The Accelerant
The global pandemic was not the cause of the crisis in higher education. It was the accelerant.
In a blunt assessment before the crisis, Paul Quinn College President Michael Sorrell told The Atlantic that the challenges schools were facing were the exact same ones they had identified pre-pandemic, only now they were “on steroids.”
NYU Professor Scott Galloway was even more direct. Assessing the value of a fall semester delivered remotely at full price, he declared, “It’s a terrible deal.”
The numbers from the summer of 2020 told a brutal story. The University of Arizona projected losses of $250 million. The University of Michigan braced for a hit between $400 million and $1 billion. The University of Wisconsin, another $100 million. Syracuse University reported an immediate $35 million loss.
These figures are not just about tuition. They represent the collapse of a business model built on a captive audience. As The Futur’s Chris Do explains, the financial fallout extends far beyond enrollment. It encompasses parking, student services, dining, housing, on-campus activities, and for many schools, the massive revenue engine of athletics. Fundraising, grants, and licensing all took a hit.
In a live discussion with a panel of educators and entrepreneurs, Do framed the situation not as a new problem, but as the violent exposure of a system that has been failing for years. The pandemic simply poured gasoline on a fire that was already burning.
For decades, the cost of higher education has skyrocketed past every other metric. “At the end of the day it is a business to make money,” Do states, “and we haven't been looking at it like that. But now we're here.”
The central question became one of survival. Is this moment a disaster or an opportunity?
Disaster and Opportunity
For Petrula Vrontikis, a longtime professor at ArtCenter College of Design, the answer is both. “I think it's been a disaster because it happened so fast,” she says. The sheer speed of the change made it difficult for large, bureaucratic institutions to adapt.
But Vrontikis sees a silver lining in the collapse of physical boundaries. “The opportunity lies in that there are no borders anymore,” she explains. This opens the door for unprecedented collaborations, where a student at ArtCenter could work with someone from USC’s Annenberg School for Communication and an MBA from Stanford. “Can we create new things that are so valuable that our borders have minimized?”
Jim Schofield, an educator and producer, is more cautious. As a parent with a daughter in her second year of university, he sees society still stuck in a “cope mechanism.” The immense social and political turmoil of the time left students distracted and disillusioned. “I don't know if my daughter's head is in the game educationally right now,” he admits.
For Schofield, the path to opportunity has a clear prerequisite: student involvement. “If they don't involve the students as part of the problem solving, then I think we are completely set up for disaster,” he warns. The key is to make solving the future of education part of the curriculum itself.
Douglas Davis, Chair of the BFA in Communication Design at CUNY’s City Tech, offers a stark analogy. “COVID-19 is asking us are we caterpillars or are we canaries?” The trends were already visible. Years prior, giants like Google, Apple, and Microsoft dropped the college degree requirement for many roles, signaling a shift back to a skills-first economy.
Davis identifies the core conflict paralyzing most institutions: Safety vs. Solvency.
The entire university profit formula, from housing to alumni donations, is built for the in-person experience. The need to maintain that revenue stream creates a powerful incentive to bring students back to campus, even when it’s unsafe. This creates a crisis of trust. “What you're seeing is the dominoes falling concerning all the different schools who said, yes, we're obviously going to be in person, and then screech,” Davis says. “It erodes trust in the people who are making decisions.”
Joey Korenman, founder of the online School of Motion, views the moment as a necessary, if painful, reckoning. He calls it creative destruction. “The biggest effect of COVID-19 is that it's basically caused everybody and all of these systems in the world that had all this inertia of decades and in some cases centuries of ‘this is how it's done’...all of that had to stop.”
The fundamental assumptions, that college is four years in a building and costs a certain amount, were suddenly up for debate. For Korenman’s business, the result was dramatic. After an initial hit, his online school had its biggest quarter ever. “There's clearly something in the air changing around what the average person thinks education is supposed to be,” he notes.
The Broken Business Model
For years, a thought experiment was a staple of Do’s classes at ArtCenter. He would ask students to list everything they were getting for their tuition, assign a dollar value to each item, and see if it added up.
