Rethinking 'Consolidation' in Ohio: Getting the Pieces of the Pie Right
Brian Weinblatt, Ph.D., CFRE
Founder and Principal, Higher Ed Consolidation Solutions
Recent proposals, including those from Vivek Ramaswamy, to consolidate Ohio’s public universities have triggered a familiar debate.
It’s a conversation that surfaces periodically, not just in Ohio but across the country, as states grapple with demographic decline, financial pressure, and shifting perceptions of higher education.
But each time it comes up, the focus tends to land in the same place and miss the same opportunity.
There is a kernel of truth in the idea itself.
Higher education does need structural change. In many states, Ohio included, the number and mix of institutions are out of sync with long-term demographic and financial realities.
Having spent years researching and advising on institutional mergers and acquisitions, including work grounded in Ohio’s own consolidation history, I’ll say this plainly:
The instinct isn’t wrong. The target is.
The question isn’t whether consolidation can be useful. It’s where and how it’s applied.
Start in the Wrong Place, Get the Wrong Outcome
Most proposals begin with public universities.
That’s the hardest and least effective place to start.
Ohio’s public institutions aren’t interchangeable. They are deeply embedded in their regions, with loyal alumni bases, strong donor networks, and decades, sometimes centuries, of identity behind them.
When people hear “consolidation,” they don’t think strategy. They think: "My institution is on the chopping block.
And when change feels like it’s being done to an institution rather than by it, resistance is immediate.
That’s not just politics. That’s reality.
The Opportunity We Keep Missing
If the goal is to strengthen the system while preserving access, there’s a more practical path:
Start with the independent sector.
Ohio has dozens of private colleges facing real structural pressure. Enrollment is declining, tuition dependence is high, and many institutions overlap with nearby competitors.
Some will not be able to sustain themselves long-term.
That’s where consolidation can actually work, if it happens early enough.
We’ve already seen the model:
Bloomfield College joining Montclair State University
Martin Methodist College becoming part of the University of Tennessee system as The University of Tennessee Southern
These were not last-minute rescues. They were proactive moves to preserve access, stabilize operations, and expand the reach of public systems.
For Ohio, a similar strategy could expand program offerings, improve affordability, and maintain regional access without touching a single beloved public campus.
That’s not contraction. That’s targeted expansion.
Timing Is the Difference
There is a fundamental difference between consolidation done by institutions and consolidation done to them.
The 2006 merger of The University of Toledo and the Medical University of Ohio worked because it was mission-driven, collaboratively designed, and grounded in a shared vision.
It felt like a strategic decision, not a last-minute response to a crisis.
And that’s the piece that often gets overlooked:
We tend to have this conversation only when institutions are already under significant pressure, when the best options are no longer on the table.
At that point, consolidation becomes reactive. Reactive consolidation rarely produces the strongest outcomes.
Because in higher education, you’re not just consolidating programs.
You’re consolidating identity, loyalty, and history.
The Bottom Line
Ohio should absolutely be thinking about consolidation.
But scale alone isn’t strategy.
A more durable approach focuses on where consolidation actually creates value. That means strengthening the public system, preserving regional access, and using public–private integration where it improves long-term outcomes.
Just as importantly, it requires acting before institutions reach a breaking point, not after.
The pieces of the pie are there.
They just need to be cut more carefully.