As demographic pressure intensifies, boards are also confronting a more fundamental question: does the value proposition of higher education still hold in the eyes of students, families, and the public? Public confidence has eroded over the past decade. In 2025, only 35 percent of U.S. adults described college as “very important” for success, down sharply from 75 percent in 2010; just 22 percent believe the cost of college is worth it if loans are required (Pew Research Center, 2024). Although there was a modest rebound in public trust in higher education in 2025, rising to 42 percent from a recent low (Gallup, 2025), overall confidence remains well below historical norms. Boards increasingly engaged in defending institutional value even as they work internally to redefine it. In parallel, trustees are navigating heightened political, regulatory, and reputational exposure. Issues once peripheral to board deliberations, such as First Amendment considerations, civil rights and Title IX compliance, cybersecurity threats, student wellness and mental health, food insecurity, campus safety and active shooter preparedness, donor and legislative pressure, now routinely occupy board agendas. Regulatory scrutiny has intensified as well: in 2025, the U.S. Department of Education identified more than 400 institutions as financially at risk (Education Dynamics, 2025), a designation that carries implications for accreditation, aid eligibility, and public perception. Governance has become more externally driven, more reactive, and less tolerant of missteps. Artificial intelligence has also emerged as a dual-edged board issue: both a source of operational uncertainty and a strategic opportunity tied to curriculum, workforce relevance, and institutional positioning. Leadership volatility adds another layer of pressure. Presidential tenures have shortened significantly over the past two decades, with median tenure falling to 5.9 years in 2022, down from 8.5 years in 2006 (American Council on Education, 2023). Transitions occur more frequently, often under compressed timelines and greater public visibility. Interim presidencies have become more common and, in many cases, longer lasting. What amplifies the challenge is the absence of formal succession planning in many institutions. Without advance planning, each transition becomes a crisis, placing added demands on boards to maintain continuity, manage stakeholder expectations, and sustain strategic momentum in the absence of enduring executive leadership. Taken together, these forces push boards into a mode of governance that is both more demanding and less forgiving than in the past. The issues landing on trustees’ tables are not incremental adjustments to a stable model; they are questions of mission, scale, and long-term viability. Boards are being asked to consider programmatic, structural, and strategic pivots that institutions were not designed to execute quickly, often without precedent or shared agreement on what success should look like.
07 | Boards of Trustees in Higher Education
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator