In the past, universities served as havens for introspection, where knowledge was valued more highly than profit. However, as they start to resemble corporations, the fundamental nature of education is significantly changed. The change feels remarkably similar to what occurs when art galleries turn into investment portfolios: monetization replaces meaning.
This change was particularly evident in Michael Hiltzik’s Los Angeles Times column about UC Davis. He disclosed how Chancellor Linda Katehi became a board member of DeVry Education Group, a for-profit institution that is being investigated for engaging in dishonest business practices. What appeared to be an isolated error of judgment represented a developing mindset: administrators acting like executives and forming corporate affiliations in order to increase their financial power and influence.
According to UC Santa Barbara literature professor Christopher Newfield, this movement is “the intimidation of the public sector.” His observation sums up the underlying fear: universities that were formerly motivated by research are now focused on metrics, branding, and income. A language of market share, impact scores, and cost efficiency subtly replaces the spirit of exploration.
Table: Key Insights on Universities Acting Like Corporations
| Category | Information |
|---|---|
| Core Issue | Universities adopting corporate models prioritize revenue over education, treating students as consumers |
| Major Examples | University of California (UC), SUNY Albany, University of Oxford, University of London |
| Key Figures | Michael Hiltzik (LA Times), Christopher Newfield (UC Santa Barbara), Hank Reichman (Cal State East Bay) |
| Common Practices | Rising tuition, administrative expansion, donor influence, branding over scholarship |
| Societal Impact | Reduced access for low-income students, decline in humanities, erosion of academic freedom |
| Notable Cases | UC Davis chancellor controversy, SUNY Albany’s language program cuts |
| Economic Trend | Shift from public funding to private partnerships and research commercialization |
| Public Response | Growing student debt, faculty protests, and debates over the purpose of education |
| Policy Implication | Privatization pressures threaten public trust in education as a social good |
| Reference Source | https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2016-06-03/universities-corporate-model |
The lifeblood of the tuition-driven institution is now tuition. Fees now account for almost half of the University of California’s system budget, a change that has greatly diminished public accountability. Universities are pursuing revenue from donor-endowed programs, naming rights, and patent royalties as funding decreases. Formerly public missions are now operated under private contracts, which is especially advantageous for administrators who view education as a field that is expanding.
This way of thinking changes priorities and goes beyond numbers. Humanities departments are the first to suffer when universities use profitability as a metric to evaluate value. A watershed was reached when SUNY Albany discontinued its French, Italian, Russian, and classics programs. The ruling made it clear that education that has no commercial value is disposable. It was a particularly symbolic moment that demonstrated how market expectations are redefining the purpose of education.
Through philanthropy disguised as collaboration, corporate influence finds its way into classrooms. A $6 million donation from the Dharma Civilization Foundation was first approved for religious studies positions at UC Irvine, but it was later withdrawn due to suspicions of ideological bias. In a similar vein, Arizona State University established a political center whose standards appeared to be influenced by its donors. These incidents show how universities risk trading intellectual independence for sponsorship when under pressure to raise money.
Even with this effort to generate revenue, the financial results are frequently disappointingly low. Less than 1% of UC’s operating budget goes toward patent royalties, which are hailed as an innovation success. The economic reality that most universities are not profitable endeavors is concealed by the rhetoric of entrepreneurship. However, the corporate illusion endures, enhanced by the prospect of prestige and sustainability.
The size of administrative structures has significantly increased. There are numerous vice presidents for marketing, engagement, and “strategic innovation,” and adjunct faculty members have unstable contracts. With departments vying for attention like subsidiaries and presidents receiving CEO-level compensation, the academic hierarchy now reflects corporate bureaucracy. Despite being extremely effective at managing perceptions, this administrative boom places a financial strain on institutions that education itself finds difficult to defend.
Students are now consumers of an experience rather than being viewed as knowledge apprentices. They traverse universities that are promoted as lifestyle brands, complete with gourmet cafeterias, state-of-the-art gyms, and virtual tour campaigns that promise change. Learning turns into a transaction. A degree is now a product with a marketed return on investment rather than a journey. Learning becomes more about positioning than purpose the more a campus mimics a corporate setting.
Generations are affected. As tuition increases, student debt increases as well, turning education into a long-term financial burden. Academics are losing their reputation as social equalizers. A pragmatic narrative—that education must yield quantifiable benefits—replaces the once-romantic ideal of the scholar seeking meaning. It’s a very obvious indication that the system is moving from public service to private business.
This sentiment was echoed in an editorial published in Nature in 2024 regarding the UK’s higher education crisis. It made the case that colleges that are viewed like corporations will inevitably fall short as moral establishments. Due to a lack of government funding, many UK campuses now run on tuition-driven budgets and run the risk of going bankrupt. Every £1 spent on education results in £14 in economic benefits, according to the editorial. This irony highlights how undervaluing universities hurts economies as a whole.
American and British institutions are remarkably similar. Both see reputation as capital, rely significantly on international students, and seek growth through brand licensing and real estate. Universities now collaborate with tech companies, fund incubators, and patent new businesses. Despite their seeming innovation, these programs quietly convert universities from public institutions to private creators of intellectual property.
Even popular culture has been affected by the corporatization of academia. Although they both made their fortunes outside of the conventional academic path, individuals like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg are commonly cited as proof that higher education fosters innovation. The paradox that universities encourage entrepreneurial disruption while imitating corporate conformity is reinforced by their success stories, which are promoted by their alma mater.
However, it’s crucial to acknowledge that despite its controversy, this evolution has also resulted in advancement. Some universities have been able to invest in research, modernize instruction using digital tools, and reach a wider audience thanks to their financial independence. In many instances, access has expanded and efficiency has increased. When properly balanced, the corporate model can be a very powerful tool for promoting innovation and scaling resources. The risk comes from losing sight of the fact that education is meant to promote human growth, not market supremacy.
