duplication; and third, growth plays in online and retention—so that the $6.2 million in identified savings builds momentum without hollowing out core strengths.
Three-fourths of the targeted programs were flagged by their own faculty. How did faculty input shape the final list, and what safeguards ensured minority views were heard? Share examples where faculty recommendations changed or affirmed decisions.
When roughly three-fourths of discontinuations come from faculty recommendations, that signals a disciplined culture of self-review. Department committees used institutional research—enrollment trends, labor market forecasts, and ROI studies—to propose either sunsetting or redesigning offerings, and those proposals carried real weight. Safeguards included cross-college panels and provost-level reviews to surface minority or interdisciplinary arguments, especially when a program’s value wasn’t fully captured by simple headcounts. In a few cases—like a bachelor’s in sociology or a master’s in software engineering—the committee affirmed faculty arguments to discontinue, while other fields sought bridge strategies through certificates or concentrations, preserving essential learning outcomes without maintaining full, stand-alone degrees.
A committee used enrollment, labor market forecasts, and ROI studies to evaluate 107 programs. Which metrics proved most predictive, and how were thresholds set? Please detail the weighting process and any surprising data patterns you encountered.
The strongest predictors were multi-year enrollment trajectories married to labor-market demand in the region; when both were soft, the ROI case usually collapsed. We used weighted metrics produced by institutional research, incorporating enrollment, forecasts, and ROI in a composite, with a clear trigger on programs in the bottom 10% for enrollment and graduation rates. Rather than a single cutoff, the weighting allowed a high-ROI niche program to survive if it showed upward momentum. The surprise was how a few small programs in the eight-college ecosystem performed well on completion but lagged severely on labor-market alignment—underscoring that graduation alone can’t justify continuation.
Some programs fell into the bottom 10% for enrollment and graduation rates. How did you determine when “low” becomes unsustainable, and were there turnaround criteria? Provide concrete numbers, timelines, and remediation steps that were considered but rejected.
Bottom-10% status triggered an intensive review: we looked for evidence of demand recovery within the three-year budget horizon and whether modest investments could change the curve. Remediation steps—such as targeted marketing, curriculum streamlining, or modality shifts to online—were modeled, but many scenarios didn’t close the gap quickly enough to support the $25 million target. If a program couldn’t demonstrate measurable improvement before the end of the three-year window, it crossed into “unsustainable.” In those cases, discontinuation with teach-out was the responsible choice, paired with pathways into related programs where students could graduate on time.
Teach-out plans are in place for students in discontinued programs. What does a high-quality teach-out look like in practice, and how will you measure success? Please share timelines, advising ratios, and safeguards against delayed graduations.
A strong teach-out starts with clear degree maps and guaranteed course availability so students aren’t stranded—mapped term by term through the three-year reduction period when needed. We anchor advising in predictable touchpoints, align capstones and practica to run at least one final cycle, and ensure cross-listing flexibility so required courses are offered even as enrollments thin. Success is measured by on-time completion rates, zero increase in excess credits, and no interruptions in essential services like libraries—which are consolidating but must remain fully accessible. Transparency is key: students receive individualized plans, and progress is tracked against cohort milestones so delays are caught early.
You’ve said layoffs won’t be required, with some faculty using retirement incentives. How are you aligning remaining faculty expertise with program demand? Describe the reassignment process, support provided, and any workload or credentialing challenges.
Avoiding layoffs while discontinuing 44 programs requires disciplined reassignment into growth areas—particularly online offerings and high-demand fields. Retirement incentives help open space for strategic redeployment, and we pair faculty with instructional design support to migrate curricula into scalable formats. Workload is balanced through cross-listing and shared teaching within the eight-college structure, and credentialing considerations are managed through department and dean approvals aligned with accreditation standards. The aim is to preserve intellectual capital while matching faculty effort to student demand, so savings like the $6.2 million already identified don’t come at the expense of quality.
You’re merging the College of Health and Human Performance with the College of Allied Health Sciences into a new College of Health and Human Sciences. What efficiencies do you expect, and how will student experience change? Include specific org-chart shifts, budget impacts, and timeline milestones.
Combining the two health colleges into the new College of Health and Human Sciences removes duplicative leadership layers and centralizes student services, creating clearer pathways into clinical and community health roles. Shared advising, practicum coordination, and accreditation support reduce overhead while protecting hands-on learning. We expect budget relief within the three-year savings window as administrative lines consolidate and shared labs and simulation spaces are scheduled more efficiently. Students should feel fewer handoffs and a more unified identity, with milestone checks aligned to the merged unit’s calendar rather than competing timelines.
Integrated Coastal Studies is moving into the arts and sciences college, and library units are consolidating. How will research support and faculty collaboration be preserved or improved? Please share examples of cross-unit services, staffing plans, and performance metrics.
