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.

The Alliance for Higher Education is emerging to draw institutions together to resist the incursion of the Trump administration. The CEO of the group indicates that its purpose is supporting higher education in "making good on its 'democratic promises,'" including "preserving a 'healthy separation' between government and higher education." Institutions are fighting back with "Proud Sponsor" campaigns with tag-lines like "a love letter to the promise of college" and "research saves lives." Various law suits continue to challenge Trump administration actions, with the majority being one by plaintiffs.

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.

Trump's persistent criticism of accreditation processes and organizations has found a home in the Education Department's new accreditation review committee, set up to take this on in another committee that is likely to mirror the "Do No harm" process. There is a fast timeline, selective participation, and driven by Education Department staff. Not only is revision of accreditation a target but there is intent to open the door to new accrediting organizations. The Under Secretary Kent has been very transparent how accreditation should change including greater accountability for student outcomes and dismantling perceived liberal agendas.

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.