Is it a myth?

My previous posts, especially "Trauma and Renewal," and most of the conversation about the state of higher education assert the common variables of declining enrollment, public skepticism, and lack of meaningful connections between learning and workforce placement/success. The Hill, a publication rated as mostly accurate and non-partisan, carried an article, "Americans Have Lost Faith," by an SMU professor of rhetoric who called for debate as a way to begin to resolve concerns about credibility in higher education.

The Brookings Institute article, "What College affordability debates get wrong" reflects a very different understanding and provides the facts to back its assertions up. These key points include:

• The financial return to a bachelor's degree has not declined, with college graduates earning roughly two to three times as much as high school graduates over most of their careers.
• Inflation-adjusted tuition and net college costs have been largely flat since the Great Recession, contradicting the widespread belief that prices continue to soar.
• After accounting for tuition and lost earnings, the typical college graduate breaks even by age 26 or 27 and gains more than $1 million over a lifetime.

Reinforcing the Brookings Institute assertions, affordability and workforce training are drivers of increasing enrollment. If educators take Brookings and student trends for reality, then the conversation about the future of higher education might be very different than the "woe is me" conversations surging through most institutions. There are institutions that are closing - 14 in 2023, 16 in 2024, and 15 in 2025. Most of the closures are small institutions, both private and public, that could not navigate the combination of reduced enrollment when the cost of operations increased. Evidence of vulnerability is pretty easy to discern, including not meeting enrollment projections, reorganizations, and the smell of fear among Board members. It may lack empathy to suggest that perhaps the winnowing of the number of institutions could strengthen others but the students that would have attended these institutions went somewhere, and presumably to institutions superior in management if not in the quality of education offered.

The Education Department may shift away from higher education in 2026, however, vigilance is the only defense against an erratic administration. The lessons learned from the 2025 chaos are that sloppy initiatives can be effectively challenged by being assertive in public statements and taking governmental overreach to court. Forbes Magazine asserted 6 key areas where the business sector would like to see higher education focus in the coming year. These areas include embracing diversity and distinctiveness, cultivating institutions that are kind and respectful, adopting new technologies, improving graduation success, addressing regional needs and national priorities, and responding to market forces.

The "Do No Harm" initiative led by the Education Department is designed to align accountability for graduates' earnings outcomes with Trump administration priorities. The panel working on guidelines struggled to reach agreement, although the tight timeline and pressure from the Education Department forced a consensus. The Education Department will now publish the results, seek input, and publish the final policies  by July 2026. The model will have the greatest impact on for-profit institutions that offer degrees in work areas with modest earnings potential.

Commentary about students' perspective on the value of higher education mainly focuses on what's not working. An interesting first-hand discussion among students at the University of Minnesota reinforced a balance between career preparation and learning for life. The students on the panel are from families where higher education was assumed and they were enrolled in a course for honors students. These students are very discerning! Whether or not students from less privileged backgrounds would agree would help us understand broader student perspectives.

The myth or reality of the state of higher education is most likely derived from the competing visions of what higher education should do. While the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute believe regaining public trust will come from renewal of conservative views, "Higher ed's own response to the problem, so far, has been to double down on mission" including reasserting "enduring principles" of education. While the debates continue, some institutions are sincerely attempting to recreate themselves but what is critical is for reinvention to address the right problems. If retention/graduation and insufficient focus on career concerns is what drives students and families (e.g. flourishing) in their decisions, rather than ideology as conservatives would have us to believe, then reinvention will be perhaps much more palatable to academics who reject the ideology challenge.

Professional?

Most of those employed in higher education and student affairs work refer to themselves as professionals. And most have prepared by pursuing graduate degrees that include philosophical grounding, a codified body of research and theory, standards, ethics, and of course, advanced education and credentialing. These attributes are often assumed but not articulated as defining what it means to be professional.

The initiative by the Trump administration to define certain fields as professional and excluding others ignores the criteria of what it means to be professional. Instead, the initiative is designed to control who has access to loans to complete higher levels of graduate and professional education. Specifically, students in graduate programs classified as "professional" will have double the access to student loans than those falling outside the definition. The proposed changes are under a 30-day review, which will surely include the assertion that capping loans "will not only limit opportunities for socioeconomic mobility, but also cause workforce shortages in high-demand, high-cost careers such as nursing, physical therapy and audiology as well as high-demand, low-return careers such as social work and education." One critique focused on the training of physician assistants, who due to the intensity of their preparation, cannot work while studying. Inability to seek loan assistance for PA professional training would seriously impact building a critical element of the work force in the health sector.

