In last week’s newsletter, I asked do we have too many universities? Or to rephrase that question, do we have more universities than is sustainable, particularly when looking through the financial lens?
Expansion has been a defining feature of higher education over the past several decades. Governments have encouraged wider participation, institutions have developed new programmes and campuses, and the number of universities in many countries has increased.
This expansion has brought many benefits. Millions more people have had the opportunity to access higher education, and universities now play a larger role in national economies. Yet as financial pressures increase across the sector, it is reasonable to ask whether the sector has expanded to a point where the current structure is difficult to sustain.
In many sectors, sustained financial pressure eventually leads to consolidation. Companies merge and organisations restructure. From that perspective, one might expect university mergers to become more common when competition for students, funding and reputation intensifies.
Higher education systems often expand easily, but they contract extremely slowly, if at all. Universities are occasionally merged, but such cases remain uncommon. Two examples were given in the last edition of my newsletter, but these are isolated examples.
This raises an interesting question. If consolidation is a normal response to pressure in many sectors, why does it occur so rarely in higher education?
Part of the answer lies in the fact that universities face a set of challenges during mergers that are very different from those encountered in most other organisations. These challenges are not only financial. They involve governance structures, institutional identity, academic culture and the practical complexity of integrating large organisations that are simultaneously teaching students, conducting research and recruiting future cohorts.
Understanding these challenges helps explain why higher education systems can continue to expand for decades yet find it difficult to contract (read that as merge) when circumstances change.
Why university mergers are different
In many sectors, mergers are primarily financial and operational decisions. Organisations assess costs, market position and long-term viability, and decisions are made within relatively clear governance structures (although it may not seem like that at the time). While such processes are rarely simple, they are generally understood and, importantly, expected as part of how markets function.
Universities operate differently. They are not only organisations but also institutions with deep historical roots, complex governance arrangements and multiple stakeholders. As a result, mergers are not simply strategic decisions. They are institutional transformations that affect identity, culture and long-term purpose.
To understand why mergers are so rare, it is useful to examine some of the specific challenges that universities face.
Institutional identity and alumni
Universities are closely tied to their history, identity and alumni communities. Many institutions have evolved over decades, and in some cases centuries, building reputations that extend well beyond their immediate region.
A merger raises fundamental questions about identity. Which name survives? Does a new name emerge? What happens to institutional legacy and heritage?
For alumni, these questions are not abstract. Their degree is tied to a specific institution. A change in name or structure can feel like a loss of identity or a dilution of the value associated with their qualification. Alumni networks, philanthropic relationships and long-standing affiliations can all be affected.
In most sectors, brand integration is a marketing exercise. In universities, it is often an emotional and symbolic issue.
Governance complexity
University governance structures are typically more complex than those found in many other organisations. Decisions of this scale often require agreement across multiple bodies, including governing councils, academic senates, faculties and, in many cases, government agencies or regulators.
Academic staff may expect to be consulted on decisions that affect the structure and direction of the institution. Trade unions and staff associations may be involved, particularly where employment conditions are affected.
This creates a decision-making environment where major structural change takes time and requires broad consensus. Even when there is agreement in principle, the process of securing formal approval can be lengthy and uncertain.
Academic structure and programme integration
Universities are organised around academic programmes, departments and disciplines, each with their own structures, priorities and cultures.
A merger requires decisions about how these will be combined. Where both institutions offer similar programmes, choices must be made about whether to:
- Maintain parallel provision
- Consolidate into a single programme
- Phase out one offering over time
These decisions are unlikely to be straightforward. They affect staff roles, student pathways and academic identity within disciplines.
There is also the question of timing. Should changes be implemented immediately, or should existing students be allowed to complete the degree for which they originally enrolled? In practice, many institutions adopt transitional arrangements, which can extend the complexity of a merger over several years.
Students and the student experience
Students are directly affected by any merger, yet their position is often one of the most sensitive aspects of the process.
Questions arise such as:
- Will the degree title change?
