Best known schools most likely to close over next 10 years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Occidental, University of Southern California, Georgetown and many of the lesser known schools mentioned earlier in the thread.

USC and Georgetown are doing fine.

You are correct. But out of curiosity, I did a deep dive on Georgetown and why Forbes gave it such a low grade relative to its peers. Georgetown (and USC) got a B whereas most other top schools received A or A plus. Someone pointed out the strong Moody's rating for Georgetown, but Forbes looks at different things to measure financial health beyond ability to pay back loans. Here's what AI said:

Forbes' B grade reflects a fundamentally different set of concerns, and they're real:

Low endowment per student. This is the core issue. Georgetown's endowment is approximately $3 billion — substantial in absolute terms, but when divided across its large student body and operating budget, the endowment per student figure is modest compared to its peer institutions. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Notre Dame have endowments that dwarf Georgetown's on a per-student basis. Forbes weights endowment per student heavily because it measures how much of a financial cushion exists per person the institution is serving. Georgetown comes up short.

High tuition dependence. Forbes penalizes schools that rely heavily on tuition as a percentage of core revenues. Georgetown is significantly tuition-dependent — a large share of its operating budget comes from what students and families pay. This is a structural vulnerability: if enrollment dips, if a competitor disrupts pricing, or if demographic shifts reduce the applicant pool, tuition-heavy institutions feel it faster and harder. Endowment-rich schools can absorb shocks; Georgetown has less of that cushion.

Aid discounting. Georgetown has historically offered significant financial aid, which Forbes views through a nuanced lens. Heavy aid discounting can signal that a school needs to buy enrollment rather than attracting it purely on merit and demand. Forbes' methodology essentially asks: are students choosing you because you're the best option, or because you're making it financially competitive? Georgetown's aid spend relative to its endowment raises flags here.

Lower admissions yield than peers. Georgetown's yield rate — the percentage of admitted students who enroll — is lower than many schools ranked near or below it. This matters to Forbes because yield is a proxy for how much students want to be there relative to their alternatives. A school with a 70% yield has students who overwhelmingly chose it; a school with a 35–40% yield is losing admitted students to other options regularly. Georgetown loses meaningful numbers of admits to Harvard, Yale, Penn, and Georgetown's own law school feeder competition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perusing an older post that had a link to Forbes on the most vulnerable schools. LOTS of small religious schools I'd never heard of.

Some of the names I recognized that got low scores (B- or lower):

Lasalle, Pace University, Widener, Drexel, Oral Roberts, University of Tampa, New School, Sarah Lawrence, Fordham, Bard

https://www.forbes.com/lists/college-financial-grades/

Those are the at risk schools, in addition to many others mentioned

Bard, Fordham, Tampa, and Drexel all have zero risk over the next 10 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Occidental, University of Southern California, Georgetown and many of the lesser known schools mentioned earlier in the thread.

USC and Georgetown are doing fine.

You are correct. But out of curiosity, I did a deep dive on Georgetown and why Forbes gave it such a low grade relative to its peers. Georgetown (and USC) got a B whereas most other top schools received A or A plus. Someone pointed out the strong Moody's rating for Georgetown, but Forbes looks at different things to measure financial health beyond ability to pay back loans. Here's what AI said:

Forbes' B grade reflects a fundamentally different set of concerns, and they're real:

Low endowment per student. This is the core issue. Georgetown's endowment is approximately $3 billion — substantial in absolute terms, but when divided across its large student body and operating budget, the endowment per student figure is modest compared to its peer institutions. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Notre Dame have endowments that dwarf Georgetown's on a per-student basis. Forbes weights endowment per student heavily because it measures how much of a financial cushion exists per person the institution is serving. Georgetown comes up short.

High tuition dependence. Forbes penalizes schools that rely heavily on tuition as a percentage of core revenues. Georgetown is significantly tuition-dependent — a large share of its operating budget comes from what students and families pay. This is a structural vulnerability: if enrollment dips, if a competitor disrupts pricing, or if demographic shifts reduce the applicant pool, tuition-heavy institutions feel it faster and harder. Endowment-rich schools can absorb shocks; Georgetown has less of that cushion.

Aid discounting. Georgetown has historically offered significant financial aid, which Forbes views through a nuanced lens. Heavy aid discounting can signal that a school needs to buy enrollment rather than attracting it purely on merit and demand. Forbes' methodology essentially asks: are students choosing you because you're the best option, or because you're making it financially competitive? Georgetown's aid spend relative to its endowment raises flags here.

