Finding New Markets for Christian Universities

More of the same won't cut it

Here’s a note about how I write. I have long had a chapter description document that lays out in paragraph form what each chapter in the Fearless Christian University book project contributes. When it’s time to start a new chapter (like now), I assign myself a free-write exercise and wind up with a 3-4 page document outlining my argument. From there I design an actual outline, breaking the argument into key sections. Finally, I write the sections while allowing myself freedom to follow the argument wherever it take me even if I’m straying from all of the above. Yesterday I wrote the free-write for chapter six on the challenges presented by the Demographic Cliff, the shifts present in Gen Z, and how Christian Universities might rethink their market strategy.

I’ve argued that the student experience should always be at the center of the Fearless Christian University mission. Rather than focusing on the gatekeeping functions of culture wars and conservative posturing, institutions should begin with students where they are and provide the environment that allows them to prepare for a rapidly changing future.

Two countervailing pressures will require Christian Universities to become far more intentional about the students they enroll. One of these pressures comes from the Demographic Cliff educational consultants have been warning about for decades. The other arises from the changing nature of the current and rising generations of students.

The Demographic Cliff is the point at which the number of high school graduates fall precipitously. While past demographic shifts have been offset by increasing the percentage of high school graduates who are college bound, this is not likely to be a solution in the near future. This is exacerbated by relatively good economic times and moves across the country to celebrate jobs that don’t require a college education.

Many Christian Universities have attempted to forestall the impacts of the demographic cliff by diversifying their program offerings. New graduate programs, offerings for “working adults” in cohort formats, and online degrees have allowed institutions to become less reliant on the traditional-age population. While the good news is that this diversification has provided a hedge against declines of the demographics, the bad news is that managing such distinct programmatic efforts had seriously complicated higher education administration. A shortfall in any one of the delivery strands causes problems for the institution, often resulting in an administrative version of “whack-a-mole”.

I would argue that the mission of the Fearless Christian University is most closely tied to the 18-22-year old’s residential experience. It’s not that the graduate students or working adults or online students are unaware of the Christian mission of the institution. But their experience of that mission tends to be couched in terms of Christian faculty or assigned texts or online prayer groups. Far too often, the educational philosophy is closer to what Fishman and Gardner called transactional education than transformational education.

The competition for the traditional population has increased. Cost pressures from area community colleges or state institutions pressure institutions to increase their discount rate. Because other institutions are also allowing their discount rates to climb, this puts parents and students in a buyers’ market, playing one institution off against others.

Many Christian Universities have struggled to maintain their traditional enrollment. Some of this is due to national concerns about college indebtedness. Some of it is due to retention rates lagging behind what would be ideal. Some of it is due to a natural selection process where stronger institutions are attracting students that might have previously gone elsewhere.

An examination of Christian University enrollments over time shows a very mixed pattern. Some schools, especially those in thriving communities or staking out very conservative ideologies, have shown tremendous growth year over year for a decade. Others have seemed relatively flat, although the internal dynamics across programmatic offerings masks a more complicated struggle. Of course, many smaller institutions that lack a national reputation have been hemorrhaging students for years.

It is overly simplistic to say, but what all of these institutions need is more students. The challenge over the next decade is that these students will look very different from Christian University students of the past. Reaching out to new populations of students will require re-articulating the university mission in ways that resonate with the younger generation.

Earlier in the book, I mentioned David Kinnaman’s astute observation from 2011 that millennial students were “discontinuously different” from earlier generations. This discontinuity has only expanded as Gen Z has replaced millennials among the college-going population.

A new study by the American Enterprise institute’s Survey Center on American Life outlines the many ways that Gen Z is different. Among the findings are that members of Gen Z are less likely to have attended church as teens (52 percent) but they are also less likely than older generations to use drugs of alcohol (32 percent). They report feelings of isolation (especially in light of the pandemic) and spending less time socializing with friends – although they are in regular contact through social media.

They have concerns about their future direction and navigating major issues of society. Trust in political leaders remains low. Only one in three believe that they trusted political leaders growing up – the same as millennials but twenty percent less than for Gen X. Finding their place in society is a primary concern.

One in five Gen Z females identify as bisexual. Given the heavily skewed female to male ratio in Christian Universities, this will require attention.

From other data, we know that the youngest generation is the most demographically diverse in history. They are far more likely to be interracial or multiracial and much more likely to be in interracial relationships than older generations.

There are some important connections I want to make here. First, the current Christian University market sources – home school students, Christian high schools, youth groups – are likely not large enough to sustain the range of institutions fishing in those ponds. Second, the predominantly white middle-class backgrounds of Christian University students are similarly limiting. The institutions simply must reach out to new segments of the potential traditional college population, even though that will require more efforts in student support and a willingness to address issues of race, class, and ethnicity within the curriculum.

This presents a great opportunity for any institution striving to be a Fearless Christian University. Based on the data, the mission of many Christian Universities fit precisely with the questions and concerns that Gen Z is wrestling with. To make this happen, institutions should shift their focus from making students fit an imagined mold of “Christian University student” and broaden the missional horizon to making those students find a home, learn to process their questions, and prepare for a future they will help build.