The job market is the worst it’s been in over a decade, specifically for the younger generation. Gen Z’s unemployment rate is nearly double the national average and nearly 60% of recent college grads are still looking for their first job, compared to just 25% of recent college graduates in previous generations. but this all Gen Z’s fault or is there something else going on?
Generation Z faces a challenging labor market as unemployment among recent graduates reached 8.6% in June 2025. Entry-level jobs often demand two to three years of experience, creating a catch-22 for young workers. Stagnant starting salaries, rising living costs, and student debt averaging $33,500 per borrower add economic pressure. Companies prioritize retaining staff, while tariffs, inflation, and hiring freezes limit new opportunities. Gig work and delayed financial independence are common, with only 29% of Gen Z workers feeling engaged. Long application processes, reduced internships, and intense competition further hinder career entry, creating widespread professional anxiety and underemployment.
Peak Higher Ed: How to Survive the Looming Academic Crisis by Bryan Alexander debuts January 6, 2026. Here’s a synopsis.
Over the past decade, American colleges and universities have seen enrollment decline, campuses close, programs cut, faculty and staff laid off, and public confidence erode. In Peak Higher Ed, futurist Bryan Alexander forecasts what the next decade might hold if we continue down this path. He argues that the United States has passed its high-water mark for postsecondary education and now faces a critical turning point. How will higher ed institutions respond to this wave of change and crisis?
Combining data-driven research with scenario modeling, Alexander outlines a powerful framework for understanding what led to this moment: declining birthrates, surging student debt, rising tuition, shifting political winds, and growing skepticism about the value of a college degree. He maps out how these forces, if left unchecked, could continue to reshape academia by shrinking its footprint, narrowing its mission, and jeopardizing its role in addressing the planet’s most pressing challenges, from climate change to artificial intelligence. Alexander explores how institutions might adapt or recover, presenting two possible futures: a path of managed descent and a more hopeful course of reinvention.
Peak Higher Ed examines the fraying of the “college for all” consensus, the long shadow of pandemic-era disruptions, and the political polarization that has placed universities in the crosshairs. Written for educators, policymakers, students, and anyone invested in the future of higher learning, this book offers a deeply informed, unflinching look at the road ahead and the choices that will determine whether colleges and universities retreat from their peak or rise to a new one.
A record number of American students are applying to UK universities, with applications up nearly 14% over last year. The shift reflects something deeper than academic preference. It’s a response to uncertainty – political, cultural, and institutional – within the US higher education system.
Students are assessing the climate as carefully as the curriculum, and for many, overseas options are starting to look more stable, more supportive, and more aligned with their values.
For years, US institutions have concentrated on drawing international students into their classrooms and research labs. These efforts have been crucial to advancing STEM research, sustaining graduate-level enrolment, and feeding innovation pipelines. That trend continues, but the story is evolving.
An outbound shift is now underway, with a growing number of American students pursuing degrees abroad. They’re no longer just participating in short-term exchanges or postgraduate fellowships, they’re committing to full undergraduate and master’s programs in other countries.
This change matters – and it signals both a loss of tuition revenue and a weakening of domestic confidence in US higher education itself.
Global competitors are moving decisively
Universities in the UK, Canada, Australia, Germany, and the Netherlands have responded to this moment with strategy and urgency. They’ve expanded international recruitment offices, developed targeted campaigns for US students, and aligned their degree programs with global employment pathways.
Tuition transparency, faster visa timelines, and the option to work post-graduation are all part of a larger value proposition. These countries have positioned themselves as predictable, inclusive, and serious about talent retention.
When American students earn degrees abroad, they begin forming professional relationships, research collaborations, and employment ties in other countries
The messaging stands in sharp contrast to the environment many students perceive at home in the US, where they’re regrettably familiar with ongoing threats to federal research funding, campus free speech tensions, and anti-immigrant rhetoric. Legislative actions in some states, such as restrictions on DEI programs or faculty tenure, further complicate the picture for students who see higher education as a place of openness and critical inquiry.
Even where the academic offering remains strong, the broader social climate is giving students pause. Many now fear that attending university in the US could come with limitations on expression, uncertainty around institutional support, or even diminished international credibility. These concerns are pushing more prospective students, both international and domestic, to weigh their options with increasing care.
