Higher education has long relied on a simple premise: academic authority commands respect. In traditional undergraduate settings, that premise often goes unquestioned. Faculty hold positional power. Students are young, dependent, and socially conditioned to defer. Respect flows downward through hierarchy.
That model fails in adult learning environments.
Adult learners enter academic programs with established identities, professional experience, and a clear sense of agency. They are managers, caregivers, veterans, entrepreneurs, public servants, and career professionals. In this context, respect is not granted by title alone. It is reciprocal, relational, and contingent on how learners are treated.
This is not a cultural preference. It is a structural reality that many institutions have not yet operationalized.
Adult Learners Are No Longer Peripheral to Higher Education.
Adult learners are now the fastest-growing segment of the higher education market. As traditional-age enrollment declines, universities increasingly depend on graduate, professional, and nontraditional programs to stabilize revenue and sustain relevance.
Yet institutional practices have not kept pace.
Adult learners are routinely subjected to policies, communication styles, and classroom management approaches designed for dependent adolescents. They are spoken to as novices rather than professionals. Their experience is minimized. Their time constraints are dismissed. Their legitimate questions are reframed as challenges to authority.
This is not adaptation. It is institutional inertia.
Authority Does Not Equal Credibility With Adult Learners.
Subject matter expertise alone does not confer respect in adult education. A professor may be an accomplished scholar and still lose credibility if they fail to demonstrate respect for learner experience, context, and autonomy.
Adult learners evaluate faculty and mentors differently than traditional students. They ask:
When the answer is no, respect erodes quickly. Credentials cannot compensate for poor leadership or weak communication.
This dynamic is well established in adult learning theory. Malcolm Knowles emphasized that adults are self-directed learners who bring accumulated experience into educational settings. When institutions ignore this premise, they undermine both learning outcomes and trust.
The Power Dynamic Has Shifted. Institutions Must Acknowledge It.
Most adult learners are not funded by scholarships. They are paying their own way, often while balancing careers and family responsibilities. They are not represented by parents or proxies. They are the primary stakeholder.
In undergraduate settings, universities often show greater deference to parents than to students. In adult learning environments, that proxy disappears. The learner is the customer, the evaluator, and the reputational signaler for the program.
Yet many institutions continue to operate as though adult learners should be grateful for access rather than respected as partners in a high-stakes transaction. This misalignment creates friction that institutions often misinterpret as entitlement or noncompliance. In reality, it reflects unmet expectations for professional treatment.
Infantilization Is an Institutional Failure.
When adult learners push back against unclear requirements, shifting standards, or inconsistent feedback, they are frequently labeled as difficult. This framing avoids accountability.
Most conflict in adult learning environments stems from weak operational practices, not learner attitude.
Adults expect baseline competencies from those leading them:
These are not special accommodations. They are standard leadership and project management practices.
Universities increasingly assign faculty and administrators to adult programs without requiring training in adult learner leadership. Research expertise is remembered. Leadership competence is assumed. The results are predictable.
Scholars such as Stephen Brookfield have long warned that unexamined power dynamics distort learning environments. Infantilization is often the result of institutions failing to interrogate how authority is exercised, not learners rejecting rigor.
Respect Does Not Undermine Standards. It Strengthens Them.
One of the most persistent institutional anxieties is that adapting to adult learners will dilute academic rigor. This fear is misplaced.
Respect does not mean lowering standards. It means clarifying them.
Adult learners are often willing to meet high expectations when those expectations are coherent, relevant, and consistently applied. Rigor fails when standards are opaque, arbitrary, or enforced through power rather than leadership.
Programs that succeed with adult learners typically:
This perspective aligns with the work of Sharan Merriam, who emphasizes meaning-making, context, and learner agency as central to adult education practice.
What Institutions Continue to Avoid Addressing
Several issues remain conspicuously absent from institutional conversations.
First, respect must be operationalized. Values statements are insufficient. Respect must be reflected in policy design, communication norms, escalation pathways, and accountability mechanisms.
Second, faculty development must expand beyond pedagogy and research. Leadership, project management, and adult learner engagement should be baseline competencies for those working in adult programs.
Third, adult learners need protected mechanisms for feedback and dispute resolution. Silence is often misread as satisfaction when it is actually risk avoidance.
Finally, institutions must confront the contradiction of teaching adult learning principles while failing to model them internally. This inconsistency damages credibility and accelerates disengagement.
A Strategic Imperative, Not a Cultural Preference
Adult learners are not a temporary enrollment strategy. They are the future of higher education sustainability.
Institutions that cling to hierarchical, pedagogy-centered authority models will struggle with retention, reputation, and outcomes. Those that reconceptualize respect as a strategic capability will outperform peers quickly.
Respect in adult learning is not about ego. It is about aligning authority with accountability, expertise with humility, and standards with professionalism.
In adult education, respect is not assumed. It is earned through action, reinforced through consistency, and sustained through leadership. Universities that understand this reality will not only serve adult learners better. They will lead the next phase of higher education transformation.
That model fails in adult learning environments.
Adult learners enter academic programs with established identities, professional experience, and a clear sense of agency. They are managers, caregivers, veterans, entrepreneurs, public servants, and career professionals. In this context, respect is not granted by title alone. It is reciprocal, relational, and contingent on how learners are treated.