Doubling down on college and major/career choice, the Education Department classified 23% of U.S. higher educations as "lower earnings" institutions. Warnings of these "lower earnings" colleges will appear as students complete their FAFSA applications. The point being imposed is that graduates of the lower earnings colleges on average earn no more than an adult with a high school diploma. The move quantifies going to college exclusively in monetary gain rather than looking at broader quality of life or lifelong benefits.

Graduate program enrollment changes are under consideration at many campuses. The changes in loan limits, with lower maximum ceilings for those not included as "professional," could reduce overall enrollment as well as result in shifting popularity of programs.

While the issue of cost of graduate preparation is important, it will be interesting to see if assertions about what is professional will include conversation about what is required of those who have worked hard to obtain degrees and who adhere to professional standards that improve the quality and outcome of their work. The Trump administration is full of appointees whose backgrounds and expertise may not conform to common professional standards. Is that perhaps a contributing factor to their defining "professional" based on what financial assistance is available rather than to the competence they bring to their work?

Trauma and renewal?

My career-long and post-working observations of higher education have left me with lingering questions of how higher education should respond to the trauma of falling enrollment, declining budgets, public skepticism, and attacks by Trump administration leaders. Secretary McMahon ia downsizing the Education Department, moving functions to the Labor Department, which are part of an incremental closure of Education. Meanwhile, officials either decry the carnage or scramble to find a way to preserve essential commitments without the Department's infrastuctural help. Questions of how diversity of enrollment can be supported if realigned in the Department of Labor or how educationally purposeful international education can be maintained in the Department of State are vexing to say the least. Educators who are invested in these issues will no doubt strive to hold the ground of their values and commitments.

Rachel Toor, Inside Higher Education contributor and co-founder of The Sandbox, asked the central question in her recent essay "Is Higher Ed Broken?" Relying on observation from professional conferences, campus visits, and conversations with college presidents, Toor explains that change is resisted from above (oversight Boards) and below (mid-management, faculty, and staff). She describes the dilemma of all the in-between in saying, "Meanwhile, most of us are stuck in the messy middle, trying to do everything everywhere all at once. Research, workforce training, student life, athletics, DEI, study abroad, mental health - missions layered like geological strata. The result? Silos, identity crisis, bloat and burnout." The shrinking pipeline for students coupled with uncertainty over funding resulted in Fitch's rating of the higher education sector as deteriorating.

Trump has advocated and incrementally implemented a "Shut it down" strategy for the Education Department. His demonizing of education in general has accelerated concerns about whether or not pursuing higher education has sufficient return on investment to justify the effort and money. While there have been herculean efforts to respond to the barrage of policies and administrative changes, the dizzying pace has been exhausting for most higher education leaders. Secretary McMahon defended changing assignment of its responsibilities to other federal agencies as experimental, which could be confirmed by legislative sanction at a later date. Trump claims that moving Education Department functions makes way for states to take more responsibility while McMahon claims that the federal funding shutdown confirmed that ED is irrelevant. Dismantling the Education Department isn't new to the GOP, which routinely results in resistance such as Senator Warren's push to investigate what is happening. It's important to remember that the plan to shut it down was all in the Project 2025 plan of the Heritage Foundation. The irony is that the Education Department began calling civil rights workers back to work in December, 2025, indicating that the case load demands restoring staff capacity. The changes in the Education Department goes far beyond civil rights enforcement and, instead of supporting world-class education, has devolved into bureaucratic chaos.

Targeted funding provided through the Education Department's Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education rolled out in early 2026. The 70 organizations were given $169 million to pursue projects aligned with Trump priorities which included alternative accreditation, civil discourse, workforce preparation, and AI.  In addition to Education directing funds to areas privileged by Trump's ideology, NEH (National Endowment for the Humanities) poured $75.1 million into conservative efforts such as Western civilization and great books initiatives. 

