Happy fall semester to everyone who has already started or is about to begin a new academic year! In this week’s issue, we explore a new study from Stanford that provides concrete data on the effects of AI on employment. We then shift our focus to an increasingly competitive admissions landscape and close with a discussion about college student mental health. 

After reading today’s issue, share your thoughts about AI’s impact on early career professionals in the comments! 

AI Impacts on Employment 

From Canaries in the Coal Mine? Six Facts about the Recent Employment Effects of Artificial Intelligence | Stanford Digital Economy Lab 

This paper examines changes in the labor market for occupations exposed to generative artificial intelligence using high-frequency administrative data from the largest payroll software provider in the United States. 

Our Thoughts

Yes, this is a research paper, and yes, it’s over 50 pages (double-spaced, thankfully!). Still, it’s a worthwhile read for anyone trying to understand the early impacts of AI on the labor market, especially since those impacts are primarily being experienced by entry-level workers (i.e., recent college grads). If starting with the paper seems daunting, several media sites provide a good overview of the findings. In short, 22–25-year-olds in occupations most exposed to AI automation experienced the sharpest employment declines. Yet the paper also notes that overall employment is still growing, which makes the squeeze on entry-level roles even more striking. 

All hope is not lost, though, and higher education has a clear opportunity to demonstrate the value of degrees that emphasize liberal arts skills. If AI is taking over codified, routine, or tightly defined tasks, then durable skills like critical thinking, creativity, problem-solving, and collaboration will best equip students to move across roles and industries. 

Those are the skills that help graduates frame the problem, question the prompt, synthesize messy inputs, and work productively with AI rather than being replaced by it. The paper’s automate-versus-augment distinction aligns neatly with this point. Programs that double down on writing across the curriculum, project-based learning, discussion and deliberation, and interdisciplinary capstones are not an indulgence. Instead, they are how we develop the skills and habits of mind that support long-term career growth.  

It’s also important to acknowledge equity. When entry-level postings shrink, students who can absorb a longer job search or take an unpaid bridge role have a cushion. First-gen and Pell-eligible graduates do not. We already know that first-generation students are underrepresented in paid internships, and that paid interns convert to full-time roles at higher rates and with better starting salaries. We also know the 2025 internship market tightened, with employers extending fewer long term offers to their interns. Taken together, the risk is clear. In a year when entry-level jobs are scarcer, the very students who most need opportunity face the steepest climb and the greatest financial stress after graduation. 

At the end of the day, I also wonder how employers see this playing out. If fewer firms hire junior employees now, where do they expect the mid-level talent to come from in 3-5 years? That’s not a rhetorical question, and the data suggest it won’t solve itself. Perhaps this is an opening for higher education to step in with solutions to what may become an industry-created challenge. 

Increasing Competition in Admissions 

From The Nation’s Most Selective Colleges Might Have Just Snatched Away Your Students | The Chronicle of Higher Education  

Several highly selective colleges continued to admit students from their waitlists even as the start of the fall semester was drawing near.    

Our Thoughts

I do not begrudge these institutions that tapped into their waitlist in July or August, even if doing so makes managing enrollments more challenging for everyone else. Each institution is trying to make their class in a year when forecasting is harder and the financial consequences of missing a target are real. With the demographic cliff arriving combined with uncertainty in international enrollment and policy volatility in Washington, it is easy to see why campuses keep options open longer and use every lever available to balance a class. None of this is nefarious, but it does mean the enrollment environment will remain both challenging and fast-moving. 

What worries me more is how this is becoming a more student-facing problem. An August offer can land after a student has paid deposits, signed a lease, or registered elsewhere. The timing compresses thoughtful decision making into hours or days, and the students most vulnerable to rushed choices are often the ones with the least access to advising after graduation. Summer melt research has shown that even modest procedural frictions in June through August can derail enrollment, especially for first-generation and lower-income students once high school supports go quiet. Late offers amplify those frictions unless institutions provide time and guidance to compare costs, aid, and fit.   

Equity should be our north star. If late offers are part of the playbook, pair them with student-friendly safeguards. Offer short, automatic extensions to compare net price letters. Provide rapid access to a financial aid counselor by phone or video. Acknowledge sunk costs with standardized deposit credits or small transition grants. Coordinate with the sending institution on housing and billing timelines so students are not penalized twice. Most importantly, track who accepts late offers and who declines, and disaggregate by first-gen and Pell status to make sure the process is not widening gaps. We can compete for students and still protect those with the least margin for error. 

Increasing Mental Health Challenges     

From Half of college students say their mental health is ‘fair’ to ‘terrible,’ survey finds | Higher Ed Dive 

A recent report from The Steve Fund finds that over half of college students rate their mental health negatively. 

Our Thoughts

If half of our students say their mental health is fair, poor, or terrible, this is not a side issue. It directly touches on retention, student success, and time to degree, and it’s crucial that institutions begin to recognize signs of stress early on. If I were still on campus this semester, I’d be watching for credit reductions right after add/drop, a spike in financial holds tied to basic needs, and upticks in incomplete grades. ach of these is an early flag that students are sliding off track. If we see those patterns, we should assume the risk is broader than the handful of cases in front of us. 

Additionally, this feeds the Some College, No Credential problem. When students cut credits, defer, or stop out to cope, they often do not return. With each missed term, re-enrollment becomes less likely. First-generation students and students of color report more negative campus experiences, so the gap widens if we treat this as an add-on instead of a core part of student success.  

Ultimately, everyone has a role to play in student success efforts. When responses are practical and coordinated, students are not left to navigate alone. By creating pathways to ensure warm handoffs to care teams and embedding access to mental health resources in the tools students already use, institutions can keep more students on track to a credential.