Lower admissions yield than peers. Georgetown's yield rate — the percentage of admitted students who enroll — is lower than many schools ranked near or below it. This matters to Forbes because yield is a proxy for how much students want to be there relative to their alternatives. A school with a 70% yield has students who overwhelmingly chose it; a school with a 35–40% yield is losing admitted students to other options regularly. Georgetown loses meaningful numbers of admits to Harvard, Yale, Penn, and Georgetown's own law school feeder competition.

Forbes changed their criteria this year bringing in a methodology developed by a Tulsa professor upset that Tulsa had budget issues. The formula is used by virtually nobody and that pretty much says all that there is to know. It was reworked not for rigor but to drive clicks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Occidental, University of Southern California, Georgetown and many of the lesser known schools mentioned earlier in the thread.

USC and Georgetown are doing fine.

You are correct. But out of curiosity, I did a deep dive on Georgetown and why Forbes gave it such a low grade relative to its peers. Georgetown (and USC) got a B whereas most other top schools received A or A plus. Someone pointed out the strong Moody's rating for Georgetown, but Forbes looks at different things to measure financial health beyond ability to pay back loans. Here's what AI said:

Forbes' B grade reflects a fundamentally different set of concerns, and they're real:

Low endowment per student. This is the core issue. Georgetown's endowment is approximately $3 billion — substantial in absolute terms, but when divided across its large student body and operating budget, the endowment per student figure is modest compared to its peer institutions. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Notre Dame have endowments that dwarf Georgetown's on a per-student basis. Forbes weights endowment per student heavily because it measures how much of a financial cushion exists per person the institution is serving. Georgetown comes up short.

High tuition dependence. Forbes penalizes schools that rely heavily on tuition as a percentage of core revenues. Georgetown is significantly tuition-dependent — a large share of its operating budget comes from what students and families pay. This is a structural vulnerability: if enrollment dips, if a competitor disrupts pricing, or if demographic shifts reduce the applicant pool, tuition-heavy institutions feel it faster and harder. Endowment-rich schools can absorb shocks; Georgetown has less of that cushion.

Aid discounting. Georgetown has historically offered significant financial aid, which Forbes views through a nuanced lens. Heavy aid discounting can signal that a school needs to buy enrollment rather than attracting it purely on merit and demand. Forbes' methodology essentially asks: are students choosing you because you're the best option, or because you're making it financially competitive? Georgetown's aid spend relative to its endowment raises flags here.

Lower admissions yield than peers. Georgetown's yield rate — the percentage of admitted students who enroll — is lower than many schools ranked near or below it. This matters to Forbes because yield is a proxy for how much students want to be there relative to their alternatives. A school with a 70% yield has students who overwhelmingly chose it; a school with a 35–40% yield is losing admitted students to other options regularly. Georgetown loses meaningful numbers of admits to Harvard, Yale, Penn, and Georgetown's own law school feeder competition.

Forbes changed their criteria this year bringing in a methodology developed by a Tulsa professor upset that Tulsa had budget issues. The formula is used by virtually nobody and that pretty much says all that there is to know. It was reworked not for rigor but to drive clicks.

This is what Jeff Selingo has to say about the Forbes ranking. He's not knocking it at all but rather saying that college finances are very complicated and you can't just look at one thing. That's why the Forbes information is a good resource to start with and if you want to dig further about a school, you can use the other resources (like Moody's, etc.). We know Georgetown has been struggling for a while. They are spending money on the campus now, but it is on things that have been neglected for too long (heating system) and will not make a dent in the students' experinece at all. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1175500692308963

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not just the small schools...Clemson is $1.5B in debt. Syracuse is closing or pausing 93 programs, UNC-Chapel Hill plans to cut spending by $89M over 3 years. Duke recently let 600 employees go in a $350M budget cut. Indiana public colleges announced a plan to eliminate or merge 580 programs statewide.

This is what happens when you cut research funding and tell international student they are not welcome in the US.

Everybody is in a bad budget cycle now. It’s different if your endowment is 50x your budget deficit versus if your endowment is 5x your budget deficit though. The schools that have to will burn endowment prior to closing or defaulting on debt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Occidental, University of Southern California, Georgetown and many of the lesser known schools mentioned earlier in the thread.

USC and Georgetown are doing fine.

