Colleges teach learning, but they don’t teach how to survive

Rising tuition, declining enrollment, and disappointing employment results have called into question whether the college is still delivering on its promise. Dozens of smaller institutions are closing or merging, caught between rising costs and weak demand. This is not an isolated failure. They are signs of a system that needs to be reinvented.

The real challenge, however, is not external. It’s structural. If higher education is to remain viable in a competitive post-industrial economy, it must shift from viewing itself as a stand-alone institution to recognizing its role in the broader talent supply chain.

This transformation requires more than programmatic adjustments. It requires rethinking priorities.

For most of the last century, colleges and universities have maintained industry along the ARM, operating on the understanding that their purpose is to cultivate knowledge for its own sake. Theory was king. Practicality is often treated as peripheral, or worse, professional. But the world has changed. And so you have student expectations.

Today’s graduates face a job market that requires both experience and application. Many enter the workforce burdened with debt and without the tools to contribute from day one. Students and families began asking more difficult questions. Employers, too, are losing patience. We shouldn’t be surprised. Higher education delayed course correction.

In many organizations, the idea of ​​aligning more closely with industry is viewed with caution. Some see it as a dilution of academic purpose or a threat to faculty independence. Others are simply afraid of change. But these objections miss the point.

Professional preparation does not have to come at the expense of intellectual rigor. In fact, the most effective graduates in the workforce are those who can think critically, communicate effectively, and adapt to complexity. These are not soft skills. These are the very traits that rigorous academic study is designed to develop. What’s missing is experience.

At Kettering University, where I am president, we have built a model that integrates traditional learning with deep, structured workforce engagement. Our co-op program is not an add-on. It’s the foundation of our model, and has been for over a century. We do not consider students as clients. We look at them as emerging professionals. We do not treat employers as donors. We treat them as partners.

Founded in 1919 as an automobile school, Kettering became the Flint Institute of Technology before being acquired GM In 1926 and renamed the General Motors Institute. For the next five decades, it served as GM’s primary talent engine, producing generations of engineering and management leaders through a highly embedded, collaborative model. In 1945, we added a universal thesis requirement in the fifth year, completing our evolution into a full degree-granting university. It was upgraded in 1982, and in 1998 we became Kettering University, named after Charles F. Kettering, head of GM research and an early advocate of professional cooperative education. This legacy still defines us.

Today, over the course of 4.5 years of study, each Kettering student alternates between an intense 11-week academic term and an 11-week paid professional work placement. They graduate with two and a half years of discipline-specific experience and often over $100,000 in earnings. We partner with more than 600 employers nationwide—including leading mobility, aerospace, and autonomous systems companies—to deliver this model at scale. Each year, nearly 100% of our graduates secure employment within a few months, often with co-op employers and often in leadership track roles. More than 1,500 alumni currently serve in executive positions across industries, including C-suites of Fortune 500 companies.

Kettering’s commitment to cooperative education is not just semantics. It’s a shift in direction. In our model, the industry is the customer. The student is the product. Our mission is to develop this product with both intellectual depth and practical ability.

The most effective way to do this is through cooperative education: formal, mentored, compensated work placements built into the academic calendar. The concept is not new. Originating at the University of Cincinnati more than a century ago, it has championed institutions such as Northeastern, Drexel, and Antioch. Recently, schools across the country have begun experimenting with summer internships and short-term placements to meet the growing demand.

But not all collaboration models are created equal. To be more than resume fonts, these programs must be based on some basic principles.

First, they must be integrated with academic content and linked to the student’s chosen field. Secondly, the work must be objective and honorable, not clerical. Third, it must be paid, and the employer must be actively involved in shaping the experience. And fourth, there must be enough repetition to build mastery, not just exposure.

This edge was not gained at the expense of the liberal arts. Courses in philosophy, communication, ethics, economics, and history accumulate their professional preparation.

And as companies widely adopt AI to automate more entry-level tasks, expectations for human contributors are rising. Employers are now looking for graduates who can step into complex, judgment-based roles straight away. The pressure on colleges to produce truly prepared graduates will only increase.

The risks are real for the private sector. As industries face increasing talent shortages, the disconnect between academic production and economic need is no longer just an educational issue. It is a national competitive issue. Recent federal initiatives, such as the CHIM & SCIENCE Act and NSF’s expanded investments in STEM education, underscore how national policymakers are urgently seeing the need to bolster the talent pipeline.

Business leaders have a role to play here. By forming deeper partnerships with academic institutions, forming co-op programs, investing in student mentorship, and supportive policies that stimulate applied learning, employers can help close the readiness gap. This is not charity. It’s a strategy.

The future of higher education will be defined by institutions that understand and act on this transformation. Those still tied to old assumptions will continue to lose ground. Those who adapt will not only survive, but will produce graduates ready to lead.

We are teachers. But we must also be learners. Now, the lesson is clear: importance is not inherited. It was earned.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com comment pieces are solely those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs luck.