The landscape is becoming borderless
Higher education is no longer a domestically bounded experience. Today’s students are growing up in a digital-first world where comparison is constant and information is immediate. They can browse course catalogs from universities in five countries before lunch.
They’re watching lectures on TikTok from professors in London, Melbourne, and Berlin. They’re discussing housing, scholarships, and career prospects with peers on Reddit, Discord, and WhatsApp. The idea of applying to college abroad no longer feels radical or risky – it feels strategic.
At the same time, the financial argument for international study has grown stronger. In the UK and parts of Europe, undergraduate degrees often take three years instead of four. Tuition is fixed, predictable, and, in some cases, lower than the out-of-state rates at US public universities.
Students can begin building global networks immediately, with exposure to cross-cultural collaboration built into the experience. That combination of efficiency, affordability, and international orientation is hard to ignore.
Consequences will extend beyond enrollment trends
If this shift continues, the implications go well beyond enrolment figures. When American students earn degrees abroad, they begin forming professional relationships, research collaborations, and employment ties in other countries. That international experience can strengthen global literacy, which is good in theory, but it may also weaken long-term institutional connections to the US – particularly if graduates choose to live, work, and innovate elsewhere.
This becomes especially relevant in sectors where talent mobility drives economic growth. If a critical mass of globally minded US students pursue AI, climate tech, public health, or diplomacy degrees abroad and then launch their careers overseas, the domestic pipeline for advanced skills and leadership becomes harder to sustain. These are early signs of a broader trend, and we should treat them with urgency.
The same applies to the soft power of US education. For decades, American universities have served as platforms for international exchange, not only bringing foreign students in, but equipping domestic students to become global ambassadors. If that dynamic begins to fade, so does the country’s influence in shaping global norms around research, ethics, and innovation.
Prioritising stability and trust
Reversing this trend will require more than competitive admissions packages. US institutions – and the policymakers who shape their environment – must work to restore trust. That means safeguarding academic freedom, ensuring transparent financial support structures, and publicly affirming the value of international engagement.
Students are listening closely. They are attuned to leadership choices and the broader societal signals surrounding higher education. If they sense instability or retreat, they will continue to look abroad.
Universities also need to communicate more effectively with prospective students about their long-term value. That includes articulating what makes a US education distinctive, and doing so without leaning solely on prestige or nostalgia. There must be a renewed emphasis on civic purpose, global relevance, and practical opportunity. The next generation is looking for clarity, meaning, and alignment between their educational investment and the world they hope to shape.
The US can lead again, if it chooses to
The United States still possesses unmatched institutional capacity in research, innovation, and cultural reach. But influence is not a static asset. It depends on the willingness to adapt and lead with principle. The current wave of outbound student mobility should not be dismissed as an anomaly. It’s a signal. How US higher education responds – at both the institutional and national levels – will determine whether it remains a magnet for talent or becomes just one option among many.
![[Podcast] Healthy Minds, Bright Futures: How to Navigate Mental Health & Build Support](https://blog.college-counseling.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Podcast-Healthy-Minds-Bright-Futures-How-to-Navigate-Mental-Health.webp)
Children’s mental health is in the spotlight like never before. Concerning data around anxiety and depression, as well as the increasing prevalence of conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder, are driving important discussions about supporting kids’ mental health.
In this three-part series, our expert guests address evidence-based interventions and assessments to equip clinicians with the latest tools and tactics for enhancing a child or adolescent’s well-being. We’ll assess the current landscape of student mental health and dive deeper into ADHD, ASD and co-occurring conditions, and the latest BASCTM family of solutions.
Check out the podcast episodes!
Ep. 1
ADHD diagnosis rates vary widely, and the condition itself presents many complexities. We’ll explore actionable strategies for clinicians to identify children who need additional ADHD support and how to provide the right learning environment for them, with our guest: Tyler Vassar, Ed.S., a licensed school psychologist and assessment consultant at Pearson.
Right before college students returned to campuses, the U.S. Department of Education issued new guidance designed to make it harder for college students to vote. Every school year, students receive an email with information about how to register to vote. This is because it is required in law. The Higher Education Act requires institutions of higher education to “make a good faith effort to distribute a mail voter registration form…to each student enrolled in a degree or certificate program and physically in attendance at the institution, and to make such forms widely available to students at the institution.”
