Watch the video above for the full discussion, but the core argument deserves to stand on its own.
In almost any other sector of the economy, failing to deliver value eventually catches up with an institution. A hospital that mistreats patients loses them to competitors. A business that makes a product nobody wants stops making money and eventually closes. That built-in consequence isn’t a flaw — it’s the mechanism that forces institutions to improve or disappear.
Universities don’t operate under that pressure. The discussion makes the point bluntly: it’s almost unheard of for a university to actually go out of business, no matter how badly it performs.
The money just keeps arriving regardless of consequences.
Subscribe now and get 50% off a full year of Deskooled.
That's only $40/year and a huge help to the Deskooled substack.
What happens to an institution that can fail indefinitely without ever facing the consequence of failure?
It keeps doing whatever it’s already doing. There’s no external force requiring change, because the one mechanism that corrects every other kind of institution — the threat of running out of money — simply doesn’t apply in the same way.
Part of the argument goes further than just funding. Universities are also treated as indispensable in ways that don’t hold up well under scrutiny. Research, long assumed to require university infrastructure, increasingly happens outside of it entirely — at private labs, independent institutes, and companies with no campus at all. If research doesn’t actually require the university, then a major pillar of the institution’s claimed necessity starts to look more like inertia than genuine indispensability.
What would it actually take to introduce real consequences into a system that’s never had any?
One pointed answer raised in the discussion: a major university actually failing — going bankrupt, losing accreditation, closing its doors — might be the only thing that gets the message through to the rest of the system. Not as a punishment, but as proof that the money isn’t unconditional. That taxpayer and endowment funding isn’t guaranteed simply because an institution has always received it.
That’s a much harder case to make than it sounds. Universities carry prestige, tradition, and alumni networks that insulate them from the kind of market discipline that shapes nearly everything else. But the underlying question remains worth asking directly: what exactly is correcting the failures inside higher education right now, if nothing ever has to close?
Watch the full discussion above for where this argument goes next.
Subscribe now and get 50% off a full year of Deskooled.

Start with the Ivy League. Not that they aren't all problematic, but the ivys have prestige and authority and are most often cited by the manipulators.