- Will the awarding institution be different?
- Will teaching locations or delivery modes be affected?
- Will resources and facilities improve, or become more stretched?
- Will there be any changes in fees or scholarships?
- Will facilities, such as accommodation and access to sports be affected?
Students typically enrolled under a specific set of expectations. Any perceived change to those expectations can lead to dissatisfaction, reputational risk and, in some cases, regulatory scrutiny.
Unlike many sectors, universities cannot pause operations while restructuring. Teaching must continue, assessments must be completed and new cohorts must be recruited, all while the merger process is underway.
Professional accreditation
Many university programmes are accredited by professional bodies. This is particularly important in fields such as engineering, medicine, law and business.
A merger introduces additional complexity where:
- One institution holds accreditation and the other does not
- Accreditation standards differ across programmes
- Regulatory requirements must be re-evaluated under a new institutional structure
Accreditation is not automatically transferable. It may require revalidation, additional review or, in some cases, temporary loss of status while processes are reassessed.
This creates risk for both institutions and students, particularly where professional recognition is a key outcome of the degree.
Rankings and reputation
University rankings play a significant role in shaping institutional strategy, reputation and student recruitment.
A merger raises important questions:
- How will the merged institution be represented in rankings?
- Will historical performance carry over, or will the institution be treated as new?
- What happens if one institution is ranked significantly higher than the other?
- Will the merged institution lose its ranking for some time?
These are not trivial concerns. Rankings influence international recruitment, partnerships and perceived prestige. A merger that creates uncertainty or reduces ranking performance may be viewed as strategically risky, even if there are long-term benefits.
Human resources and organisational alignment
Merging universities involves bringing together large and diverse workforces. This includes academic staff, professional services teams and senior leadership structures.
Key challenges include aligning:
- Employment contracts and conditions
- Pay structures and benefits
- Promotion and tenure systems
- Workload models
- Organisational hierarchies
These are often deeply embedded within institutional policy and practice. Differences between institutions can be significant and aligning them can be complex and (probably) contentious.
Systems and infrastructure
Modern universities rely on extensive digital infrastructure. A merger requires decisions about how to integrate or replace systems across the institution.
These include:
- Student information systems
- Finance and HR platforms
- Research management systems
- Digital libraries and authentication systems
- Learning management systems
- Customer relationship management systems for recruitment
These systems are often deeply integrated into daily operations. Replacing or merging them is not a simple technical exercise. It requires careful planning, significant investment and, often, a multi-year transition.
Disruption to these systems can affect everything from teaching delivery to student recruitment cycles.
Bringing it together
Taken individually, each of these challenges is manageable. Taken together, they illustrate why university mergers are fundamentally different from those in many other sectors.
A merger is not simply a financial or strategic decision. It is an institutional transformation that affects identity, governance, academic structures, students, staff and external relationships, all while the university continues to operate.
This helps explain why higher education systems can expand relatively easily. New institutions can be created, existing ones can grow, and participation can increase. Contraction, however, requires navigating a set of challenges that are complex, sensitive and often politically difficult.
A final reflection
If higher education systems expand easily but contract very slowly, an important question remains.
As financial pressures continue to increase, will systems eventually be forced to confront consolidation more directly, or will they continue to adapt in other ways?
That is a question that many systems may need to consider more openly in the years ahead.
About the author
Graham Kendall is an experienced higher education leader and researcher, having held senior roles including Vice-Chancellor, Provost/CEO and Deputy Vice-Chancellor. He has worked in the United Kingdom and Asia, with a focus on governance, strategy and research performance in universities.
His research spans artificial intelligence, operational research and research evaluation, and he has published extensively in these areas. He has developed a particular interest in how institutional structures, incentives and data shape behaviour within higher education systems.
Through his writing and advisory work, he engages with senior leaders on issues such as governance, rankings strategy and research performance.
If your institution is reflecting on its structure, strategy or long-term sustainability, he welcomes the opportunity for discussion.