Housing Integrated Coastal Studies in arts and sciences puts coastal research closer to core disciplines that feed it—biology, earth sciences, and policy—encouraging co-taught courses and shared grant teams. Merging the health sciences library with academic library services enables unified discovery tools, common data services, and broader liaison coverage without sacrificing specialized support. We track grant submissions, shared-publication counts, and time-to-IRB as performance metrics, and we aim to maintain or improve those even as structures change. The test is simple: faculty should experience faster turnaround on research support and students should see deeper integration of sources in their coursework.
Enrollment has dipped roughly 6% since 2019, while tuition revenue fell and operating costs rose. What are the main drivers behind these trends at your institution, and how do they compare with peers? Outline the data you track and the cost categories under greatest strain.
The 6% headcount decline to 26,940 students exerts a double hit: fewer tuition-paying students and a smaller pipeline for auxiliary revenues. Tuition revenue dropping 7.8% to $175.2 million in fiscal 2025 reflects both pricing discipline and mix shifts toward aid-heavy populations. Meanwhile, operating expenses jumped by over $73 million—driven by compensation pressures, compliance, technology, and student support needs that don’t scale down linearly. We track new-student yield, retention by cohort, credit-hour production, and cost-per-completion to stay ahead of the curve, benchmarking against regional publics facing the same demographic headwinds.
Plans include growing online education, strengthening recruitment and retention, renting facilities, and reviewing financial aid distribution. Which tactic will move the needle fastest, and why? Provide step-by-step implementation details, targets, and early indicators you’ll monitor.
Online education is the fastest lever because it scales within existing faculty capacity and meets adult learner demand without heavy capital costs. Step one is prioritizing programs with strong ROI signals from the institutional research portfolio; step two pairs faculty with design teams to launch high-enrollment courses; step three aligns marketing to those prospects most responsive to flexible formats. We set early indicators around inquiry-to-application rates, first-course completion, and credit-hour production, tying them to the three-year savings horizon. In parallel, tightening financial aid distribution and renting facilities smooths the revenue curve, while retention work compounds gains by holding onto the students we already have.
Some discontinued programs include a bachelor’s in sociology and master’s degrees in software engineering and sustainable tourism. How did you factor regional workforce needs and long-term industry shifts into those calls? Share labor-market data points and any bridge strategies for affected fields.
Labor-market forecasts were central to the composite metric: when projected demand didn’t match graduating cohorts, continuation became hard to justify. In cases like sustainable tourism or applied atmospheric studies, regional volatility made consistent placement less predictable within the three-year window. Bridge strategies included folding essential competencies into certificates or concentrations and steering students toward adjacent majors with stronger ROI and clearer local demand. The goal was to keep the skills alive while discontinuing low-throughput degrees that sat in the bottom 10% on enrollment and graduation.
You’ve identified $6.2 million in savings so far toward a $25 million goal. What are the next levers you’ll pull, and how will you maintain momentum without eroding quality? Please describe checkpoints, governance roles, and how success will be communicated.
The next levers are unit consolidations—like the health college merger and library integration—plus selective centralization of student services that reduce duplication across eight colleges. We’ll run quarterly checkpoints tied to enrollment, tuition revenue, and expense trends, maintaining a line of sight to the three-year target. Governance lives with the Academic Portfolio Review and Optimization Committee and deans, with faculty senate consultation to keep academic standards intact. Communication is continuous: public dashboards showing progress from $6.2 million toward $25 million, student-facing FAQs on teach-outs, and employer updates that reaffirm our talent pipeline.
How will students, alumni, and local employers be engaged during and after these changes? Give examples of listening sessions, advisory councils, and feedback loops, and explain how input will alter course if needed.
We host listening sessions timed to key milestones—program decisions, teach-out launches, and consolidation rollouts—so questions surface before problems harden. Alumni and employer advisory councils review curriculum moves in growth areas, especially online, to validate that ROI assumptions match reality. Feedback loops include surveys embedded in advising and capstone experiences, and alumni follow-ups to check job outcomes post-change. When data points to a miss—say, a course needed by local employers isn’t offered regularly—we adjust schedules or add a certificate track without reopening discontinued degrees.
What is your forecast for program portfolios at regional public universities over the next five years?
Expect leaner, more intentional catalogs: fewer low-enrollment stand-alones and more stackable credentials that can pivot quickly with labor-market forecasts. Online and hybrid pathways will anchor growth, while consolidations—like merging overlapping colleges or libraries—become standard to manage costs that rose by over $73 million in some settings. Faculty-led reviews will normalize, with bottom-10% performance serving as an automatic trigger for redesign or teach-out. The winners will be institutions that pair data discipline with human-centered execution—protecting on-time graduation and student belonging even as they retire 44 programs here or a dozen there, and reinvest in the areas where students and employers are already voting with their feet.