You are correct. But out of curiosity, I did a deep dive on Georgetown and why Forbes gave it such a low grade relative to its peers. Georgetown (and USC) got a B whereas most other top schools received A or A plus. Someone pointed out the strong Moody's rating for Georgetown, but Forbes looks at different things to measure financial health beyond ability to pay back loans. Here's what AI said:

Forbes' B grade reflects a fundamentally different set of concerns, and they're real:

Low endowment per student. This is the core issue. Georgetown's endowment is approximately $3 billion — substantial in absolute terms, but when divided across its large student body and operating budget, the endowment per student figure is modest compared to its peer institutions. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Notre Dame have endowments that dwarf Georgetown's on a per-student basis. Forbes weights endowment per student heavily because it measures how much of a financial cushion exists per person the institution is serving. Georgetown comes up short.

High tuition dependence. Forbes penalizes schools that rely heavily on tuition as a percentage of core revenues. Georgetown is significantly tuition-dependent — a large share of its operating budget comes from what students and families pay. This is a structural vulnerability: if enrollment dips, if a competitor disrupts pricing, or if demographic shifts reduce the applicant pool, tuition-heavy institutions feel it faster and harder. Endowment-rich schools can absorb shocks; Georgetown has less of that cushion.

Aid discounting. Georgetown has historically offered significant financial aid, which Forbes views through a nuanced lens. Heavy aid discounting can signal that a school needs to buy enrollment rather than attracting it purely on merit and demand. Forbes' methodology essentially asks: are students choosing you because you're the best option, or because you're making it financially competitive? Georgetown's aid spend relative to its endowment raises flags here.

Lower admissions yield than peers. Georgetown's yield rate — the percentage of admitted students who enroll — is lower than many schools ranked near or below it. This matters to Forbes because yield is a proxy for how much students want to be there relative to their alternatives. A school with a 70% yield has students who overwhelmingly chose it; a school with a 35–40% yield is losing admitted students to other options regularly. Georgetown loses meaningful numbers of admits to Harvard, Yale, Penn, and Georgetown's own law school feeder competition.

This is so painfully obvious that it’s written by GPT that it’s hard to take your point or concerns seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Occidental, University of Southern California, Georgetown and many of the lesser known schools mentioned earlier in the thread.

USC and Georgetown are doing fine.

You are correct. But out of curiosity, I did a deep dive on Georgetown and why Forbes gave it such a low grade relative to its peers. Georgetown (and USC) got a B whereas most other top schools received A or A plus. Someone pointed out the strong Moody's rating for Georgetown, but Forbes looks at different things to measure financial health beyond ability to pay back loans. Here's what AI said:

Forbes' B grade reflects a fundamentally different set of concerns, and they're real:

Low endowment per student. This is the core issue. Georgetown's endowment is approximately $3 billion — substantial in absolute terms, but when divided across its large student body and operating budget, the endowment per student figure is modest compared to its peer institutions. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Notre Dame have endowments that dwarf Georgetown's on a per-student basis. Forbes weights endowment per student heavily because it measures how much of a financial cushion exists per person the institution is serving. Georgetown comes up short.

High tuition dependence. Forbes penalizes schools that rely heavily on tuition as a percentage of core revenues. Georgetown is significantly tuition-dependent — a large share of its operating budget comes from what students and families pay. This is a structural vulnerability: if enrollment dips, if a competitor disrupts pricing, or if demographic shifts reduce the applicant pool, tuition-heavy institutions feel it faster and harder. Endowment-rich schools can absorb shocks; Georgetown has less of that cushion.

Aid discounting. Georgetown has historically offered significant financial aid, which Forbes views through a nuanced lens. Heavy aid discounting can signal that a school needs to buy enrollment rather than attracting it purely on merit and demand. Forbes' methodology essentially asks: are students choosing you because you're the best option, or because you're making it financially competitive? Georgetown's aid spend relative to its endowment raises flags here.

Lower admissions yield than peers. Georgetown's yield rate — the percentage of admitted students who enroll — is lower than many schools ranked near or below it. This matters to Forbes because yield is a proxy for how much students want to be there relative to their alternatives. A school with a 70% yield has students who overwhelmingly chose it; a school with a 35–40% yield is losing admitted students to other options regularly. Georgetown loses meaningful numbers of admits to Harvard, Yale, Penn, and Georgetown's own law school feeder competition.

This is so painfully obvious that it’s written by GPT that it’s hard to take your point or concerns seriously.

This behavior is weird to me. Posting ai essays as original content on an anonymous board. What does the poster get out of it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Occidental, University of Southern California, Georgetown and many of the lesser known schools mentioned earlier in the thread.