This is not a cultural preference. It is a structural reality that many institutions have not yet operationalized.
Adult Learners Are No Longer Peripheral to Higher Education.
Adult learners are now the fastest-growing segment of the higher education market. As traditional-age enrollment declines, universities increasingly depend on graduate, professional, and nontraditional programs to stabilize revenue and sustain relevance.
Yet institutional practices have not kept pace.
Adult learners are routinely subjected to policies, communication styles, and classroom management approaches designed for dependent adolescents. They are spoken to as novices rather than professionals. Their experience is minimized. Their time constraints are dismissed. Their legitimate questions are reframed as challenges to authority.
This is not adaptation. It is institutional inertia.
Authority Does Not Equal Credibility With Adult Learners.
Subject matter expertise alone does not confer respect in adult education. A professor may be an accomplished scholar and still lose credibility if they fail to demonstrate respect for learner experience, context, and autonomy.
Adult learners evaluate faculty and mentors differently than traditional students. They ask:
- Are expectations clear and consistently applied?
- Is feedback transparent and timely?
- Are timelines managed competently?
- Is experience acknowledged rather than discounted?
- Is authority exercised through leadership or through control?
When the answer is no, respect erodes quickly. Credentials cannot compensate for poor leadership or weak communication.
This dynamic is well established in adult learning theory. Malcolm Knowles emphasized that adults are self-directed learners who bring accumulated experience into educational settings. When institutions ignore this premise, they undermine both learning outcomes and trust.
The Power Dynamic Has Shifted. Institutions Must Acknowledge It.
Most adult learners are not funded by scholarships. They are paying their own way, often while balancing careers and family responsibilities. They are not represented by parents or proxies. They are the primary stakeholder.
In undergraduate settings, universities often show greater deference to parents than to students. In adult learning environments, that proxy disappears. The learner is the customer, the evaluator, and the reputational signaler for the program.
Yet many institutions continue to operate as though adult learners should be grateful for access rather than respected as partners in a high-stakes transaction. This misalignment creates friction that institutions often misinterpret as entitlement or noncompliance. In reality, it reflects unmet expectations for professional treatment.
Infantilization Is an Institutional Failure.
When adult learners push back against unclear requirements, shifting standards, or inconsistent feedback, they are frequently labeled as difficult. This framing avoids accountability.
Most conflict in adult learning environments stems from weak operational practices, not learner attitude.
Adults expect baseline competencies from those leading them:
- Clear scope and deliverables
- Transparent evaluation criteria
- Predictable timelines
- Professional communication
-
Respectful engagement
These are not special accommodations. They are standard leadership and project management practices.
Universities increasingly assign faculty and administrators to adult programs without requiring training in adult learner leadership. Research expertise is remembered. Leadership competence is assumed. The results are predictable.
Scholars such as Stephen Brookfield have long warned that unexamined power dynamics distort learning environments. Infantilization is often the result of institutions failing to interrogate how authority is exercised, not learners rejecting rigor.
Respect Does Not Undermine Standards. It Strengthens Them.
One of the most persistent institutional anxieties is that adapting to adult learners will dilute academic rigor. This fear is misplaced.
Respect does not mean lowering standards. It means clarifying them.
Adult learners are often willing to meet high expectations when those expectations are coherent, relevant, and consistently applied. Rigor fails when standards are opaque, arbitrary, or enforced through power rather than leadership.
Programs that succeed with adult learners typically:
- Connect learning to real-world application
- Allow flexibility without sacrificing outcomes
- Treat feedback as dialogue rather than decree
- Recognize experience as an asset, not a threat
This perspective aligns with the work of Sharan Merriam, who emphasizes meaning-making, context, and learner agency as central to adult education practice.
What Institutions Continue to Avoid Addressing
Several issues remain conspicuously absent from institutional conversations.
First, respect must be operationalized. Values statements are insufficient. Respect must be reflected in policy design, communication norms, escalation pathways, and accountability mechanisms.
Second, faculty development must expand beyond pedagogy and research. Leadership, project management, and adult learner engagement should be baseline competencies for those working in adult programs.
Third, adult learners need protected mechanisms for feedback and dispute resolution. Silence is often misread as satisfaction when it is actually risk avoidance.
Finally, institutions must confront the contradiction of teaching adult learning principles while failing to model them internally. This inconsistency damages credibility and accelerates disengagement.
A Strategic Imperative, Not a Cultural Preference
Adult learners are not a temporary enrollment strategy. They are the future of higher education sustainability.
Institutions that cling to hierarchical, pedagogy-centered authority models will struggle with retention, reputation, and outcomes. Those that reconceptualize respect as a strategic capability will outperform peers quickly.
Respect in adult learning is not about ego. It is about aligning authority with accountability, expertise with humility, and standards with professionalism.
In adult education, respect is not assumed. It is earned through action, reinforced through consistency, and sustained through leadership. Universities that understand this reality will not only serve adult learners better. They will lead the next phase of higher education transformation.
AI Transparency Disclaimer
This essay represents the opinions of the author. It was developed with the assistance of generative AI, based on an outline and initial draft created by the author. Generative AI was used as an assistive tool for subsequent drafting and editing. The ideas, arguments, and conclusions reflect the author’s own thinking, professional judgment, and proprietary work product.
Created with