Trump's declining popularity and the looming mid-term elections suggest that plans for other major GOP reforms may be running out of time. As an example,  the Congressional Appropriations Committee opposed Trump by proposing to increase NIH funding and maintaining the Education Department. The focus on cost and return on investment is likely to remain as a central theme of reforms along with a stronger focus on accreditation. Redefining the metrics of accountability may be driven by return on investment questions. One of the GOP policy proposals will require institutions to document that their graduates earn more than employed high school graduates.

Reflections on Trump's first year back include a combination of feelings of chaos, despair, and fear. Even if the House of Representatives returns to a Democratic majority in 2027, the damage already done will take at least 10 years if not more. Although some of the worst appropriations cuts were restored by law suits and court decisions, the impact has been substantial - monetarily and psychologically. Moving into Trump's second year, lawyers and education leaders are being called to stand up to the Trump administration attacks. Coalition building and solidarity will be essential in the coming days.

It is unlikely that Rachel Toor's insights will raise sufficient awareness to bring change but the major point she makes is that the middle of the higher education industry have to mobilize to address systemic issues that most are reluctant to face. Especially when it comes to faculty, flexible hours and negligible accountability are privileges that are difficult to uproot. Robert Reich's book, Coming Up Short, ends with a poignant description of the joys of faculty life. As I suggest in this review, with the privileges of faculty life comes the responsibility of legacy - something that shows you gave your best effort in your life's work. And the best effort now has to include saving our higher education institutions, small and large, public and private, struggling or privileged.

Vulnerability comes in multiple forms with research preeminence and fiscal stability being two important factors. In relation to research, concerns over U.S. national security resulted in less international collaboration that resulted in China's rise in research productivity. In fiscal health, credit ratings for higher education institutions project a challenging future. Specifically, Fitch reported that "'the value proposition for a higher education degree' amid declining job-placement rates and rising concerns about affordability" will lead to "consolidation across the sector, from mergers and closures to restructuring and more." Managing these vulnerabilities will be key to institutional survival and hopefully renewal.

How institutions measure their research productivity is often based on the number of publications that make it into top tier journals and the resulting number of citations specific works or authors attract. Social scientists raised questions if the more important measure of research is its impact in policy. Most faculty profess that they are more interested in the impact of their work but reward systems on campus rely more on the metrics. The president of global publishing at Sage commented, "we have to challenge the status quo of what matters in higher education - for example, by moving beyond an overemphasis on scholarly impact measures [and] toward recognizing research that benefits people through policy, practice, and public life."

Accreditation has been the higher education's sector way of determining institutional quality. The convening of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), and election of a chair with Heritage Foundation links, is likely to result in significant reform and the addition of new accrediting groups. The focus of NACIQI is to eliminate "discriminatory practices, mandatory DEI requirements, racial preferences in hiring, compulsory sensitivity training and political litmus tests." The CEO of FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) owned the "hard truth" that attacks on liberal bias in higher education has contributed to repression of all types of speech. Domonique K. Baker wrote for Inside Higher Education that the censorship on campus of today resembles the days of McCarthyism.

Student affairs staff have experienced intensified trauma as a result of the roles they play outside of class, and particularly related to values of wholistic learning and as advocates for diversity in learning. As reflected in this panel, trauma has caused some to move to adjacent roles to higher education institutions. The most important take-away of the panel is the need for student affairs staff to recognize, and strategize ways to avoid, the stress that may undermine their willingness to stay the course during this difficult time.

I bemoan the loss of higher education as I experienced it during my working career. However, in order to survive the trauma of what is underway, faculty, student affairs and other staff, will all have to consider models that will renew and protect the commitments of enriched and deeper learning, preparation for engaged citizenship, and resilience in an ever-changing world of work. And the number of our institutions will decline, look different, and abandon privileges that are no longer fiscally feasible.

2026-27 Enrollment Predictions

Higher education enrollment for 2025-26 increased to pre-pandemic levels with a 1% increase over the numbers in 2019. The data is beginning to emerge on enrollment for 2026-27. The two contrary trends were in adult and international students.