Contrary to statute, the Trump Administration is now encouraging schools to limit who they send this information to – saying that if a school doesn’t send it to students who they have “reason to believe” are ineligible to vote, that’s okay. In addition to this being contrary to law, which requires all students to receive this information, this will increase the likelihood of students who are eligible not receiving information about how to register to vote (thus suppressing their votes) – and is likely to most impact students of color. The Department is also encouraging the voter registration information to include language reminding students of the list of ways that voting may be fraudulent – another tactic that may have a chilling effect on students going to the polls.
The same Department guidance prohibits students from being paid with federal work-study funds for any voting-related activities. A press release from the Department says that they are making a change to this longstanding policy because “Federal Work-Study is meant to provide students opportunities to gain real-world experience that prepares them to succeed in the workforce, not as a way to fund political activism on our college and university campuses.”
As we prepare our next generation of leaders to play a role in our democracy, in government, and in public service, it is hard to see how allowing students to participate in nonpartisan voting engagement is not aligned with experience they will benefit from in the workplace. By engaging in nonpartisan voter registration efforts using work-study positions, college students are able to increase the number of their peers who are registered to vote while learning and participating fully in our democratic system – all while earning the funds they are entitled to so that they can afford a college degree. It can’t go without saying that this restriction is also counter to statute and regulations which do not limit the types of on-campus work study positions to those that are in the “public interest,” as the guidance suggests. That limitation is only linked to off-campus work-study positions.
In a survey by CIRCLE following the 2024 elections about why young people didn’t register to vote, more than one in 10 – 12 percent – of people aged 18-34 said they did not know how to register or had problems with voter registration forms. Nearly a third of young people – 31 percent – said they were too busy, ran out of time, or missed the registration deadline. Without receiving voter registration information, in an objective way, from their college or university or their peers on campus, these numbers are likely to go up as more students will lack the information they need about voter registration.
Ensuring college students are able to vote shouldn’t be a partisan issue. In 2024, there were disparities by both gender and race in youth voter turnout. We all benefit from a democracy where everyone’s voice is heard and every vote is counted – for whomever the ballot is cast.
_________
Amanda Fuchs Miller is president of Seventh Street Strategies and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education Programs at the U.S. Department of Education in the Biden-Harris Administration.
Sidra Khan is a young Muslim woman in India who aspires to be a lawyer. Since early childhood, she has valued and respected Islam, the religion she was born into. But her headscarf now meets eagle eyes when she travels on public transport or tries to make a point during college lectures.
She feels that anti-Muslim rhetoric in India is causing her peers to judge her on the basis of religion and not merit. This, many Muslim students like Khan feel, is a casualty of having the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi rule India.
Over the last decade, the government of this secular country long considered the world’s largest democracy has introduced religious-based laws and politicians have incited anger and hatred against those who aren’t Hindu through rhetoric in speeches and AI campaigns. In northeast India’s Assam state, Wajid Alam, a college history student, watched a new election video from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party with unease.
An AI generated video shared by BJP’s official social media handles suggested that if the BJP loses power, Assam would be overrun by Muslims. It used AI-generated imagery to depict Muslims in hijabs and skull caps allegedly taking over airports, stadiums, tea gardens and other public spaces.
It concluded with a message claiming Muslims could grow to 90% of Assam’s population, provoking other religious groups to choose the BJP to get rid of Muslims.
For Alam and millions of Muslims in Assam, the video felt like an attack. And it is not the first time the BJP has been accused of demonizing religious minorities. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India — a country founded on principles of secularism and religious freedom — has seen growing hostility toward Muslims and Christians.
Some 200 million people in India practice the Muslim faith, making it the world’s third largest population of Muslims.
Modi became India’s 14th prime minister in May 2014. Not long after, reports of attacks on religious minorities began to climb. In June 2014, Mohsin Shaikh, a young Muslim IT worker in Pune, was beaten to death by Hindu extremists — the first of several lynchings that followed.
A year later, in 2015, a Hindu mob in Dadri, Uttar Pradesh, killed Mohammad Akhlaq on suspicion of eating beef — considered a serious offense in the Hindu religion. That made global headlines and signalled the rise of cow-protection vigilantism.
