If you're a regular reader, some of this week's topics might feel familiar. It's true that the higher ed news cycle has been repeating itself lately, but that's because these issues keep evolving in ways that matter. Our first article details research showing the net price of postsecondary education is falling, but affordability is still the question on the minds of students and their families. The same is true for international student enrollment and AI, both of which continue to reshape institutions in real time. So, while the topics may feel familiar, each time we cover them, we try to introduce new angles, ideas, or research to better inform your campus discussions. 

After reading today’s issue, share how your institution is improving AI literacy in the comments! 

The Cost of College 

From Actually, College Is Getting Cheaper | The Chronicle of Higher Education 

Recent research from Phillip Levine, a professor of economics at Wellesley College, shows that the price most families pay for college (net price) has steadily declined since 2020. 

Our Thoughts  

Deep research and analysis like this one are valuable, and we need more of them to help everyone understand college costs and how to address them moving forward. The public narrative around college affordability is almost entirely driven by sticker price headlines, and those headlines are doing real damage to enrollment pipelines at institutions that are actually quite affordable for the families most worried about cost. When a New York Times/Siena poll about middle-class affordability finds that 58% of respondents believe college is not affordable, but the data shows net prices falling, we have a communication problem. 

Now, of course, there’s a difference between something being affordable on paper and something being affordable in reality, and Levine is explicit that these findings speak to trends in affordability rather than its absolute level. A 15% decline in net price is meaningful. It does not mean that a family earning $45,000 a year and facing a $15,000 annual bill has a straightforward path to getting their student enrolled and retained through graduation. Economists define affordability in relative terms. Families experience it as a felt reality, and those two things do not always point in the same direction. The data showing improvement is real. So is the lived experience of families who look at even the net price figure and conclude the math does not work for them.  

Ultimately, sticker price is the area where we need to do better. When the published price of four years at a private, nonprofit institution looks the same as the cost of a suburban family home, some families will decide college isn’t for them. A recent study by Levine and others found that students respond to sticker price increases even at institutions where financial aid would fully offset the cost for eligible students. Students who would have paid nothing more are still applying at lower rates because the published price alone shapes their sense of whether a school is worth pursuing. More recently, a 2024 Ruffalo Noel Levitz survey found that 67% of prospective families report ruling out institutions based solely on sticker price, up from 58% just two years earlier. That is not a perception problem institutions can afford to ignore while congratulating themselves on their net price trends. 

It is not enough for college to be affordable if the students who need it most never get far enough in the process to find that out. Closing that gap is one of the more actionable equity challenges in front of the sector right now. With more research like Levine's making the case that net prices are moving in the right direction, institutions have a real story to tell. The problem is that too few of them are telling it loudly enough, early enough, or in the places where families are actually making their decisions. 

International Student Enrollment 

From New Student Visas Dropped 35.6% Last Summer | Inside Higher Ed 

The number of visas issued to international students prior to the start of Fall 2025 declined significantly more than originally thought.  

Our Thoughts  

We have touched on the topic of international student enrollment before in The HEat Index, but the numbers keep getting harder to ignore. According to NAFSA, international students contributed $42.9 billion to the U.S. economy and supported more than 355,000 jobs during the 2024-25 academic year. Those figures predate the full weight of the Fall 2025 enrollment decline was made apparent, with NAFSA estimating that declines in new international student enrollment for the fall alone could result in more than $1.1 billion in lost economic activity and nearly 23,000 fewer jobs. Those are not abstract policy figures. They are real jobs at local restaurants, apartment complexes, transit systems, and retail shops near campuses all across the country. 

Beyond reduced tuition revenue and local spending, international students make rich cultural contributions to a campus community. I was still working on campus during the later parts of the pandemic and remember what it felt like when the mix of students narrowed and the informal learning that happens in residence halls, student organizations, and study groups got quieter. International students bring perspectives shaped by different educational systems, political contexts, and lived experiences. While older, research has found that domestic students who actively engaged with international peers reported stronger self-confidence, leadership skills, quantitative ability, and overall intellectual growth long after they graduated. That is a campus benefit you cannot easily quantify, and it does not show up in NAFSA's economic impact tables. 

Ultimately, institutions must recognize that the current policy environment is no longer welcoming to international students. With international students shifting their preferences to studying in other countries, the damage we are doing to our reputation as a destination for global talent will not reverse itself the moment the policy climate changes. Trust, once lost, takes years to rebuild, and our competitors are not waiting around for us to figure that out.  

AI Literacy 

From U.S. Department of Labor Defines 5 Key Areas of AI Literacy | Campus Technology 

The Department of Labor has released its AI Literacy Framework to be used as a resource for educational programs. 

Our Thoughts  

If your institution is still trying to figure out how to think about AI in the curriculum or in professional development programming, the Department of Labor's framework is a decent place to start. The five areas it outlines map reasonably well onto what students and staff alike need to function competently in a world where AI is already embedded in most knowledge work. It is not a perfect document, and like most government frameworks, it leans toward describing competencies at a level of abstraction that requires institutions to do the hard work of translation. But as a shared vocabulary for conversations that are still too often stuck at "are we for or against this?" it has value. 

The question of whether to incorporate AI literacy into a curriculum is not the same as the question of whether to use AI in every course. An accounting faculty member who does not want AI-generated financial analyses turning up in their assessments is making a perfectly defensible pedagogical decision. That is different from declining an institutional responsibility to ensure students have had meaningful engagement with AI before they graduate. Those are two separate conversations and conflating them is how institutions end up doing nothing while telling themselves they are being thoughtful. At minimum, a well-designed elective, a first-year seminar component, or a structured co-curricular offering gives every student a baseline, regardless of major. 

Ultimately, higher education institutions are, by definition, in the business of education. We have subject matter experts, instructional designers, librarians who already teach information literacy, and assessment specialists. We are better positioned than most employers to teach not just how to use AI tools but when to trust them, when to push back on their outputs, and what their limitations mean for the decisions they inform.