USC and Georgetown are doing fine.

You are correct. But out of curiosity, I did a deep dive on Georgetown and why Forbes gave it such a low grade relative to its peers. Georgetown (and USC) got a B whereas most other top schools received A or A plus. Someone pointed out the strong Moody's rating for Georgetown, but Forbes looks at different things to measure financial health beyond ability to pay back loans. Here's what AI said:

Forbes' B grade reflects a fundamentally different set of concerns, and they're real:

Low endowment per student. This is the core issue. Georgetown's endowment is approximately $3 billion — substantial in absolute terms, but when divided across its large student body and operating budget, the endowment per student figure is modest compared to its peer institutions. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Notre Dame have endowments that dwarf Georgetown's on a per-student basis. Forbes weights endowment per student heavily because it measures how much of a financial cushion exists per person the institution is serving. Georgetown comes up short.

High tuition dependence. Forbes penalizes schools that rely heavily on tuition as a percentage of core revenues. Georgetown is significantly tuition-dependent — a large share of its operating budget comes from what students and families pay. This is a structural vulnerability: if enrollment dips, if a competitor disrupts pricing, or if demographic shifts reduce the applicant pool, tuition-heavy institutions feel it faster and harder. Endowment-rich schools can absorb shocks; Georgetown has less of that cushion.

Aid discounting. Georgetown has historically offered significant financial aid, which Forbes views through a nuanced lens. Heavy aid discounting can signal that a school needs to buy enrollment rather than attracting it purely on merit and demand. Forbes' methodology essentially asks: are students choosing you because you're the best option, or because you're making it financially competitive? Georgetown's aid spend relative to its endowment raises flags here.

Lower admissions yield than peers. Georgetown's yield rate — the percentage of admitted students who enroll — is lower than many schools ranked near or below it. This matters to Forbes because yield is a proxy for how much students want to be there relative to their alternatives. A school with a 70% yield has students who overwhelmingly chose it; a school with a 35–40% yield is losing admitted students to other options regularly. Georgetown loses meaningful numbers of admits to Harvard, Yale, Penn, and Georgetown's own law school feeder competition.

This is so painfully obvious that it’s written by GPT that it’s hard to take your point or concerns seriously.

If you actually read from the beginning, I indicated that AI was the source, but this was after extensive analysis and back and forth. Claude is one of the most analytical bots out there and while I usually take information with a grain of salt, I thought this analysis was quite extensive and thoughtful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Occidental, University of Southern California, Georgetown and many of the lesser known schools mentioned earlier in the thread.

USC and Georgetown are doing fine.

You are correct. But out of curiosity, I did a deep dive on Georgetown and why Forbes gave it such a low grade relative to its peers. Georgetown (and USC) got a B whereas most other top schools received A or A plus. Someone pointed out the strong Moody's rating for Georgetown, but Forbes looks at different things to measure financial health beyond ability to pay back loans. Here's what AI said:

Forbes' B grade reflects a fundamentally different set of concerns, and they're real:

Low endowment per student. This is the core issue. Georgetown's endowment is approximately $3 billion — substantial in absolute terms, but when divided across its large student body and operating budget, the endowment per student figure is modest compared to its peer institutions. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Notre Dame have endowments that dwarf Georgetown's on a per-student basis. Forbes weights endowment per student heavily because it measures how much of a financial cushion exists per person the institution is serving. Georgetown comes up short.

High tuition dependence. Forbes penalizes schools that rely heavily on tuition as a percentage of core revenues. Georgetown is significantly tuition-dependent — a large share of its operating budget comes from what students and families pay. This is a structural vulnerability: if enrollment dips, if a competitor disrupts pricing, or if demographic shifts reduce the applicant pool, tuition-heavy institutions feel it faster and harder. Endowment-rich schools can absorb shocks; Georgetown has less of that cushion.

Aid discounting. Georgetown has historically offered significant financial aid, which Forbes views through a nuanced lens. Heavy aid discounting can signal that a school needs to buy enrollment rather than attracting it purely on merit and demand. Forbes' methodology essentially asks: are students choosing you because you're the best option, or because you're making it financially competitive? Georgetown's aid spend relative to its endowment raises flags here.

Lower admissions yield than peers. Georgetown's yield rate — the percentage of admitted students who enroll — is lower than many schools ranked near or below it. This matters to Forbes because yield is a proxy for how much students want to be there relative to their alternatives. A school with a 70% yield has students who overwhelmingly chose it; a school with a 35–40% yield is losing admitted students to other options regularly. Georgetown loses meaningful numbers of admits to Harvard, Yale, Penn, and Georgetown's own law school feeder competition.