By 2016–17, assaults on Muslims accused of trading or transporting cattle spread across northern India, with cases like the lynching of dairy farmer Pehlu Khan in Rajasthan. Christians, too, came under pressure during this period: nationalist groups staged forced reconversion campaigns, disrupted prayer meetings, vandalized churches and invoked new anti-conversion laws to arrest pastors and worshippers.
Together, these incidents marked the early years of the Modi era as a turning point, when both Muslims and Christians began to face growing hostility in daily life.
At the same time, hostile rhetoric against minorities became increasingly common in election campaigns. BJP leaders and affiliated Hindu nationalist groups framed Muslims as “outsiders” or “invaders,” with speeches warning of demographic “takeovers” or linking entire communities to terrorism and cow slaughter.
Christians were accused of running covert “conversion factories,” with pastors painted as threats to India’s cultural identity. These narratives — echoed at rallies, on television debates and, more recently, through AI-generated propaganda — blurred the line between campaign messaging and hate speech. For many analysts, this marked a shift: politics was no longer just influenced by religion, but actively weaponizing it to polarize voters.
These speeches were not isolated slips but part of a larger pattern. Muslims were painted as “infiltrators,” “termites” or participants in a supposed “love jihad” plot to convert Hindu women, while Christians were accused of running “conversion factories” and threatening India’s culture.
Senior BJP figures, including party president Amit Shah and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, used such language at rallies to mobilize support. Over time, this messaging blurred into mainstream political discourse, normalizing suspicion and hostility toward entire communities.
India’s experience is part of a wider global pattern. Around the world, political movements are blending nationalism and religion to define who “belongs.” A recent Pew Research Center study found that while the United States ranks lower than many countries on overall religious nationalism, it stands out among wealthy democracies for how many adults say the Bible should influence national laws or that being Christian is essential to being truly American.
In the United States, debates over Christian nationalism have become a powerful current within the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s political rhetoric.
Trump and allied evangelical leaders increasingly frame America as a “Christian nation,” a message that blurs the line between faith and state power. Commentators warn that this effort to link patriotism with religion mirrors broader global trends — from India to Israel to Turkey — where religious identity is being harnessed for political gain.
Both the U.S. and Indian constitutions enshrine secularism, which is the idea that the state would keep equal distance from all religions. In India’s case, that principle mattered in a country where Hindus form the majority but millions of Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Buddhists also call the nation home.
Even before Modi, religion and politics were sometimes entwined: the Congress Party drew on Hindu symbolism, the 1984 anti-Sikh riots scarred the country and the destruction of the Babri mosque in 1992 shook faith in secularism. Still, the political consensus was that India was not to be defined by one faith.
“But a lot has changed under Modi and the BJP,” said Sneha Lal, a Hindu student studying to become a primary school teacher. “We did not grow up in this India.”
Lal is bothered by some of the BJP’s tactics that have promoted anti-conversion laws in several states, laws often used against Christians and Muslims accused of proselytizing.
In 2019, the Citizenship Amendment Act introduced fast-track citizenship for non-Muslim refugees, a move widely criticized as discriminatory toward Muslims. That same year, Delhi revoked the autonomy of Jammu and Kashmir, India’s only Muslim-majority state. Alongside these legal changes, election campaigns have increasingly featured polarizing rhetoric, and propaganda — including AI-generated videos — has circulated warning of demographic “takeovers.”
Critics say these policies and messages together mark a break from India’s founding secular vision, pushing the country toward a Hindu-first identity.
Seema Chishti, a senior journalist who has witnessed India’s journey from secular to right-wing, said that mixing religion with politics and diluting India’s unified national identity across religious and ethnic groups is a stated core principle of the ruling party, based on its militant roots.
“The Indian Constitution recognises no barriers to being Indian, i.e. nationality is not contingent on faith, caste, region, creed, gender or political views,” Chishti said. “BJP has loudly proclaimed ‘Hindu-India’ and instilled ‘Hindu’ nationalism in politics, education, the armed forces and every other facet of Indian life.”
An example of Modi’s attempt to link Indian-ness with Hinduism is the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019 which fast-tracks Indian citizenship for non-Muslims from three neighbours: Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. “This action echoes ideas of India being a Hindu homeland,” Chishti said.
