Last week, we celebrated the rise in enrollment this fall, and this week, we start with less encouraging news: new international student enrollment is down. When the news is good, it’s easy to forget that the higher education landscape remains in flux as institutions continue to navigate a complex set of challenges. Still, there are bright spots. We look at institutions that are making the admissions process easier for students to expand access and reduce barriers to entry. Finally, we close with a discussion about the ongoing realignment of federal education programs and what it could mean for campuses.  

After reading today’s issue, share your thoughts about your institution’s admissions process in the comments! 

Fewer International Students Enrolled 

From Fewer International Students Came to the U.S. This Fall | Inside Higher Ed 

According to a new report from the Institute for International Education, new international student enrollment was down 17% this fall. 

Our Thoughts  

The big takeaway here is not that overall international enrollment is down a point. It is that new international enrollment has dropped 17 percent in a single cycle, with most institutions in the Open Doors snapshot reporting declines, not gains. That is the number to watch because new students fill the pipeline for the next 2-6 years depending on their academic program. 

We talked about this back in Issue 63 when we looked at international enrollment as an economic engine for both institutions and their surrounding communities. The current 17 percent drop in new enrollment alone is estimated to reduce spending by more than 1.1 billion dollars and nearly 23,000 jobs. That loss does not stay contained on campus. It ripples out to landlords, restaurants, transit systems, and small businesses in college towns that rely on a steady flow of international students to keep their budgets balanced.  

This new data confirms that point with sharper numbers. For campus leaders, the question is no longer whether international enrollment matters, but how to manage through a period where policy-driven volatility is the norm. That means scenario planning for missed targets that disproportionately affect high net-tuition populations, and working with local partners who also depend on this revenue. The stakes are institutional, but they are also deeply local. 

Easier Admission Processes 

From Colleges ease the dreaded admissions process as the supply of applicants declines | The Hechinger Report 

As colleges and universities struggle to attract enough interested applicants, many are reducing barriers in the admissions process. 

Our Thoughts  

What I appreciate about this story is that it interrupts the usual admissions narrative. Most headlines still focus on the most selective institutions, which keeps the attention on single-digit admit rates and fuels the idea that college is closed off to all but a lucky few. In reality, the average college now admits about six in ten applicants, up from roughly five in ten a decade ago, and many campuses are actively removing friction with fee waivers, simpler applications, and direct admission. For students who grew up hearing that getting into college is impossibly hard, this kind of visible welcome, from “you belong here” signs to guaranteed admission based on coursework, carries far more weight than we sometimes acknowledge. 

That is especially true for first generation and low-income students who are already more likely to undermatch or opt out altogether when the process feels confusing, expensive, or designed for someone else. Research has shown that students from these groups are more likely to rule out college based on cost perceptions, complexity, and a sense that they do not fit, which in turn depresses enrollment and long-term outcomes. Direct admission, one-click applications, and statewide fee waiver campaigns are not cures on their own, but they do send a different message: the system will meet you partway. Early evidence from places that have tried direct admission suggests it can raise first time undergraduate enrollment and keep more students in state when paired with clear communication, predictable aid, and advising support. 

I am always going to cheer for policies that lower unnecessary barriers and open more on-ramps to postsecondary education, especially when they help students like Milianys see themselves not as outsiders testing a locked door, but as future college students walking through one that is propped open and meant for them. 

Dismantling ED 

From McMahon Breaks Up More of the Education Department | Inside Higher Ed  

The Trump administration plans to shift a number of programs from the Department of Education to other federal agencies.  

Our Thoughts  

I hesitated to write about this one because it is so deeply political, but I think it is important for everyone in higher education to understand what is happening here. The plan to move TRIO, HBCU and other minority-serving institution grants, and a wide swath of higher ed programs out of the Department of Education and into Labor, State, and Interior is not a neutral “streamlining” exercise. It fragments core equity work across agencies that already have reduced capacity and different missions, especially when many of those same programs are facing proposed cuts or renewed legal scrutiny. When you scatter responsibility for college access and student support across multiple departments, you increase the odds that no one owns the full picture, and students who rely on targeted federal support are left to navigate a maze that was never designed with them in mind. 

The rhetoric about “returning education to the states and local level” also needs a reality check. Control over curriculum and day-to-day instruction is already a state and local responsibility. Federal law explicitly prohibits the Department of Education from directing curriculum, and less than a tenth of total education spending comes from federal sources. What the department does provide is funding and enforcement for things like Title I, IDEA, civil rights protection, and college access programs that states have not historically delivered on their own at scale. Dismantling the agency in pieces while NAEP reading scores are hitting new lows and achievement gaps are widening raises real questions about our national priorities. We are choosing to weaken the one cabinet-level entity charged with paying attention to equity and outcomes at the exact moment the data say students, especially those who are struggling, need more coordinated support, not less.