Two weeks into 2026 and AI is already dominating this newsletter. While I personally have mixed feelings about AI, we can’t ignore the impact it is having on our sector, from staff using AI to support their day-to-day work to the hidden costs of AI subscriptions students are quietly absorbing. I imagine this is a topic we’ll be discussing regularly throughout the year and likely beyond. In addition to those two great articles, we also look at the newly released Fall 2025 enrollment report from the National Student Clearinghouse.
After reading today’s issue, share your thoughts about the EDUCAUSE report on AI and work in higher education in the comments!
AI & Work
From The Impact of AI on Work in Higher Education | EDUCAUSE
In this report, EDUCAUSE partnered with AIR, NACUBO, and CUPA-HR to summarize work-related institutional AI strategies, policies, and guidelines; and the risks, opportunities, and challenges associated with using AI for work in higher education. In it, they also provide specific examples of how staff and faculty use—and want to use—AI for work.
Our Thoughts
The main idea I took away from the EDUCAUSE report is the disconnect. If 94% of higher ed employees are already using AI tools for work, but only 54% know their institution’s policies and guidelines, we have created the perfect conditions for accidental risk. Even worse, this is not just “people need more training.” Instead, this is a governance gap. When the default reality is shadow usage and inconsistent norms, the path of least resistance becomes, “I’ll just paste it in and see what happens.”
That matters because the biggest risks people flagged are exactly the ones that show up when AI use is informal: data used without consent, insufficient data protection, and misinformation. Higher ed cannot afford to treat this as a personal productivity trend. We are stewards of student and employee data, and the rules around disclosure and vendor control exist for a reason. If the institution has not vetted a tool, and staff are feeding it sensitive content anyway, that is how privacy problems become incidents.
Additionally, I would be cautious to interpret this survey as a proxy for higher ed overall. Inside Higher Ed makes the limitation pretty clear. Only 12% of respondents were faculty, and the survey reached communities like IR and HR where AI use cases are often more immediate and operational. By missing large populations on campus, I read this less as a universal picture of higher ed AI use and more as a credible snapshot of higher education staff workflows in day-to-day institutional operations.
In the end, if you are heading into 2026 and you want to reduce risk without killing momentum, start small and practical. Simple guidance, such as clearly defining what data can and cannot go into AI tools or publishing a short list of institution-approved options (even when they are not funded by the institution), can make it much easier for people to do the right thing. Then, build the feedback loop. Ask staff where AI is already embedded in their workflows, and use that to prioritize policy, training, and tool decisions. Otherwise, we will keep living in the same split reality this report describes: widespread use, partial awareness, and a lot of uncertainty hidden behind “I’m sure it’s fine.”
AI’s Hidden Tax
From The Hidden Tax Students Are Paying for Your AI Strategy (or Lack Thereof) | Inside Higher Ed
Kenneth Sumner, former provost at Manhattan University, argues that the explosion of AI tools and differing pedagogical requirements amount to a hidden tax for enrolled students.
Our Thoughts
What I like about this opinion piece is that it names something we often gloss over when we talk about “college cost.” Tuition gets the spotlight, but students live in the margins. Books, supplies, transportation, and all the other little educational line items pile up until they are no longer little. In that context, the author’s “AI tax” framing lands. If a student is pushed into a rotating stack of AI subscriptions across four years, that $1,200 to $1,800 estimate is not trivial, and it is especially painful because it is mostly invisible in institutional budgeting conversations.
This also gave me a flashback to my own undergraduate experience, when some students had a laptop that could run anything, and others were timing their week around open lab hours and the one printer that was not jammed. Higher ed has wrestled with tech inequity for a long time, whether it is devices, connectivity, or the steady shift toward paid digital courseware. What feels different now is the way AI access translates into speed and polish. When one student can pay for premium tools and another is stuck with free tiers, usage caps, and work stoppages mid-assignment, the gap shows up in output, and not just effort. And that gap does not stay inside a single classroom. Students are competing across institutions for internships, research experiences, and jobs, and many campuses still are not providing any institution-wide access to gen AI tools in the first place.
The employability angle is the part that leaders should not ignore. Whether you love the hype cycle or hate it, employers are signaling that “AI fluency” is moving from nice-to-have to baseline. The frustrating twist is that we are currently solving this like we solve everything else in higher ed—with inconsistent policies, decentralized purchasing, and students quietly covering the difference. Yes, there are bright spots. For example, GitHub offers verified students free access to Copilot Pro, but that is not a strategy, it is a patch. If AI is becoming essential to academic work and future careers, then access transcends personal preference or affordability. It is quickly becoming part of the academic infrastructure, and infrastructure is where equity either holds or quietly breaks.
Fall Enrollment Final Report
For Fall 2025, overall enrollment grew by 1% as compared to Fall 2024, but that growth was uneven across the sector.
Our Thoughts
At first glance, this is a feel-good headline. Total enrollment is back to pre-pandemic levels, and community colleges are growing faster than any other sector. But once you zoom in, the story is less “higher ed is back” and more “higher ed is fragmenting.” The momentum is real, but it is concentrated in specific sectors and credential types, and a few declines should make leaders pause before they declare victory.
The private four-year dip is the one I cannot stop thinking about. The Clearinghouse calls out a rare split where public four-year enrollment rises while private four-year declines, which is not the pattern we usually see. Part of that could be straightforward price sensitivity, but I also wonder if it is a perception problem. Tuition discounting has pushed the sticker price higher while net price is often far lower, and even NACUBO has noted how discounting muddies the waters for families trying to understand what students actually pay. If private institutions want to compete more effectively in a public versus private comparison, transparency has to be part of the enrollment strategy, not just an admissions talking point. While discounts themselves are perhaps a part of the American ethos, I still contend that the best path forward is more price transparency and real tuition costs.
Also, the adult learner slide combined with the rise in short-term credentials feels like another signal about value in the labor market. New undergraduates over 25 dropped sharply, and the dip was steepest at private four-year institutions. At the same time, undergraduate certificates and short-term programs continue to grow, with certificate enrollments at community colleges now at 752,000, up 28.3% since fall 2021. Short-term credentials can be quicker and cheaper pathways, and in some fields they do carry real labor market value, though outcomes vary a lot by program and provider. If you are watching this from an enrollment seat, the implication is not “adults do not want education.” It is “adults are shopping differently,” and they are increasingly choosing speed, flexibility, and clearer payoff.
If I were heading into 2026 planning, I would take at least two actions. First, simplify and publish net price narratives so families can compare options without needing a spreadsheet. Second, treat short-term credentials as a strategy, not a side project. Build stackable pathways, employer aligned programs, and clear bridges back into degrees for the learners who will come in through certificates first. The future of higher education requires that we reimagine learning as a flexible, continuous journey that meets learners where they are and provides clear, affordable routes to meaningful career advancement.
0 Comments
0 Comments