The 80/40 Rule
In our work with institutions around the country, we often hear some version of the following:
“We offer 70+ majors but a lot of our students are in A, B, or C.”
This is often true. Programs in fields like business, engineering, communications, and computer science attract large numbers of students due to strong market demand and clear job outcomes. In turn, programs less directly tied to career paths often struggle.
Additionally, some programs become particularly well-regarded due to their faculty, resources, or successful alumni. As a result, these programs with strong reputations grow disproportionately compared to others.
The result is that enrollment distrbution across majors often looks like this:
To determine just how much enrollment tends to be concentrated in top programs, we compiled data for 50 randomly-selected public and private institutions. We looked at how many majors the institution offers and how many students were enrolled in each program.
We found that 50% of undergraduate students are enrolled in just 16% of programs, and a striking 80% of students are enrolled in 40% of programs. Put differently, 60% of programs enroll just 1 in 5 students.
If you ran a restaurant and 80% of your customers ordered just 40% of your menu items, you’d change the menu. So, what does this mean for colleges and universities?
Implications:
Simplification as Necessity: In an era of increasing budget cuts and austerity, institutions may need just how sustainable and viable certain programs are. There might be a growing need to simplify what they offer. This could mean phasing out programs with chronically low enrollment or merging them with other related disciplines to create more interdisciplinary offerings.
The anticipated decrease in the college-going population will further exacerbate the challenges for programs struggling with enrollment. Institutions may find themselves forced to make difficult decisions about which programs to continue, expand, or eliminate.Simplification as Strategy: It is natural to think of reduction or simplification as a sign of weakness, an acknowledgment that something didn’t work. But it can also be a tremendous strength and valuable strategy for focusing message, identity, and resources. Sometimes, deciding what not to do is as important as deciding what to do.
When Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, the company had just finished a quarter in which sales fell 30%. Jobs saw that the problem was Apple’s sprawling product lines. He asked a top manager, “Which ones do I tell my friends to buy?” When he couldn’t get a clear answer, he simplified the product line down to four computers. Apple traded complexity for quality and in the process produced record profits the following year.
Colleges and universities can likewise simplify their offerings to focus on core strengths. This strategic focus not only optimizes resources, but also strengthens reputations in areas of expertise.
As the landscape of potential students changes, colleges and universities will need to adapt strategically. One valuable tool for doing so is focusing on programs that align closely with market demands and institutional strengths.