Mergers, alliances and acquisitions in higher education get a lot of lip service these days.
Consultants and bond raters posit that M&A is central to improving higher ed’s value proposition. The Council of Independent Colleges has put together a guide.
But while great in theory, the actual process looks like a middle school dance: a lot of time wasted before anyone makes the first move, with many missing the opportunity altogether. Those brave or lucky enough to find a partner awkwardly try to dance while everyone watches.
Then, right when you’re getting the hang of it or finding the nerve to ask, the lights come on and it’s time to go home.
Many of us are conditioned to think that merging or being acquired is a sign of institutional failure but there are noticeable exceptions: Northeastern University is a leader in acquisitions and Saint Joseph’s University has also had noteworthy success.
More common, though, are the institutions encouraged (or forced) into merging, as with some Catholic colleges and within the Pennsylvania State System. We are more likely to hear about mergers getting called off at the 11th hour, like the Findley/Bluffton merger that was called off in the spring of 2025.
There are also examples of colleges taking another path altogether, like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which is launching the New Education Initiative. Perhaps launching a new nationwide initiative is easier than M&A for MIT, given the current climate.
I would like to think the smart people in higher education could develop a better process, and with less sentimentality. Campus stakeholders often let judgment be clouded by memories of times gone by, believing that getting to the next year is success enough.
Like middle school wallflowers missing out on opportunities, we must change that mindset. In short, to thrive in the decades ahead, we need to normalize asking the question: Are we stronger with a partner?
Here are a couple of ideas:
A Match.com for higher ed
Higher ed would benefit from knowing which institutions are open to a merger or alliance, or a change of ownership. A handful of consultants have some knowledge of who might be a buyer and others sellers, yet there is seldom any matchmaking.
Boards and campus leaders are generally too polite or timid to signal an interest. This hesitancy and obstinacy have undoubtedly led to closures, when there was likely an opportunity for a more graceful, perhaps even powerful, solution.
Plug & play pathway
Colleges need clearer direction and a more responsive timeframe to complete a transaction. A clear process could allow moving ahead far more quickly with expectations relative to financial statement preparation, accreditation approval, board approval and interest from ED in these mergers.
Given the rather odd business cycle of higher education—typically only two entry points annually—missing a single cycle because of standards applied to businesses could mean a missed opportunity resulting in a campus or program closure.
Higher ed needs an M&A playbook that does not rely on high-cost consultants (see the $10 million investment from the state of New Jersey to assist with the planned merger between Kean University and New Jersey City University). The high cost can make any transaction impossible to justify, even if it could be a great deal for everyone in the long term—including the benefits to students and communities.
Rewards and recognition
We need to change the narrative that partnership represents failure. I think about small family businesses preparing to sell, or the company that does the work to go public. While these are sometimes drawn-out processes, they almost always represent a natural evolution.
We can no longer continue on the path we are on with expensive senior teams, high payroll for offering commodity courses, and boards conditioned to keep it going, as is, at all costs. Instead of treating M&A as a last resort for higher ed institutions, we need to treat it as a bold, strategic evolution, aand publicly celebrate the institutions that lead the way.
To my mind, there’s a deep irony that institutional M&A is not valued as it should be, given that colleges and universities are constantly acquiring talent to strengthen their value propositions. While academic centers and programs, star faculty, coaches and leadership may seem like lower stakes, they represent what’s most attractive about M&A and they bring together willing partners.
Maybe a difficult negotiation needs to happen, but ultimately, there is a strategic simplicity and elegance to finding a partner. For higher ed, instead of lights turning on too soon, the danger is in lights going out.
