Reimagining the Modern Learner: Reflections from My Conversation on Monday Morning Admissions
When Dan Tudor invited me to join him on Monday Morning Admissions, I knew we’d have a lively conversation. What I didn’t expect was how naturally our discussion would trace the arc of higher education’s current moment—its inertia, its possibilities, and its urgent need to evolve. Over the course of nearly an hour, we unpacked what I often describe as higher ed’s forced metamorphosis—a time when stability and agility are colliding head-on.
Higher Education’s Moment of Reckoning
Colleges and universities have long been built for stability. That design once made sense: institutions were meant to last, traditions to endure. But the landscape we operate in today—one of demographic shifts, public mistrust, alternative pathways, and financial fragility—requires something different. As I noted during the conversation, “we’re operating within a framework built for stability, not agility.”
That tension shapes everything from governance to curriculum design to admissions strategy. And while it’s easy to critique, it’s much harder to change. Legacy systems, outdated processes, and siloed decision-making continue to slow institutions that know transformation is necessary but struggle to operationalize it.
The Ghost Student Problem
One of the themes that resonated with listeners was what I called higher education’s ghost student problem. Many campuses still design their policies, programs, and expectations around a version of the “traditional student” who no longer exists: an 18-year-old living on campus, studying full-time, and unencumbered by work or family obligations.
Today’s learners—whether they’re 18 or 38—juggle multiple commitments. They’re working, caregiving, or returning to complete unfinished degrees. They need flexibility, relevance, and clear pathways to completion. Yet many institutions continue to structure themselves around the ghosts of students past. Until we confront that gap, no amount of marketing or “innovation” will restore trust or confidence.
Reducing Friction and Rebuilding Trust
The conversation turned to how campuses can begin to change. My view is that transformation doesn’t always require massive overhauls; it starts with removing friction. Students shouldn’t have to navigate bureaucratic mazes just to transfer credits, pay a bill, or register for classes.
I’ve often half-joked that every university needs a Director of Bureaucratic Simplification, someone empowered to identify where systems fail the people they’re meant to serve. Because while mission statements and strategic plans matter, the student experience is often defined by whether an institution makes things easier or harder.
Trust erodes not because students doubt the value of learning, but because they encounter institutions that seem indifferent to their realities.
Leadership, Culture, and Empowerment
Dan and I also talked about leadership, not at the presidential level alone, but within the everyday middle layers that hold campuses together. Admissions directors, associate deans, department chairs—these are the people with both responsibility and proximity to problems. They’re the heartbeat of higher education, and their ability to lead change depends on the culture around them.
If I could redesign a university from the ground up, the first step would be creating a culture where people feel safe to speak up, test ideas, and challenge convention. That doesn’t mean endless consensus; it means clarity of purpose and shared ownership of the mission. Change won’t happen without psychological safety and distributed leadership.
Mission, Focus, and the Courage to Specialize
Another theme we discussed was mission drift. Too many colleges try to be everything to everyone—a survival instinct that often accelerates decline. The most resilient institutions will be those that sharpen their focus, articulate a clear value proposition, and align every decision, academic, financial, and operational—with that mission.
As I said on the podcast, specialization isn’t exclusionary. It’s strategic. Schools that know who they are and whom they serve are far better positioned than those that chase the illusion of universality.
Retention as a Growth Strategy
If there was one message I hope admissions and academic leaders take away from the episode, it’s this: retention is growth. In a time when the number of new students is shrinking, keeping the ones you already have is the most reliable enrollment strategy available.
Raising retention rates even a few percentage points can stabilize an institution’s finances while strengthening student success outcomes. But doing so requires seeing retention as everyone’s job—not just Student Success or Academic Affairs. Belonging, connection, and engagement are institutional responsibilities.
Preparing Students for the AI Era
We closed our conversation with a look ahead, specifically at artificial intelligence. I framed it as one of the most polarizing but necessary discussions happening on campuses right now. The question isn’t whether AI belongs in higher education; it’s how we prepare students to use it responsibly and effectively.
Just as universities once had to adapt to the internet, we must now teach students to navigate AI ethically, creatively, and critically. That means embedding AI literacy across disciplines, not confining it to computer science programs or treating it solely as an integrity issue.
Looking Ahead
Despite the challenges, I remain optimistic. The institutions that embrace the realities of modern learners, that simplify rather than complicate, and that focus on mission over mimicry will be the ones that not only survive but lead.
As I said toward the end of the episode, “I really do think higher ed will rise to the moment.” The next decade will belong to those willing to rethink, rebuild, and re-center around the learner.