On 15 August 2025, on India’s 79th Independence Day, Modi addressed crowds gathered at Delhi’s historical Red Fort, as he did the last 11 years that he has been in power.
On a day which commemorates India’s long struggle for self-rule that culminated in self-governance and independence from the British empire, Modi referred to the right-wing paramilitary organization Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh or RSS as a philanthropic organization. RSS has espoused an India for Hindus only.
All this has had tragic consequences. On 25 September, a seven-year-old Muslim boy was abducted from his neighborhood and brutally murdered in northern India’s Azamgarh.
But religious hate crimes haven’t only targeted Muslims. On 11 June, a mob allegedly linked to Hindu extremist groups attacked guests at a Christian wedding and set fire to a utility vehicle. And on 25 July, two Catholic nuns were arrested in central India’s Chhattisgarh state following a complaint by a member of an extremist Hindu group.
India’s United Christian Forum reported that in 2024, Christians across the country witnessed 834 such incidents, up 100 incidents from 734 in 2023 — that comes out to more than two Christians being targeted every day in India simply for practising their faith.
These incidents of attacks and even public hate speeches against Christians are not limited to vandalism, they extend to physical assaults, disruption of prayer gatherings, financial boycotts and even motivated arrests.
This anti-Christian sentiment has been fanned by Hindu extremist groups in the country, which are indirectly and sometimes directly backed by the ruling BJP and other Hindu nationalist groups. These groups are increasingly using anti-conversion laws created in the Modi era to harass Christians.
Arun Pannalal, president of the Chhattisgarh Christian Forum, said that two things are happening: Lawlessness of mobs who target Christians is ignored by police, while Christians often find themselves subject to seemingly random arrests.
“On random calls by Bajrang Dal goons the Police arrested the nuns, without evidence of anything,” Pannalal said. “But when the nuns wanted to complain against the goons, it was not lodged.”
Chishti said that more than politicising religion, by inserting religion into politics, the BJP is trying to portray itself as the only ‘Hindu’ party and the others consequently as not. She maintains that the BJP has fought elections on issues that polarise Indians, divide them and not on its performance or electoral record. Its electoral dominance has also meant that other parties in the fray, the opposition too find themselves playing on the BJP’s turf.
“The BJP has done its best to make the political discourse about faith, symbols of religion — Hindu and Muslim — and portraying themselves as saviours of the Hindu faith and righting so-called historical wrongs,” Chishti said.
As a result, the media focuses on the religious conflicts, instead of other pressing issues, such as the economic well-being of people, the public health or education systems, joblessness and inflation, Chishti said.
As India heads toward future elections, the blending of religion and politics raises questions not just for its own democracy but for others around the world. For young people in India, the stakes are immediate: whether their country remains true to its founding promise of secularism and equal rights.
But for readers everywhere, India’s story is part of a larger global trend from the United States to Turkey to Israel, where religion and nationalism intertwine to shape politics. Understanding how these forces play out in the world’s largest democracy can help us make sense of how faith and power continue to influence politics across the globe.
India’s struggle shows that when religion becomes a political weapon, democracy itself can become the battleground.
1. How is freedom of religion protected in India?
2. In what ways are Muslims being treated differently by the Modi administration?
3. In what ways to you feel comfortable or uncomfortable in your community expressing your faith?
An executive order that gives political appointees new oversight for the types of federal grants that are approved could undercut the foundation of scientific research in the U.S., research and higher education experts say.
President Donald Trump’s order, signed Aug. 7, directs political appointees at federal agencies to review grant awards to ensure they align with the administration’s “priorities and the national interest.”
These appointees are to avoid giving funding to several types of projects, including those that recognize sex beyond a male-female binary or initiatives that promote “anti-American values,” though the order doesn’t define what those values are.
The order effectively codifies the Trump administration’s moves to deny or suddenly terminate research grants that aren’t in line with its priorities, such as projects related to climate change, mRNA research, and diversity, equity and inclusion.
The executive order’s mandates mark a big departure from norms before the second Trump administration. Previously, career experts provided oversight rather than political appointees and peer review was the core way to evaluate projects.
Not surprisingly, the move has brought backlash from some quarters.
