How Trump Can Lead Higher-Education Reform
Universities should operate for the benefit of students and society-at-large—not the well-paid administrators and senior academics who serve as their gatekeepers.
Donald Trump has an opportunity to lead the higher-education reform movement that his country desperately needs. To succeed, he’ll have to tackle colleges’ deep-rooted tendency to resist change. Demands that colleges eliminate programs such as gender studies might appeal to conservatives. But even if successfully implemented, such populist diktats would simply prompt institutions to repackage their content under different labels, thereby ensuring that the same form of underlying ideological indoctrination persists. Real reform must be implemented in a way that anticipates such tactics, and should be informed by the following broad goals:
Streamline Undergraduate and Professional Education
Using its funding leverage, the US federal government should push colleges to adopt a three-year undergraduate model for most programs—shortened from the current four-year structure—and allow direct entry into professional schools from high school, as is common in Europe. Such changes would save students both time and money, allowing them to enter the workforce sooner and with less debt. They would also extend the careers of doctors, lawyers, and other professionals, allowing them to bypass redundant coursework. Those seeking additional specialisation could still pursue postgraduate degrees, while colleges—now facing excess capacity—would lower tuition to remain competitive.
Such reforms would also help counterbalance potential labour reductions resulting from enhanced enforcement of immigration laws under Trump: By accelerating educational pipelines, the US could replenish its labour force with qualified non-immigrant workers who enter the job market sooner, and remain professionally active for longer.
Critics may counter that shortening standard undergraduate programs by 25 percent would sacrifice educational breadth. And it is true that some programs (engineering, for example) would be difficult to compress into just three years. Yet in an era of artificial intelligence-driven, on-demand learning, this argument has lost some of its force in regard to most academic disciplines. Modern technologies have shifted the focus to adaptability and career readiness, while reducing the value of internalising large volumes of information that may be dated by the time a student graduates.
Implement Objective Entrance Exams to Eliminate Discrimination
Subjective admissions criteria have long provided cover for discriminatory practices. For example, some schools have required higher SAT scores from Asians, while justifying the rejection of otherwise qualified applicants on the basis that they lack interpersonal skills such as “likeability.” Replacing these subjective processes with objective, standardised exams would help eliminate such biases.
Allowing colleges wide discretion over admissions invites abuse, as institutions will inevitably exploit loopholes as a means to favour certain groups over others. A merit-based admissions system centred on standardised tests would prevent these distortions while freeing high school students from many aspects of the oppressive college-prep “arms race.”
Currently, ambitious students feel compelled to pad their resumes with extracurricular activities designed to cater to admissions officials. These arbitrary requirements drain time, money, and mental well-being. Objective criteria would let students focus on genuine academic achievement.
Introduce Rigorous Exit Exams
Mandatory discipline-specific exit exams would ensure that degrees signal genuine competence rather than mere attendance. In some cases, these exams should also be open to self-taught individuals, allowing non-traditional learners to demonstrate mastery without paying for years of college.
For example, a prospective elementary-school teacher could pass an education-department exit exam as a means to earn certification—in combination with performing an in-class practicum—without enrolling in courses that cover material he or she already knows. (Rigorous standards would be critical: If all Harvard students passed Harvard’s exit exams, the credential would become worthless.)
Strengthen Oversight Through Effective Boards of Trustees
Boards of trustees have the authority to appoint college presidents, make significant policy decisions, and hold administrators to account for questionable practices. But they often fail to exercise their power effectively. One new reform measure might require a trustee to certify, under penalty of perjury, that (to their knowledge) his or her institution hadn’t discriminated against Asians (or any other group) in admissions during his or her tenure. If members refused to sign, such colleges might be put at risk of losing their federal funding.
Recognise the Limits That Free-Speech Protections Offer
Enshrining free speech on campuses is a necessary but insufficient step toward protecting intellectual pluralism, academic freedom, and viewpoint diversity. Peer pressure, biased grading, and subjective evaluations of “collegiality” often do more to stifle dissent than official top-down censorship. Boards of trustees and administrators must actively counter these pressures. If they fail to do so, students and professors should have meaningful institutional channels that permit them to report their concerns to oversight officials.
Adapt to the Changing Educational Landscape
The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) necessitates a reimagining of higher education. AI can now provide instant, personalised feedback on written work, allowing students to improve their materials in real time—a significant advantage over delayed instructor responses. Advanced AI voice modes also offer students real-time discussions that simulate one-on-one interactions with experts.
These tools democratise access to high-quality intellectual engagement, and open the door to new forms of self-directed education that are just now beginning to emerge—and which will inevitably challenge the business model of established universities. (Author’s Note: The submitted draft of this article was itself refined with AI assistance.)
Incentivise Parenthood Through Admissions Preferences
In the long run, declining birth rates may become the greatest long-term threat to social stability in many advanced societies—the United States included. Elite colleges, which shape cultural norms within academia and society-at-large more generally, should play a role in addressing this challenge by elevating the status of parenthood and offering direct incentives for family formation.
For instance, federal rules might provide incentives to institutions that reserve a substantial portion of their undergraduate admissions slots to young, married parents—an exception to the above-described policy of non-discrimination.
Many young couples delay having children due to the financial and logistical burdens associated with higher education. In the case of those who attend graduate schools or professional programs, this can mean putting off family formation until their 30s. Admission preferences would help encourage ambitious young people to start families earlier.
The reforms proposed here comprise my own suggestions for making higher education in the United States more efficient, meritocratic, and accountable, while aligning it with the needs of the country. Many other educators no doubt have their own ideas to offer. But the overall goal should be to reimagine a system that operates for the benefit of students, families, and society—not the well-paid administrators and senior academics who now serve as its gatekeepers.
