Radical Practicality at the University of Nebraska

Universities are among our most powerful public assets, yet too often we judge their success by internal metrics—rankings, citations, and “US News & World Report” prestige—rather than by whether they solve the urgent problems facing the people who support them. It is time to redefine the University not as an ivory tower, but as a problem-solving institution.

Consider healthcare. When my wife and I first moved back to Lincoln in 2021, we could not find a primary care physician who was accepting new patients. Our state is among the majority that faces a critical shortage of physicians, especially in primary care and rural communities. Patients wait months for appointments (as my wife and I did) or are forced to drive hours for basic care. Universities can help alleviate this burden—now—by a radical rethinking of the medical education timeline.

A three-year undergraduate pathway paired with a three-year MD program would responsibly accelerate training for students committed to primary care. This is not about lowering standards; it is about removing unnecessary delays. Creating a more efficient training apparatus means doctors can care for patients sooner, reduce burnout from prolonged schooling, and provide desperately needed care in rural clinics and community hospitals.

The current law degree environment presents a parallel crisis. Rural areas are becoming legal deserts, with too few attorneys to handle family law, housing, probate, small business formation, and basic civil matters. When lawyers retire, there is often no one to replace them. Law schools should be part of the solution. Imagine a model where law schools serve as “senior partners” to recent graduates in their first year of practice. Faculty could provide structured mentorship, review filings, advise on strategy, and even sit second seat in early court appearances. This would give new lawyers confidence, clients competent representation, and underserved communities access to justice.

However, fundamental changes like these require a deeper shift: realigning incentives within the university’s core. Faculty are rational actors. When tenure and promotion depend almost entirely on scholarly articles with subsequent grant funding—often read by a handful of specialists—faculty will focus there. Yet a law review article, however rigorous, does not resolve today’s eviction crisis or help a rural hospital stay open. If mentoring rural doctors and lawyers, supervising real cases, and building community partnerships counted meaningfully toward tenure and promotion, universities would unleash extraordinary talent in service of the public need.

The question is not whether universities can solve today’s challenges: They can. The real question is whether we are willing to redefine success—away from insular prestige and toward demonstrable public value. Our communities are asking for solutions. It is time for universities to answer.