The Chronicle of Higher Education recently discussed the effect of shrinking university budgets on graduate programs in disciplines such as archeology, language, and fine arts. The article cites a number of universities, including University of Maryland, Harvard, and UCLA,  that are cutting back on admissions to graduate programs in the humanities. Other schools are also cutting less popular specializations and subfields. Proponents of these actions recognize the financial necessity of cutting back on lower-yielding programs and the dangers of introducing more graduates into an already flooded market; however, others lament the loss of graduate students.

Part of the concern stems from an observation that humanities departments are making more cutbacks than their STEM counterparts, whose graduates have better career outlooks. Opponents worry these cutbacks are “altering the culture of graduate education.” (Citation) According to the article, one primary cause for this concern lies in the belief that seminar classes will become less rigorous if insufficient graduate student interest forces professors to open enrollment to undergraduate participants, or to enrollees from other disciplines. Further, professors bemoan the changes in graduate school culture because for some, mentoring graduate students is one of the most valuable aspects of being a university professor.

There are, perhaps, relatively simple solutions to these concerns. These solutions require, however, that professors embrace—rather than resist—a changing academic culture. If the issue is purely a matter of numbers, both students and dollars, then a wide range of educational platforms exist that that will engage not only the geographically proximate students who can attend a traditional university, but offer capability for engaging students globally to disseminate ideas and promote research. In this respect, aggregation of students, even if geographically dispersed, could occur, making specialized programs more sustainable.

One example of an alternative model that would allow interested students to engage with a professor’s material regardless of their university enrollment status are Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs). With these courses, facilitators set a broad topic, and then experts and professors from around the globe take turns lecturing on their given topics. For professors concerned with having intellectual conversations with an engaging community, this could be their alternative.

A second model for collaboration when budgets limit the number of available graduate students is the Open Research movement. This concept involves opening a research problem or question up to any willing participants and allow any interested parties to learn and participate. While this phenomenon was much more quickly adopted in the sciences, it is becoming increasingly popular across academic disciplines. In particular, the Open Humanities movement is an effort to make academic journals open to everyone and promote scholarly research.

Finally, there is the newly announced MITx model, which provides an alternative method for academic programs to credential students in individual courses without admitting them into entire degree programs. This model gives access to students who, for whatever reason, might not wish to enroll in a degree program. As we mentioned in our evaluation of MITx, opportunities exist for innovative liberal arts schools adopting the MITx model to become leaders in this field.

Resisting the changes that humanities, as well as STEM, programs face in this changing economy will hamper the ability of universities to adapt and remain sustainable.