{shortcode-6a60ec036821048b67e9ea7882b8b97cf5019ccf}

Earlier this month, Harvard announced that it would accept significantly fewer students to its graduate programs, one of the many cost-saving measures it has implemented in response to the Trump administration threatening billions of dollars in University funding.

Some might be wondering why anyone should care if, for example, the number of Harvard history Ph.D.s drops from 13 to five. Although these cuts might not look important, they signify something far darker for higher education. A lack of Ph.D. students will be felt everywhere: in the undergraduate classes that currently rely on their instruction, in the fields their research could have propelled forward, and, perhaps most importantly, in the generations to come that will suffer an absence of qualified educators. Trump’s attacks have irrevocably altered the playing field for academia, and it may never recover.

At Harvard, several departments have downsized by more than 50 percent. Some, like Sociology and German, won’t admit any students in the 2027-28 academic year. As of now, these changes only extend to the next two admissions cycles. However, it’s not clear that they won’t continue beyond then.

In an email, Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra wrote that the reduction in cohort sizes would be concurrent with an evaluation of “the future model of Ph.D. education,” adding that the FAS had only decided to continue admitting Ph.D. “after careful deliberation.” In other words, there is no guarantee that Ph.D. programs will ever return to their original sizes in coming years — if they even exist at all.

These cuts have large-scale consequences. In the short term, substantial changes will be required to supplement large undergraduate classes. Much of the work involved in running these classes — grading, guiding discussions, responding to students’ questions — falls upon graduate students.

It’s not difficult to see how their absence might impact a class. Courses might have to start instating enrollment caps to compensate, making them less accessible to students and discouraging academic exploration. In particularly niche fields, losing even a single Ph.D. student might be crippling. While professors might be able to supplement this loss with undergraduate course assistants, there is still a world of knowledge separating a college student from a graduate student.

And that’s not even considering the effect on Ph.D. students themselves. While Harvard’s compensation is relatively in line with other institutions, Ph.D. students are still generally overworked and underpaid. In the already difficult battle for contract protections and pay raises, a lack of students is a significant blow to grad student unions fighting for better conditions.

In the long term, the impacts are perhaps even more chilling. Fewer Ph.D. students means fewer qualified professors, leading to a decrease in both quality research and education. How many possible professors will we lose due to capped or non-existent programs? What ideas and insights will be lost to inaccessibility?

Harvard’s wealth will not protect it from federal attacks. Despite an endowment larger than the GDP of almost 100 countries, Harvard heavily relies on federal funds. The vast majority of the endowment is either illiquid or earmarked by donors for specific purposes, leaving very little for other matters, regardless of their importance.

Perhaps naively, I’m still holding out hope that Harvard’s Ph.D. programs will recover. Harvard will be fine — after all, it has weathered every presidency in American history thus far. But can other institutions say the same?

In April of this year, the Trump administration sent a letter detailing conditions for reinstating federal funding, an unreasonable list of demands that bordered on extortion. While Harvard may have won that battle for the time being, an unsettling question still remains: if it can happen to Harvard, what’s stopping it from happening to everyone else?

Trump has already sent similar demands to nine universities, and years of funding loss have led some schools to halt graduate admissions altogether. Such efforts are especially harmful to underrepresented students who might be qualified for rigorous Ph.D. programs, but can’t necessarily attend a school like Harvard due to a lack of resources or a responsibility to support their family. For these students, the large-scale pause on graduate admissions completely eliminates the option of higher education.

In times like these, I think back to the core tenet of education: knowledge is important and should be shared. At a time when we have more resources and better technology than ever before, where knowledge should be more communal than ever, we’ve begun moving backwards. Future generations won’t just get worse educations than their predecessors — they might not get any at all.

The decades-long fight to make education more accessible might not be over yet, but we’ve certainly lost this battle.

Khadija T. Khan ’28, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Philosophy concentrator in Currier House.