Sometimes I feel like I’m writing the same story over and over again each week, but that’s because higher education is under pressure from all directions. Whether it’s the growing population of adults with some college but no credential, proposed changes to Pell Grants that could leave working students behind, or outdated approaches to assessing program costs, the challenges are mounting. In this week’s issue, we take a closer look at three issues shaping the future of access, affordability, and accountability in higher ed—and what we can do about them.  

After reading today’s issue, share in the comments how your institution works to re-enroll students who left before earning a credential! 

Some College, No Credential Grows 

From Working-age adults with some college but no credential reaches 37.6M, report finds | Higher Ed Dive 

The population of adults with Some College, No Credential (SCNC) has grown 2.2% at the start of the 2023-2024 academic year according to the latest research from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.   

Our Thoughts 

Oof…I feel as though I’ve been writing about the SCNC population since almost the start of The HEat Index series. The fact that this population continues to grow is clearly not a positive development for higher education, especially in the current political climate. It is simply too large to ignore. However, there is hope. The fact that more than 1 million stopped-out students reenrolled in 2023–24 for the first time on record is an encouraging sign that this population is increasingly responsive to our outreach efforts.     

Adult learners represent a largely untapped population whose needs differ from those of traditional students, but whose potential for credential completion is well supported by evidence. The NSC’s research shows that nearly half of recent stop-outs return to their original institution, highlighting the power of timely, targeted outreach. This data suggests that student success and enrollment teams must work more strategically to remove administrative barriers and design on-ramps that align with the lived realities of working adults.  

In Issue 61, I discussed the rise of financially independent students and ways institutions could better support this population through admissions and enrollment. Similar strategies could improve the experiences for the SCNC population. If we truly want to expand access, improve public perception of higher education, and deliver real value to individuals and communities, it’s imperative that we work to shrink the SCNC population.   

Proposed Pell Changes Spell Trouble 

From Community Colleges Fear Proposed Changes to Pell | Inside Higher Ed 

Proposed changes to Pell Grants would have large impacts on certain sectors of higher education.  

Our Thoughts 

I feel like I’m breaking my own rule again by reporting on legislation in progress, but I think it’s important for us to understand how these proposals could directly impact our sector while there’s still time to do something to change them. The proposed changes to Pell Grant eligibility in the House’s budget bill threaten to significantly restrict access to federal aid for those students who most need it: part-time, working, and low-income students. By raising the minimum credit requirement to 30 credits per year and eliminating aid for those enrolled less than half-time, this legislation could dismantle one of the few remaining lifelines for adult learners and those balancing education with jobs and caregiving responsibilities. 

While not an adult learner, I was a full Pell Grant recipient for most of my undergraduate career, and that grant was one of the main reasons I was able to afford to earn a four-year degree. I’ve never forgotten what that support made possible for me, and I know I’m far from alone. Millions of students each year rely on Pell not just as financial aid, but as a signal that college is possible. For part-time students, returning adults, and those juggling jobs and caregiving, even modest support can be the difference between staying enrolled and stopping out. 

It is painfully clear that well-intentioned efforts to preserve the long-term solvency of the Pell program could backfire if they are executed without an understanding of the lived realities of today’s college students. If policymakers want to improve credential completion and reduce stop-outs, removing aid from students already on the margins is not the solution. Rather, this is a moment for higher education leaders to elevate student stories, quantify local impact, and push for reforms that support flexibility–not rigidity–in how students chart their educational journeys. The stakes couldn’t be higher to ensure we continue to have accessible, equitable higher education in the United States. 

Assessing Program Costs 

From How to move on from simple counting to measure program efficiency | University Business 

Craig Rudick, senior director of product strategy at HelioCampus, makes a case for calculating contribution margin instead of program headcounts to measure academic program costs more effectively. 

Our Thoughts  

Calculating the true cost of academic programs is challenging, and people who have a shallow understanding of educational costs often attempt to apply traditional market economics to higher education. As I read this piece from Rudick, I was reminded of the many blogs from Matt Reed at Inside Higher Ed about calculating higher education costs and the impacts of Baumol’s cost disease.  

If you’re not familiar with the concept, here’s a short explanation from Matt Reed, but I encourage you to spend a few minutes reading about it yourself.  

Baumol’s disease, named after economist William Baumol, wasn’t even originally postulated to explain tuition.  It was originally applied to live music. It takes just as many musicians just as long to play a string quartet piece as it did 200 years ago, but they get paid much more than they did 200 years ago.  Meanwhile, over the last 200 years, farming has gone from the majority occupation in the country to a percentage in the low single digits, and food has gotten cheaper, even as the population has exploded.  Different rates of productivity increase explain the divergence. The cost disease explains why health care, education, live theatre, and law enforcement have grown more expensive over time, but televisions, cars, and clothes have gotten cheaper. 

Rudick offers another framework for understanding higher education costs. Instead of looking at common metrics like student headcount or graduation numbers, which can be misleading and oversimplified, he argues that contribution margin is a better measure. By considering revenues and direct teaching expenses at the individual class level, institutions can more accurately discern each academic program’s true cost. This perspective emphasizes the importance of cross-program collaboration and shared coursework as strategies for enhancing overall institutional efficiency. It highlights how seemingly minor policy or curricular adjustments could yield substantial financial improvements without necessarily resorting to program elimination.  

With growing demands for accountability from policymakers and the public and increased scrutiny on institutional finances, colleges and universities are increasingly pressed to justify their programs’ economic viability. The more you understand how these costs can be calculated, the better equipped you’ll be for conversations about institutional finances. As resources continue to be limited and scrutiny increases, we should all be prepared to discuss and defend higher education costs.