The early applications on Common App show increases from underrepresented groups and a decline of international applications. Selective institutions are experiencing the smallest increases. "International students applying dropped 9 percent compared to this point last year, driven by a 14 percent drop in applicants from India." The erratic policies and pronouncements of the Trump administration have created uncertainty that international students must consider when they apply to study abroad. The Trump administration's revocation of 8,000 current international study visas and freezing visas from 74 countries by the Statement Department is only one factor contributing to ambivalence. Institutions that want to increase international enrollment have turned to creative strategies to cultivate prospects, including partnerships in-country.

Direct application also appealed to students from diverse backgrounds or 1st generation entry. The schools that benefit most by offering admission without application are private and health professions are a favorite. The states where larger numbers of students take direct admission offers include California, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

The irony of the decline in enrollment at non-selective and community colleges is that they are lower cost and they are typically not subject to the political scrutiny that more prominent and elite colleges face. If cost and public perception are so important, how is it that some data show relative stability in the ranks of more expensive and selective institutions? Cost transparency is important and it should be coupled with the growing realization among students and families that increased return on investment comes when students attend more visible and elite colleges. Having suffered precipitous decline over the last several years, two-thirds of Americans say that attending college is not "worth the cost because people often graduate without specific job sklls and with a large amount of debt to pay off."

To even the competition, institutions could expand the return on investment from improving just economic opportunity to ongoing financial support while in college, belonging, and ultimately to employment opportunity. Oh, and by the way, offering paid internship opportunities might be a big draw because it enriches students' experience while contributing to covering the cost of attendance. Paid internships can also help reduce regional brain drain as demonstrated the Virginia Economic Development Partnerships.

The Trump administration advocated "merit" as the central criteria that colleges should consider in reviewing applications. However, how an institution defines merit varies. Merit has been a consideration for over a century and has often been applied through the lens of holistic review, which factors in variables outside an applicants test scores and grade point average. The question remains if Trump's view of merit will only focus on the data rather than holistic review of attributes that create a good learning community.

Resisting the Trump Compact - What happened?

Growing competition for international students

The "Big 4" destinations for international students used to be pretty definitive - United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. The number is expanding and now includes 14 different countries and Canada may be slipping faster than the other 3 of the big 4. Affordability is a key issue, especially among Chinese students who are looking for educational opportunity as China's economy and job opportunity for young people declines. Other important factors include "linguistic familiarity, geographical proximity and - arguably - better employment and internship opportunities."

Eight-five percent of U.S. educators blame the decline in U.S. international enrollment on Trump administration visa restrictions and government regulations. International prospects of various cultural backgrounds have to consider the likelihood of mistreatment, especially those from countries across the African continent. While U.S. enrollment struggles the international numbers are up in Asia and Europe, visas for 8,000 current international students in the U.S.A. were revoked and the State Department announced freezes in visas from 75 countries.

Chinese students fueled graduate program enrollment in particular, which underwrote and supported domestic graduate students at U.S. institutions. The Chinese enrollment "grew from around 62,000 to over 317,000" from 2005 to 2019. Congress' scrutiny of Chinese graduate student enrollment threatened grad programs at Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, and others and Purdue may have withdrawn offers as a preemptive step to avoid further investigation. As of 2025, more Chinese students studied in countries outside the "Big 4" than any of their individual enrollments. If the international higher education espoused purpose was to increase access, competition from Asia and the Middle East is an indication that it worked. In numerous cases the founders of new institutions that are now competing with the "Big 4" were educated in U.S. institutions. They went back to their home countries as founders of new institutions and educational partnerships.

Looking at reverse educational migration, China has welcomed international students from other countries to its institutions. However, a recent move to require test submissions to secure admission is a move to increase quality, which may result in those students seeking enrollment in countries beyond China.

For those committed to wholistic education and student affairs programs, the challenge is that sometimes internationals who studied in the U.S. didn't actually engage fully. Out of class engagement in U.S. institutions varies greatly by students' country origin and campus environment, an issue seldom addressed through intentional initiatives. Roberts & Ammigan (2014) assembled expert authors who contributed chapters advising education leaders on how to do a better job and perhaps it's time to take a deeper dive into how international students experience their days in the U.S. A brief introduction to Supporting International Students in U.S. Higher Education introduces this theory and practice informed resource.