“This is no longer a thought experiment,” Do says. The pandemic forced a real-time bifurcation of the product. The educational component was separated from the campus experience, and everyone was forced to ask what each part was truly worth.
When students are sitting on their childhood beds, eating food from their parents' fridge, and using their family's electricity to attend Zoom classes, the value proposition crumbles. “When you're down to the choice between air and food, it's a bad situation,” remarks Davis.
The financial model of higher education was never just about teaching. As Do points out, a Forbes article by Andrew DePietro had already highlighted several troubling, cost-cutting trends pre-pandemic:
- A decade-long reduction in tenured professorships.
- A growing reliance on low-paid adjunct professors to reduce payroll and benefits costs.
- A heavy dependence on high-tuition international and out-of-state students.
The pandemic blew this fragile structure apart. The lucrative international student market vanished. Domestic students balked at paying full price for a diminished experience. And the non-educational revenue streams, the true profit centers for many universities, dried up overnight.
Davis argues that the very brand of elite institutions is being tested. “A lot of times when people talk about brand value, it's very difficult to quantify,” he says. “Well, we're seeing it.”
When parents of students at Harvard and Columbia push back, demanding discounts for a remote experience, they are actively devaluing the brand in real time. The brand was never just the diploma; it was the entire package. Davis explains that even alumni donations are tied to this. “The way we make money once you've graduated, it's based on the nostalgia of the experience that you had when you were there.”
Without the ivy-covered walls, the late-night study sessions in the library, and the roar of the football stadium, what remains? Just the education. And many are finding the price tag for that alone is indefensibly high.
The Great Unbundling
The crisis is forcing a great unbundling of educational services. The monolithic, four-year package deal is being broken down into its component parts, and consumers are now free to pick and choose.
This creates both peril and promise. For some, it’s a terrifying loss of a competitive moat. For others, it’s the opportunity of a lifetime. The idea that you must go to a specific, expensive school to learn from a master instructor is evaporating. “If I want to go in and be taught by Petrula, I have to go to ArtCenter,” Korenman says, posing a hypothetical. “Except what if she decided one day to make a class for The Futur?”
The scarcity model is broken. Korenman points to the platform Teachable, where in one quarter, 12 instructors each earned over a million dollars. The economics of teaching have been flipped on their head. A top-tier instructor can often earn more by building their own platform or partnering with an online school than they can through a traditional university salary. This is a path many creatives are exploring as they learn how to build a personal brand alongside their professional practice.
“The financial incentives are there to now sort of enable companies like MasterClass,” Korenman explains. “We are able to get literally some of the best artists in the entire industry to take months to craft these amazing learning experiences with us because they will make more just passively in one year than most instructors make on staff.”
This unbundling doesn’t just apply to instructors; it applies to students. As Vrontikis argues, smart students must now be more discerning. “They really have to evaluate, what's the potential of my talent and how can I find a place to make the most of it?” she says.
Certain experiences, particularly those involving deep collaboration with a high-caliber cohort, may still justify a premium price. “When you're in school and the people around you also learning are generating more because they're pushing each other... that's something golden,” Vrontikis maintains. For elite schools, curating that cohort and providing access to masters remains their key differentiator.
However, the crisis also exposes a deeper, more systemic problem. Jim Schofield pivots the conversation to the K-12 public education system. “That's where the cluster actually exists,” he says. The digital divide and socioeconomic disparities at the primary and secondary levels create a pipeline of inequality that feeds directly into higher education. “If our public education system doesn't get fixed,” he warns, “then as a country… this is not the place that people are going to want to come.”
Old Guard vs. New Guard
The panel represents a cross-section of the educational landscape, each with a unique set of strengths and weaknesses in this new environment.
Joey Korenman’s School of Motion represents the new guard of online-first education. Its advantages are clear:
- Strength: Cost & Access. “We can compete on cost in a way that I think it would be very hard for say ArtCenter to compete,” Korenman says. His school teaches students in over 100 countries, including places like Syria where top-tier art schools don't exist.