This is so painfully obvious that it’s written by GPT that it’s hard to take your point or concerns seriously.

Why does that matter? Obviously pp put in the prompts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Occidental, University of Southern California, Georgetown and many of the lesser known schools mentioned earlier in the thread.

USC and Georgetown are doing fine.

You are correct. But out of curiosity, I did a deep dive on Georgetown and why Forbes gave it such a low grade relative to its peers. Georgetown (and USC) got a B whereas most other top schools received A or A plus. Someone pointed out the strong Moody's rating for Georgetown, but Forbes looks at different things to measure financial health beyond ability to pay back loans. Here's what AI said:

Forbes' B grade reflects a fundamentally different set of concerns, and they're real:

Low endowment per student. This is the core issue. Georgetown's endowment is approximately $3 billion — substantial in absolute terms, but when divided across its large student body and operating budget, the endowment per student figure is modest compared to its peer institutions. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Notre Dame have endowments that dwarf Georgetown's on a per-student basis. Forbes weights endowment per student heavily because it measures how much of a financial cushion exists per person the institution is serving. Georgetown comes up short.

High tuition dependence. Forbes penalizes schools that rely heavily on tuition as a percentage of core revenues. Georgetown is significantly tuition-dependent — a large share of its operating budget comes from what students and families pay. This is a structural vulnerability: if enrollment dips, if a competitor disrupts pricing, or if demographic shifts reduce the applicant pool, tuition-heavy institutions feel it faster and harder. Endowment-rich schools can absorb shocks; Georgetown has less of that cushion.

Aid discounting. Georgetown has historically offered significant financial aid, which Forbes views through a nuanced lens. Heavy aid discounting can signal that a school needs to buy enrollment rather than attracting it purely on merit and demand. Forbes' methodology essentially asks: are students choosing you because you're the best option, or because you're making it financially competitive? Georgetown's aid spend relative to its endowment raises flags here.

Lower admissions yield than peers. Georgetown's yield rate — the percentage of admitted students who enroll — is lower than many schools ranked near or below it. This matters to Forbes because yield is a proxy for how much students want to be there relative to their alternatives. A school with a 70% yield has students who overwhelmingly chose it; a school with a 35–40% yield is losing admitted students to other options regularly. Georgetown loses meaningful numbers of admits to Harvard, Yale, Penn, and Georgetown's own law school feeder competition.

This is so painfully obvious that it’s written by GPT that it’s hard to take your point or concerns seriously.

If you actually read from the beginning, I indicated that AI was the source, but this was after extensive analysis and back and forth. Claude is one of the most analytical bots out there and while I usually take information with a grain of salt, I thought this analysis was quite extensive and thoughtful.

The problem with AI for many of these questions is data quality. When the majority of the source material is reddit or DCUM you have a garbage in/garbage out situation. AI at its finest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I dont think colleges are thinking creatively enough.

If I were a college, I'd reach out to 10 good high schools across the country and say, if get a crew of 5 kids with these stats (1400 sat, 3.4 GPA) to commit and we'll give you all full tuition (but not room and board) ride.

If the college name was good *enough* like a Bennington or a Wooster, you might get kids from the bottom half of the class at TJ or Regis or Walter Payton to commit with friends. The colleges CDS looks better, they have a diverse geographic presence, and prepared kids.

If the kids were smart, they'd say, let's do this together and then we can all pay for grad school, start a business, put down a down payment, whatever after graduation.

I work in higher education. Part of the reason colleges are in dire straits is because they are doing and have been doing too much of this. But thanks for your wisdom!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dont think colleges are thinking creatively enough.

If I were a college, I'd reach out to 10 good high schools across the country and say, if get a crew of 5 kids with these stats (1400 sat, 3.4 GPA) to commit and we'll give you all full tuition (but not room and board) ride.

If the college name was good *enough* like a Bennington or a Wooster, you might get kids from the bottom half of the class at TJ or Regis or Walter Payton to commit with friends. The colleges CDS looks better, they have a diverse geographic presence, and prepared kids.

If the kids were smart, they'd say, let's do this together and then we can all pay for grad school, start a business, put down a down payment, whatever after graduation.

I work in higher education. Part of the reason colleges are in dire straits is because they are doing and have been doing too much of this. But thanks for your wisdom!

Do you have anything to back up your assertion? If so please share. If not please shut up.