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. As Secretary McMahon persists in downsizing (and potentially eliminating) the Education Department, 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.

Trump's declining popularity and the looming mid-term elections suggest that plans for other major GOP reforms may be running out of time. 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 employhed high school graduates.

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."

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

The data is beginning to emerge on enrollment for 2026-27. 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.

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.