If you work in enrollment, marketing or admissions, you don’t need another think piece to tell you something has changed. You feel it every day. Students ask tougher questions earlier. They want to know what kind of jobs a program leads to, what those jobs pay and where graduates actually land. Decision windows are shorter. There’s less patience for vague answers. Families and adult learners move on fast when things don’t add up.
Admissions and marketing teams are often the first to field questions about ROI that the institution may not have fully answered. And when front-line teams push questions up the ladder without getting clear strategic answers back students opt out. Rinse and repeat.
The result is that marketing and enrollment teams are put in a position to solve problems they didn’t create and can’t fully control. This isn’t a marketing failure. It’s a leadership accountability failure with real enrollment consequences. However, this situation nothing new. Community colleges have been navigating this friction for years because they don’t have the luxury of putting it off.
A New Measuring Stick
For a long time, colleges and universities defined what made a college education worth the investment. Cost, time, prestige and experience were bundled together and presented as a quality package that students generally accepted. However, that playbook is outdated. Students and families are pushing back on long-established rules and assumptions. They still value college, but they have less tolerance for financial risk.
With an aversion to student loan debt, volatility in the economy and the reordering of careers in the age of AI, pragmatism is fast becoming their primary lens. They want clear answers about how long it will take, what it will cost, what happens if life intervenes and whether the credential actually leads somewhere.
In a recent social media conversation among admissions leaders, a familiar point came up again: No amount of marketing, fundraising or enrollment strategy can fix programs that no longer line up with what students want or need. That diagnosis is right, but another important factor amplifies it: The measuring stick has changed. Students put down the old one and made their own. The tick marks on the new stick? Cost, time, payoff and flexibility.
Whether leaders agree these are the right measures is beside the point. It’s what’s being used. We see them in play every day in who applies, who enrolls and who opts out altogether. As costs rise, shaky fundamentals get harder to hide. Experience and amenities add polish, but they also add price. And more students are doing the math and deciding that style can’t make up for a lack of substance.
Community Colleges Already Live This Life
Enter community colleges, not because they led this shift but because they revealed it earlier. By mission and design, community colleges don’t get to cherry-pick our students. We admit everyone. That reality forces a different way of operating. When you can’t lean on selectivity or prestige, you have to deliver a quality product that the market is willing to pay for.
That’s because open admission removes the buffer and shorter programs shorten the feedback loop. Adult learners and working students don’t linger in programs that fail to deliver, and employers don’t hire grads who don’t have the skills they need. This isn’t about virtue or foresight or fit. It’s about exposure.
Cost, speed, payoff, and versatility weren’t branding choices for community colleges. They were constraints forced by reality. What’s changed is that these same constraints now shape how most students evaluate their options, regardless of institution type or size.
Transfer Pathways Reduce Student Risk
You can see this shift clearly in how students think about transfer. Affordable transfer pathways aren’t just about access or saving money. They function as risk management and lower the cost of being wrong.
Students hedge uncertainty by keeping options open. They want momentum without locking themselves into the most expensive version of a decision upfront. Pathways that allow movement without penalty make that possible. That logic isn’t limited to community colleges. As students grow more cautious, institutions that support flexibility stay relevant longer in the decision process.
Fast, High-ROI Programs as Feedback Loops
Shorter, high-ROI programs tell the same story. These programs aren’t shortcuts. They tighten the relationship between time, cost and outcome. Because the timeline is shorter, the market responds faster.
That speed removes ambiguity. Programs either deliver value under real-world constraints or they don’t. When outcomes fall short, word travels and students vote with their feet. For institutions used to long timelines and delayed feedback, that can feel uncomfortable, but it also makes it harder to ignore when alignment starts slipping.
Where Downstream Teams Get Stuck
As these pressures build, the strain shows up in familiar ways.
When institutions don’t address program misalignment, workarounds become normal and processes and language grow more contorted. Marketing teams rewrite value props cycle after cycle. Admissions staff are asked to overcome objections that are structural, not perceptual. New audiences are chased to offset programs that no longer pull their weight.
Bottom line: Poor planning inevitably results in inefficient use of precious time and resources.
How Institutions Respond Once Misalignment Is Hard to Ignore
It’s not hard to see where institutions are on this path. In some places, misalignment is named. Conversations get more direct. Questions about program mix surface earlier. Decisions don’t get easier, but they happen sooner. Downstream teams aren’t asked to keep stretching the story while leadership figures out what to do.
In other places, the same signals circulate for years. Reviews stretch on. Deferment is the norm. The work of compensating falls on marketing, admissions and enrollment, who are left to manage the gap between what’s being asked and what’s actually on offer.
It’s not a difference in awareness or intent. Leaders see the same pressures. The difference is how quickly they are willing to act once those pressures become impossible to smooth over.
What Practitioners Can Influence
Very few enrollment and marketing leaders own program decisions, but they function as institutional early-warning systems, sitting closest to where friction shows up first. They see the same objections appear again and again. They watch prospects stall at the same points. They feel it before it shows up in a dashboard.
Documenting those patterns, tying them back to specific programs and pushing those insights up the ladder can shorten the distance between where pressure shows up and where decisions get made.
Stop Fighting the Wrong Battle
Intentionally flagging these problems enables institutions to address them with purpose sooner. Industrious institutions will look for ways to deliver on this new value proposition. And while they may not always get it right, action is infinitely better than inaction.
Strong programs make everyone’s job easier. Marketing amplifies real value. Enrollment has a clearer story to tell. Weak programs flip that equation. Every downstream function is asked to compensate for decisions that weren’t made earlier.
The institutions best positioned for what comes next won’t be defined by degree length or institution type. They’ll be defined by whether leadership is willing to do the upstream work early, together and honestly to align to the new measuring stick.
You Might Also Like