The executive order runs counter to the core principle of funding projects based on scientific merit — an idea that has driven science policy in the U.S. since World War II, said Toby Smith, senior vice president for government relations and public policy at the Association of American Universities.
“It gives the authority to do what has been happening, which is to overrule peer-review through changes and political priorities,” said Smith. “This is really circumventing peer review in a way that’s not going to advance U.S. science and not be healthy for our country.”
That could stifle scientific innovation. Trump’s order could prompt scientists to discard their research ideas, not enter the scientific research field or go to another country to complete their work, research experts say.
Ultimately, these policies could cause the U.S. to fall from being one of the top countries for scientific research to one near the bottom, said Michael Lubell, a physics professor at the City College of New York.
“This is the end of an era,” said Lubell. “Even if things settle out, the damage has already been done.”
Under the order, senior political appointees or their designees will review new federal awards as well as ongoingl grants and terminate those that don’t align with the administration’s priorities.
This policy is a far cry from the research and development strategy developed by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration at the end of World War II. Vannevar Bush, who headed the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development at the time, decided the U.S. needed a robust national program to fund research that would leave scientists to do their work free from political pressure.
Bush’s strategy involved some government oversight over research projects, but it tended to defer to the science community to decide which projects were most promising, Lubell said.
“That kind of approach has worked extremely well,” said Lubell. “We have had strong economic growth. We’re the No. 1 military in the world, our work in the scientific field, whether it’s medicine, or IT — we’re right at the forefront.”
But Trump administration officials, through executive orders and in public hearings, have dismissed some federal research as misleading or unreliable — and portrayed the American scientific enterprise as one in crisis.
The Aug. 7 order cited a 2024 report from the U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, led by its then-ranking member and current chairman, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, that alleged more than a quarter of National Science Foundation spending supported DEI and other “left-wing ideological crusades.” House Democrats, in a report released in April, characterized Cruz’s report as “a sloppy mess” that used flawed methodology and “McCarthyistic tactics.”
Trump’s order also referred to incidents at Stanford and Harvard universities in recent years. In July 2023, Marc Tessier-Lavigne resigned as Stanford University’s president after an independent review of his work found significant flaws. And in May, Harvard University fired and stripped the tenure status from a renowned scholar after finding she had manipulated data to support her hypotheses in several studies
“There is a strong need to strengthen oversight and coordination of, and to streamline, agency grantmaking to address these problems,” the order stated.
Scientific misconduct does occur from time to time, but the scientific community does a pretty good job at policing itself through peer review processes, said Lubell. The scientific process has functioned “extremely well,” he added, and contentions that the scientific community is in crisis are not accurate.
“Could it be better? Of course you can always improve things,” said Lubell. But “there is no crisis.”
Michael Wilhide has worked as a molecular biologist and clinical lab scientist at a public university, for private companies and at hospitals for over 20 years — looking into how genomics affect health outcomes such as cardiovascular and kidney disease, and whether molecular tests could detect COVID-19 in patients.
However, after a research project he worked on ended four months ago, he said in September that he struggled to land another position in what has been a challenging job market for molecular biology scientists.
Wilhide speculated the difficult job market may be partly due to research universities being uncertain about whether they will be able to secure grant funding from the National Institutes of Health. However, more recently, Wilhide said the job market appeared to be improving a bit.
“There is a strong need to strengthen oversight and coordination of, and to streamline, agency grantmaking to address these problems.”
Donald Trump’s Aug. 7 executive order on research grants
Still, NIH and other federal agencies have cut vast sums of research funding in the months since Trump took office for the second time.
By late July, the federal government had cut $3.3 to $3.7 billion in research funding from over 600 universities — targeting institutions in its crosshairs and projects that didn’t align with their ideological goals, said Sara Partridge, associate director of higher education at the Center for American Progress, citing a recent analysis from the liberal think tank.
Over half of federal research dollars goes toward medical and life science research, said Partridge, meaning the cuts could compromise the U.S.’s ability to find new treatments for diseases.
Despite a challenging job market, some scientists may revise their proposals and try to continue their work under the August executive order’s guidelines, said Lubell. But if the Trump administration suddenly cancels their grants, they may look to continue their work in the European Union or China, where American scientists are being actively recruited, he said. Others may leave the scientific research field completely, he said.