- Strength: Talent Acquisition. By offering a better financial model, they can attract the best working professionals in the industry to create courses. It's a key part of how to attract new customers: lead with undeniable expertise.
- Weakness: The In-Person Gap. Korenman is honest about the limitations. “There are things that you cannot replicate… You can only get in person in a room with other people.” However, he notes that for the moment, this is everyone's weakness.
Douglas Davis operates within the traditional system but at a unique institution, City Tech, a public CUNY college.
- Strength: Diversity & Affordability. With tuition around $7,000 per year and a student body speaking 150 different languages, City Tech’s diversity is its superpower. “The thing that every single company or school is asking for... we have every type of person,” Davis states.
- Strength: Agility. Despite being a large public institution, Davis’s department was nimble. He made the decision to go fully virtual in March 2020, long before many private schools.
- Weakness: Funding & Population. The school is dependent on state and city politicians for funding. Its student body, with average household incomes below $20,000, was hit hardest by the economic crisis.
Petrula Vrontikis and Jim Schofield represent the hybrid professional: experts who teach both within and outside traditional institutions. Vrontikis splits her time between ArtCenter and authoring courses for platforms like LinkedIn Learning and The Futur.
- Strength: Flipping the Classroom. Vrontikis uses online tools to her advantage. She prerecords lectures, freeing up class time for more valuable one-on-one interaction and collaboration. This is not about replacing teaching but enhancing it.
- Weakness: The Job Market. A significant part of her value proposition at an elite school like ArtCenter was her ability to connect students with top-tier jobs. “I could really guarantee that many of our students would get really great jobs,” she says. “There are just less jobs.” The economic downturn directly inhibits her ability to deliver on that promise.
This dynamic highlights a core tension. While online platforms excel at democratizing access to information, premier institutions argue their value lies in curating talent and providing career access, a model that depends heavily on a healthy economy and strong industry relationships.
The Path Forward
There is no returning to the way things were. The pandemic has, as Do puts it, created a form of educational Darwinism. “The ones that do figure it out... you'll be the new gold standard and the thing that everybody wants to model themselves after,” he says, pointing to Davis’s efforts at City Tech.
So, what does it take to survive and thrive in this new landscape?
First, it requires a new skill set. Davis argues that the essential skills for creative leaders have shifted. Pre-pandemic, he would have championed strategy and business acumen. Now, the list is different. He believes every creative leader must master:
- Operations: The logistics of how work gets done.
- Forecasting: The ability to anticipate challenges in a variable environment.
- New Systems Design: Creating new workflows for remote and hybrid teams.
- Decentralized Decision-Making: Empowering individuals to make choices without bureaucratic bottlenecks.
Second, it requires a fundamental shift in perspective. The focus is moving away from credentials and back to skills. “You do realize that back in 1999, it was about what you knew, it wasn't about where you went to school,” Davis reminds the audience. “We're back at that point. It's a big opportunity.” This is a core tenet for anyone aiming to build a successful personal brand; it’s about what you can do, not where you went.
Third, it demands a new level of student agency. Vrontikis emphasizes that students can no longer be passive recipients of information. “I don't want us to underestimate students,” she insists. “If you're a young person who's smart, innovative, creative, you'll take that time to find everything online you can. You'll learn completely new things.”
Finally, as Schofield passionately argues, the system must involve students in its own reinvention. Their ability to solve complex problems should be honed by tackling the most immediate one they face: how their own education is designed and delivered.
The ivory tower is crumbling. Hope, as Davis says, is not a strategy. The institutions that cling to an outdated, bundled model built on nostalgia and overpriced services are canaries in a coal mine. The future belongs to the agile, the decentralized, and the individual. It belongs to the instructors who can package their expertise and the students who are proactive enough to seek it out, wherever it may be.
The thought experiment is over. The question is no longer abstract. For every parent, every student, and every educator, the bill is on the table. What are you really paying for?
TRANSCRIPT
Enjoyed this? There’s more where it came from.
Get insights on running and growing a creative business.
You can unsubscribe anytime. By submitting, you agree to receive communications and to our Privacy Policy.