Universities are often discussed in terms of growth. Governments talk about expanding participation. Institutions want to attract more students, open new campuses and develop new programmes. Yet a question that is rarely asked openly is whether there are too many higher education institutions. When financial pressures increase and institutions compete for the same students, funding and reputation, it is sensible to ask whether we now have so many universities that the system itself may no longer be sustainable.
This is not an argument against access to higher education. The expansion of university systems has transformed opportunities for millions of people. However, as financial pressures intensify across many countries, it is worth asking how sustainable the current structure of some higher education systems may be.
The expansion of the UK university sector
One of the most significant moments in the development of the modern UK higher education system came in 1992, when UK polytechnics were granted university status. The policy objective was clear. It aimed to widen participation, recognise the achievements of institutions that were already delivering high-quality education, and create a more diverse and accessible higher education landscape.
The reform achieved many of those aims. Former polytechnics became universities, student numbers increased, and higher education became accessible to a much larger proportion of the population. The UK moved from a relatively small and elite system to one that served a far broader segment of society.
However, the change also had longer-term structural consequences. Once institutions became universities, they naturally sought to behave like universities. Many expanded their research ambitions, pursued external funding and began competing within national and international ranking systems. Over time, institutions that had previously focused strongly on vocational and applied education often found themselves operating within similar reputational and competitive frameworks as older research universities.
As a result, the sector became larger but also, in some respects, more similar in how institutions position themselves.
The geography of modern university systems
Another consequence of this expansion is that many cities now host multiple universities operating in close proximity. In some cases, this clustering reflects historical development rather than deliberate system design.
Manchester provides a clear example. The University of Manchester and Manchester Metropolitan University both operate in the city centre. Nearby institutions such as the University of Salford, the University of Bolton (recently renamed the University of Greater Manchester), and the Royal Northern College of Music also emphasise their connection to the Manchester region.
Nottingham offers another example, with two major universities located in the same city.
This pattern is not unique to these two cities and I mention these two, as they are where I studied. Many UK towns and cities now host at least two universities. When there is strong demand, having multiple universities in close proximity can function effectively. However, when the landscape changes, competition between neighbouring institutions can become more intense.
Financial pressures and system sustainability
Higher education in many countries is currently experiencing significant financial pressures. Rising operational costs, increased expectations around research performance, and a fluctuating international student market are creating uncertainty for many institutions. In the United Kingdom, the long-standing cap on undergraduate tuition fees has also placed pressure on university finances, particularly when combined with inflation and rising salary costs.
In most other sectors, prolonged financial pressure eventually leads to consolidation. Organisations merge, restructure or specialise to achieve greater efficiency or resilience. The number of companies may decrease even as the sector continues to serve similar markets.
Universities rarely follow this pattern. Institutional closures are very rare, and mergers occur only occasionally. The result is that systems can continue to expand for decades without ever significantly contracting.
Why university mergers are so rare
There are several reasons why mergers are less common in higher education than in many other sectors. Universities are complex organisations with strong institutional identities, long histories and significant public responsibilities. Many are registered charities or public bodies rather than commercial enterprises, which means they do not operate under the same incentives as shareholder-owned companies.
Institutional identity also matters. A university’s name appears on degree certificates, forms part of its international reputation and carries meaning for alumni, students and local communities. Any proposal to merge institutions inevitably raises questions about which identity will prevail and how the transition will affect those already studying or working within the organisations.
Practical challenges also play a significant role. Leadership structures must be redefined, academic departments integrated, and large administrative systems brought together. IT systems, estates and campus infrastructure must be aligned, and quality assurance frameworks reconciled. Research publications, affiliations and metrics must be recognised under the new institutional structure, which can create complications for rankings and research evaluation systems. These complexities make mergers possible, but rarely simple. Indeed, just this paragraph will put many institutions off from even considering a merger.
When mergers do happen
Although uncommon, university mergers do occasionally occur. One example is the merger of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (UMIST) and the Victoria University of Manchester in October 2004, forming the unified University of Manchester. The institutions had long-standing historical connections, yet the merger still required substantial planning and coordination.
More recently, the University of Greenwich and the University of Kent have announced plans to merge. The “multi-university group” will come into effect on 1 August 2026. The two universities will continue to operate as two distinct academic divisions, retaining their individual names, identities and brands. Students will apply to, study at and graduate from their chosen university, while staff from both universities will be employed by the university group.
A question the sector rarely asks
The reason for raising this topic is not to suggest that specific universities should merge or that any particular institutions are unsustainable. Each university operates within its own local, national and international context, and without detailed analysis it would not be sensible to make assumptions about any particular institution.
However, a broader question is worth considering. If higher education systems continue to expand over time, should there also be mechanisms for consolidation or specialisation when circumstances change?
In many sectors, structural change is an accepted part of long-term sustainability. In higher education, such discussions remain relatively rare and often politically sensitive. Yet as financial pressures continue and competition intensifies, the question may become increasingly difficult to avoid.
In next week’s newsletter, I plan to dig a little deeper into why mergers between universities are so rare. While consolidation is common in many sectors, university mergers present unique governance, cultural and practical challenges. Understanding those challenges helps explain why higher education systems often continue to expand without ever significantly contracting.
Before turning to that discussion, it may be asking a few questions.
Questions worth considering
?? Do some countries/cites have more universities than they can sustainably support?
?? Should neighbouring universities collaborate more closely, specialise more clearly, or even consider merging in certain circumstances?
?? Are mergers between universities a realistic tool for strengthening institutions, or would they simply create larger and more complex organisations?
?? If consolidation were ever considered, who should lead those discussions: governments, regulators or the universities themselves?
?? Is the real issue the number of universities, or the incentives that encourage institutions to behave in similar ways?
These are not easy questions, and there are no simple answers. Reasonable people will disagree on the answers, and they will have valid points of view. But as higher education systems face increasing pressure, they may become questions that the sector will need to consider more openly.
About the author
Graham Kendall is an experienced university leader and researcher with more than 25 years of experience in higher education. He has held senior roles including Vice-Chancellor, Provost and Deputy Vice-Chancellor. He is also an Emeritus Professor at the University of Nottingham and has published more than 300 peer-reviewed papers.
Through his leadership roles he has worked extensively on issues related to university strategy, research governance, rankings, and the internationalisation of higher education, including the development and management of foreign branch campuses.
If your institution is reflecting on questions around governance, research strategy, rankings or the structure of international higher education partnerships, Graham is always happy to engage in conversation and share perspectives drawn from both leadership and research experience.