The headline was meant to shock. The timing was perfect. Don't get me wrong, I am not usually a fan of policies emanating from Red State legislatures, but once in a while they get it right. Last week, Inside Higher Education ran a story focused on recent program cuts at Indiana public institutions. These were voluntary cuts by institutional leaders in advance of an edict to do so that was coming soon, after the state legislature passed a bill requiring the elimination of degree programs at public institutions that are not graduating certain minimum numbers of students. I expected the thresholds to be draconian. But in fact they are a three-year average number of graduates as follows: 10 for Associates, 15 for Bachelor's, 7 for Master's, and 3 for Doctorates. Exemptions could be proposed. University leaders - apparently without consultation with faculty - used the thresholds to identify 408 programs to cut or combine. I attribute this massive number of low performing programs to three trends I have observed time and again over the last decade or more:

1. The mania to create highly specific niche programs as an enrollment growth strategy. These are often well-meant, and nearly always thinking that they respond to an emerging trend.

2. The inability to update, fix, change, or augment long-standing programs to be responsive to today's student preferences, but rather add something else that will not ruffle feathers or upset the apple cart.

3. The general lack of existing and standard indicators that would guide an ongoing process of program review. Strangely, the Indiana legislature did this work for the institutions in a fairly reasonable way - not requiring closure, but allowing for combination, not requiring certain levels of faculty or staff cuts, and offering a waiver process. Interestingly, I can not even count the number of institutional CFOs who have asked me to include something along these lines when I have been helping with program prioritization.

Back to Indiana! How do these 408 programs that were cut break out?

• Among 75 programs being immediately cut, 68 had no students enrolled and 7 more with only a few students.

• 101 will be "suspended" (all included due to the thresholds) with students being able to finish if already enrolled.

• 232 will merge with either each other or with other existing (more healthy) programs to create new redesigned (inter-disciplinary) programs.

After helping more than 400 institutions assess program market demand, I have to conclude that Indiana is on the right track.... with one proviso from a history major who has made a successful career: eliminating a degree program because a lack of majors doesn't imply that courses in that subject should not continue to be at the core of higher education.

Comparing Indiana to National Trends. What if the Indiana thresholds were applied to the nation? Using IPEDs completions data for AY23, there are the following numbers of program subjects that do not meet the numbers:

Associate (minimum of 10 graduates): 210 program areas (of 901 total subject areas by CIP code)

Bachelor's (minimum of 15 graduates): 222 program areas (of 1,191 total subject areas by CIP code)

Master's (minimum of 7 graduates): 163 program areas (of 1,151 total subject areas by CIP code)

Doctorates (minimum of 3 graduates): 102 program areas (of 752 total subject areas by CIP code)

If you'd like to talk about program prioritization or any other elements of a graduate or online growth strategy, ping me!