At the same time, young people might avoid working in an environment where they need to watch their words, lack job security and aren’t appreciated for their work, Lubell said, or just turn to fields that pay more.
This scenario has kept Wilhide awake at night. He fears America may be losing the next generation of scientists because the students who love science will see the politicization of the field and today’s scientists struggling to find jobs, he said.
“Are junior high, or high school kids, or grade school kids going to be interested in becoming a scientist when they see that science is under attack by the current administration?” asked Wilhide.
“This is the end of an era. Even if things settle out, the damage has already been done.”
Michael Lubell
Physics professor, City College of New York
In fact, past policies that redirected federal grants to align with an administration’s goals have hampered the recruitment of scientists, Lubell said.
In 1970, during the Vietnam War, Congress choked off U.S. Department of Defense funding for basic scientific research that wasn’t directly related to the military’s function or operation. That made it difficult for many scientists to get jobs — and it took a decade for the field to recover, said Lubell, who was a fellow at the Atomic Energy Commission at the time.
“That legislation passed and all of the sudden the bottom dropped out,” said Lubell. “Most of my colleagues bailed out. They couldn’t find jobs. They left basic science and went into medicine, they went into law, they went into finance.”
Scientists often enter research projects without knowing what they’ll find — leading to all sorts of advances that were totally unexpected, said Smith.
The late microbiologist Thomas Brock received an $80,000 NSF grant to research whether living organisms exist in the Yellowstone National Park’s hot springs, which were believed to be above the temperature in which life can exist, said Smith.
Brock did, in fact, find bacteria reproducing inside the hot springs — a discovery critical to the development of polymerase chain reaction, a DNA sequencing method that has advanced biotech, including helping to lead to the creation of COVID-19 tests.
But under the August executive order, the federal government would only award research grants to projects that would likely “produce immediately demonstrable results with the potential for potentially longer-term, breakthrough results.”
“The administration’s policy risks becoming a tool that judges curiosity-driven research through the lens of policy priorities,” Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said in an email. “Which cure or solution will we lose by limiting the potential of what we can study?”
“Are junior high, or high school kids, or grade school kids going to be interested in becoming a scientist when they see that science is under attack by the current administration?”
Michael Wilhide
Molecular biologist
Many people are concerned the order could narrow the scope of research projects that are pursued and discourage proposals, thereby limiting creativity, Chad Ross, vice president of grants at Hanover Research, a research and analytics firm, said in an email.
It would be fine for the administration to set priorities that guide scientists in their research focus, said Smith.
“There are always going to be certain areas of national need that have priority to get additional funding,” he said.
But it’s problematic when the administration decides what categories of research constitute good versus bad science, Smith said. Researchers need to follow the science, not expect to know the outcome of their scientific experiment before actually doing it, he said.
“I’m worried that if politicians are now judging which science is the best science, they will judge it on believing they’re going to get something when the scientific experiment starts,” Smith said.
It’s unclear what areas of research the executive order could curtail, said Partridge. It could affect climate change research, she speculated, but the order also states it won’t fund research that compromises public safety or promotes “anti-American values.”
Recent grant cuts also offer hints at which topics will be affected. The administration has cut or proposed slashing grants for agricultural research, money that supports K-12 teacher training, and programs that help students from underrepresented backgrounds pursue STEM careers, she said.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is also winding down mRNA vaccine development research under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, who has famously been skeptical of vaccines. Backing some of the concerns about grant funding, Smith noted that top officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recently resigned, citing the politicization of science.
The executive order and mass grant cancellations could also affect a university’s ability to sustain their research capabilities.
Plus, if grants are terminated based on priorities that change from one presidential administration to the next, science will not occur in the U.S., said Smith. That’s because science doesn’t occur over a one-year period, it happens over five- to more than 10-year periods, through grant funding that extends three to five years, said Smith.
When navigating the order, universities should include uncertainty into their research calculations and prioritize projects with the best chance of getting approved, said Carney. They should also make long-term plans to diversify funding sources — beyond the federal government — for their research priorities, she said.
“I’m worried that if politicians are now judging which science is the best science, they will judge it on believing they’re going to get something when the scientific experiment starts.”