The current decrease in undergraduate and graduate international students, largely fueled by uncertainties inflicted by the Trump administration, extends into next year with 2026-27 Common Apps down. While higher education leaders are pushing for higher education to be exempt from the new $100,000 H1-B visas, states such as Florida are considering eliminating them across state institutions. H1-B visas are highly valued by prospects for post-graduate training for international students. More broadly, hostile immigration policies and enforcement are creating uncertainty among all international students and currently enrolled students fear for their safety under Trump administration actions.

In a bizarre reversal of sentiment, Trump declared on Fox news that higher education should continue enrolling international students. His rationale - the financial gain they bring to budgets - nothing about the quality of the learning environment or knowledge diplomacy! Trump's changing stance, including additional restrictions for international travelers and contradiction of his appointees, cause international applicants to wonder where the US stands. The sad reality is that international students deserve to be treated as more than an financial commodity. Of particular note are J-1 and OPT visas, which are a highly valued for international students that granting of which can be unpredictable or exploitive.

Are students flourishing?

There is not much question that higher education is experiencing a shake up in enrollment. My previous blog post on 2025-26 enrollment provides background with some ups and lots of downs for this year and years to come. The negativity that Trump and his appointees, particularly in the Education Department, have fostered has undermined confidence in U.S. higher education. However, most of the evidence is that students are still interested in pursuing degrees but the perceived return on investment varies by state and many other factors. Workforce placement of college graduates has declined but their salaries continued to be higher than non-college graduates. Morphing academic programs to future employment potential could help reverse the placement challenges. An example is academic programs at Syracuse and elsewhere designed to cultivate social "influencer" capacity. Although not clearly understood, the motivation to complete a degree is a combination of preparing for future work and the rest is about quality of life. The appeal for international students may be a bit more complex, primarily due to erratic changes in visa policies unfolding every day of the Trump administration.

Even when the waters are rough, higher education faculty and staff know that they have to maintain focus on what's important - retention and graduation. I've been a fan of instruments such as the HERI First-Year Survey and the National Survey of Student Engagement. Having used both extensively to determine students' patterns of engagement, satisfaction, and achievement of goals, they provide longitudinal and comparative data that is extremely useful in determining how to improve students' experience. The Generation Lab findings show that most students at U.S. campuses believe they are valued and supported, which is key to satisfaction and retention. Unfortunately, the Student Voice Survey found that about a third of students are disengaged outside of class. This research helped by determining the motivations for student involvement and what approaches are attractive to them. Students of diverse cultural and first-generation backgrounds often feel less valued and included, which should be addressed from a strength and resilience lens rather than as a deficit.

While HERI, NSSE, and Student Voice are useful and results allow educators to look back and plan forward, the administration and results are from a time and place that is static. The University of Arizona created the New Student Information Form (NSIF) that allows staff "to respond to individuals' needs and create strategic initiatives within various departments and offices that ensure no student is left behind." Having access to "in the moment" information can then be used to target individual students or groups. The first 6 weeks at college are particularly important as students establish patterns of engagement, apathy, or disillusionment. Concerns such as affordability, making friends, getting a job, and navigating difficult political dynamics often trouble students. In general, each of these surveys support a "steady as she goes" focus for student affairs work.

Northwestern's PATH program tackles student stress in a combination of on-line learning and small groups. institutions are pushing even harder by creating incentives for student involvement. The University of North Carolina's "Hello Heels" app drives student engagement. Lynn University and University of Kentucky provide financial rewards, recognizing that student involvement is often undermined by students' need to work.

Concerns about post-study work and living may also need more attention. Current economic and employment trends are adding to student anxiety as they plan to exit higher education. Especially in the face of criticism about college expense, the transition and successful launch to work and living could become a distinguishing characteristic of high performing institutions.

Beyond these practical measures of participation and needs, another issue that is critical to study is if students are developing in ways that allow them to flourish. Are they developing in ways that will foster the good life that so many hope for as an outcome of the college experience? Harvard University has been studying flourishing and created the Flourishing survey that will be available for broader institutional use in the Spring of 2026. Part of the Human Flourishing Program, the higher education survey will be used to help institutions determine how and where to focus efforts to foster flourishing as a lifestyle commitment and as a quantifiable outcome of attending college.