I can’t believe July is at its end! Summer always seems to go so quickly, but the excitement of the start of the fall semester is just around the corner. Plus, there are still a few more weeks to eke out a little more summer fun. Speaking of fun, in this week’s issue we discuss the growing momentum for 3-year degrees, the impacts of current federal policy on international student enrollment, and ask why we don’t evaluate ed tech marketing claims more closely.

After reading today’s issue, share your thoughts about 3-year degrees in the comments!

Growing 3-Year Degrees

From Is the 3-Year Degree Dream Becoming a Reality? | Inside Higher Ed

More institutions are starting to offer a 3-year degree, but the path forward is still peppered with challenges.

Our Thoughts

I started talking about the rise of 3-year degree programs way back in Issue 16, so it’s exciting to see continued growth in this space over the past year. At a time when higher education needs a public reputational boost, this feels like a step in a positive direction that’s worthy of further exploration. When cost, time, and public trust in higher education are under constant scrutiny, the appeal is obvious: fewer credits, lower tuition, and faster time to completion.

From a public perception standpoint, this movement could not be timelier. Families and policymakers are increasingly skeptical about the cost of a traditional four-year degree. A 90-credit pathway sends a message that institutions are willing to adapt and address long-standing concerns about value and efficiency. Recent shifts in accreditor policies allowing for these programs is a major development that gives colleges room to re-imagine the undergraduate experience.

That said, there are real concerns that deserve our attention. So far, most of the approved programs are focused on pre-professional or applied fields such as pre-physical therapy or criminal justice. These are important pathways, but it is hard to ignore the absence of traditional disciplines such as English or history, or more complex degree programs such as nursing or engineering. While it’s still early, the lack of participation from these areas could raise questions about access and equity. Additionally, it’s unclear how graduate programs or employers will evaluate these reduced-credit degrees, so transparency will be essential to understanding their long-term outcomes.

Despite my open questions, I still believe that three-year degrees offer a meaningful opportunity to rethink the structure, purpose, and accessibility of the undergraduate experience. It won’t solve every challenge higher ed is facing, but if implemented with intention and care, it could become one of the more impactful innovations we have seen in a long time.

Foreign Enrollments Could Plunge

From Latitudes: Foreign-student enrollments could nosedive this fall | The Chronicle of Higher Education

New international student enrollments could decline by as much as 40 percent this fall.

Our Thoughts

I know that I just wrote about international student enrollment challenges in Issue 63 and that was not that long ago. However, the situation has not improved, and in some ways, it may have gotten a bit worse. For institutions already navigating FAFSA-related uncertainty and flat domestic enrollment, this would be more than a setback. It would be a direct hit to fall projections, campus operations, and long-term planning.

As I stated back in May 2025, international students are estimated to contribute nearly $44 billion to the U.S. economy beyond the tuition they pay to institutions. Almost always, they pay full tuition and contribute to research, diversity, and cross-cultural exchange. Many institutions rely on these students to support under-enrolled graduate programs, sustain advanced coursework, and stabilize tuition revenue. A sudden drop in enrollments—especially this late in the summer—could throw even well-prepared campuses into triage mode.

More broadly, the policy changes contributing to the visa backlog raise questions about how welcoming the U.S. remains as a study destination. A temporary suspension of interviews might seem minor, but the shift toward reviewing students’ entire online presence, coupled with fears about future restrictions, creates a chilling effect. These decisions will only make it harder to attract students who have other global options. Countries like Canada, the UK, and Australia are already making moves to absorb this potential wave of students, and they’re doing so with clearer visa pathways and more supportive messaging.

While most colleges and universities have little influence over federal policy decisions, they are not without agency. This moment calls for clear communication with international students, flexibility in academic planning, and a renewed emphasis on fostering a welcoming campus environment. That kind of leadership may not fix a visa backlog, but it can help restore confidence in what higher education still promises to deliver.

Does Ed Tech Produce Results?

From We Need to Ask Smarter Questions of Ed Tech (opinion) | Inside Higher Ed

Laura Nicole Miller, a former marketing executive now on the tenure track, makes the case that faculty and staff should approach ed tech marketing claims as critically as they do academic research.

Our Thoughts

This is exactly the kind of conversation higher education needs to be having right now. As generative AI is rapidly woven into every corner of the ed tech ecosystem, it can be tempting to follow the excitement and assume the tools you adopt will simply work as advertised. But as Miller’s piece reminds us, good intentions and glossy dashboards don’t always translate to better outcomes. Especially now, when institutions are under enormous financial pressure, we cannot afford to invest in tools that don’t deliver on their promises.

It’s not just that you are being asked to spend more. It’s that you are being asked to trust more—more automation, more AI-generated feedback, more messaging platforms promising to scale care and connection. And all of it comes at a time when students need more individualized support, not less. When faculty and staff are stretched thin. When entire budgets are being re-evaluated line by line. If your institution is making multimillion-dollar decisions on ed tech platforms, you should be applying the same level of scrutiny you bring to academic research or institutional policy.

As Miller suggests, now is the time to ask more of the companies you work with. Not because you are skeptical by default, but because you have a responsibility to ensure your tools reflect your values. You don’t need to demand peer-reviewed rigor from marketing teams, but you should expect clarity, transparency, and honesty. If you are going to rely on these tools to help shape the student experience, the least you can do is ask how they work, who they serve, and whether they truly align with your mission.

Because in the end, it is not about whether the AI is impressive. It is about whether the student feels seen. And no feature set, no matter how sophisticated, should ever get in the way of that.