Toby Smith
Senior vice president for government relations and public policy, Association of American Universities
The executive order could help in some ways, higher ed and research experts said. The order directs federal agencies to simplify the language in funding opportunity announcements to minimize “the need for legal or technical expertise in drafting an application.”
The simplified language should reduce complexities in grant application paperwork —- potentially making the process more accessible for international researchers and nonspecialist reviewers, said Ross.
And language in the order calling for awarding research grants to a mix of recipients — instead of mostly institutions with strong track records — could help researchers from less prestigious research institutions obtain grants, said Partridge.
Going forward, open and transparent lines of communication are needed among universities, principal investigators, and federal agency program officers, said Carney.
“Federal research agencies will need to be exceptionally clear about what they hope to achieve and how it aligns with the administration’s priorities,” she said.
Today’s students quickly spot generic, rinse-and-repeat marketing from a university. Cut through the sameness slop and create a positioning strategy that actually connects.
Higher education is at a crossroads. Enrollment is declining. Public perception is shrinking. And nearly every institution is saying the same thing: excellence, innovation, community.
Meanwhile, students and families are asking tough questions about the real-world value of a degree. In this new reality, universities can no longer rely on tradition or reputation alone. To thrive, they need clarity and courage. And they need a positioning strategy that captures who they are—and why that matters.
A strong positioning strategy doesn’t just shape marketing. It shapes culture, recruitment, retention, and reputation. It helps universities tell a truer story about themselves—and connect that story to the students, faculty, and partners who will carry it forward.
Here are the six elements every successful university positioning strategy must include.
A strong positioning strategy starts with targeting specific student subsets.
Are you recruiting first-generation students or career changers? Honors scholars or working professionals? Local residents or international learners? Understanding who you’re trying to reach—and what drives their decisions—anchors every other element of your strategy.
And don’t forget the people behind the scenes: faculty, staff, and donors. The best universities understand that attracting the right people internally is just as important as recruiting students externally.
Where will you focus your recruitment efforts? Know where your target audiences are —geographically and digitally —so you can reach them. Which regions, cities, or even online communities align best with your programs and brand?
Now is the time to revisit your recruiting map. Shifts in demographics and enrollment trends mean yesterday’s strongholds may not be tomorrow’s growth markets.
What academic programs will attract your target audiences? Identify your institution’s strengths and areas of expertise. The programs you offer need to align with your audience’s needs.
Whether it’s a renowned nursing program, an emerging data science initiative, or a distinctive liberal arts approach, clarity here will shape everything else—your messaging, recruitment, and even partnerships.
Then, make your offerings accessible through the pathways your target audiences need—undergraduate, graduate, online, hybrid, or evening programs. It is likely that students need different pathways, so be flexible here.
Your pricing strategy should reflect your positioning. Are your audiences looking for value, accessibility, or prestige? There’s no one right answer, but there is a wrong one: misalignment.
Align your tuition, scholarships, and financial aid strategy with your audiences and geography. A well-designed tuition calculator that delivers real-time estimates can make the difference between interest and enrollment.
Recruitment may fill your seats, but support keeps them filled.
Universities that build cultures of belonging—through mentoring, mental health support, financial assistance, and strong academic advising—don’t just retain students. They create lifelong advocates.
Is your first-year experience intentionally designed for retention? Do you proactively re-engage at-risk students? Do your clubs and organizations reflect the diversity of your student body? These increase the likelihood of success at your university.
Students don’t just want a degree—they want a life during those years.
We hear it time and again: what ultimately draws students in is a sense of belonging, fun, and possibility. Your positioning should capture the energy of your campus and the spirit of your city.
Show it. Don’t just say it. Make it clear that students like the ones you are targeting are having a great college experience.
That emotional pull is often the difference between “accepted” and “enrolled.”
Each of these elements—audience, geography, programs, cost, support, and experience—needs to work together. Every decision in one area affects the other. When they are unaligned, your messaging will suffer.
When your strategy is integrated and authentic, your university doesn’t just stand out. It stands for something.
In a marketplace crowded with sameness, differentiation is the ultimate advantage.
A powerful university positioning strategy gives you more than just messaging—it gives you momentum. It helps you attract the right students, engage the right partners, and chart a sustainable path forward.
The question isn’t whether your university needs a positioning strategy. The question is: how bold are you willing to be?
