Beyond the First Enrollment: Rethinking the Relationship Between Students and Institutions
I recently had the opportunity and honor to contribute to Colleen Flaherty’s recent Inside Higher Ed article, More than Words, examining how college and university presidents are responding to declining public trust. It is a strong piece and worth reading in full (as well as the Survey of College/University Presidents it references). It captures a core disconnect. Leaders know trust is declining because of concerns about cost, value, and outcomes, yet many responses still rely on messaging instead of fixing the underlying experience.
That distinction matters.
As several contributors in the article note, trust is not a communications problem. It is an experience problem. Students and families are not asking for better stories. They are asking for better outcomes, clearer value, and a system that works with their lives rather than against them.
In my contribution, I offered two suggestions. The first is important and immediate. The second is the bigger shift.
I want to spend time on both.
The First Shift: Make Outcomes and Affordability Central
If we are serious about rebuilding trust, then career outcomes and affordability cannot sit on the edges of the academic model. They have to be at the center.
That means clearer pathways from program to employment. It means stronger and more active alignment with employers. It means being honest about cost, time to degree, and return on investment. It also means making real progress on reducing friction in the system through transfer-friendly policies, credit for prior learning, and competency-based education.
There is, of course, an important and valid concern that higher education should not be reduced to job training alone. Colleges and universities play a critical role in developing the whole person. They foster critical thinking, communication, civic engagement, and intellectual curiosity. That work matters, and it should not be lost.
But we cannot treat career outcomes as incidental or as a by-product of that broader development. For most students and families, especially given the cost of higher education, the connection between education and economic opportunity is not optional. It is central to how they define value.
The choice is not between being well-rounded and being career-ready. The challenge is designing an experience that does both, intentionally and transparently.
These are not secondary features. They are core design elements.
Students are already moving in and out of our institutions. They bring prior credits, work experience, and learning that has taken place outside of traditional classrooms. When we fail to recognize that, we send a signal that their time and experience do not count.
That erodes trust quickly. This work is necessary. It is visible. It matters. But it is not sufficient.
The Second Shift: From Transaction to Relationship
The deeper issue is how we define the relationship between students and institutions.
For a long time, higher education has operated on a transactional model. A student enrolls, completes a program, earns a credential, and exits. The institution delivers the degree. The relationship largely ends.
That model no longer reflects reality.
Students today move in and out of education. They accumulate credits across institutions. They stop, restart, pivot, and return. Careers are no longer linear. Skills do not last decades. The idea of a single, front-loaded educational experience is becoming increasingly misaligned with how people live and work.
And yet, most institutions are still built around that time-bound model.
Four years. One entry point. One exit.
That mismatch is now visible across the system. It shows up in enrollment patterns, in the growth of online learning, in transfer challenges, and in how students and families evaluate value.
It also shows up in public trust.
If we continue to treat education as a one-time transaction, we will continue to struggle to demonstrate long-term value.
This Is Not a New Idea, At Least Not for Me
I have been working toward this idea over time in my Field Notes.
In Edition 7, I focused on re-engaging students with some college and no credential. That piece was about recognizing the scale of the population that has already entered higher education but did not complete.
In Edition 9, the argument sharpened. Students are not done with learning, but institutions are still structured as if they are. The issue was no longer just re-entry. It was the system itself.
By Edition 17, The Value Cliff, the framing became clearer. The opportunity is not just enrollment growth. It is positioning higher education as part of a lifelong learning journey. One that supports people as they upskill, pivot, and grow over time.
That idea continued to develop across later editions and special issues. In the 2026 Fault Lines piece, particularly Fault Line 6, I argued that we are reaching the end of college as a time-bound assumption. The notion that education happens once, early in life, is breaking down.
Across these pieces, the throughline is consistent. The student journey is no longer linear or contained. Our systems still are.
Rosowsky and the 60-Year Degree
David Rosowsky’s recent Forbes article on the 60-year degree captures this shift more directly than I have so far.
He argues that universities must move from recruitment to what he calls perpetual partnership. Graduation is no longer the end of the relationship. It is the beginning of a much longer connection between the learner and the institution.
That idea is powerful.
It reframes the entire value proposition of higher education. Instead of delivering a degree and sending students on their way, institutions become ongoing partners in a person’s professional and intellectual life.
Rosowsky pushes this further with the idea of universities acting as Career Arc-itects. Institutions that help individuals navigate multiple career transitions, not just prepare for the first job after graduation.
He also challenges what he calls the burst model of education. The assumption that students engage in a concentrated period of learning early in life and then rely on that knowledge for decades. In a world where the half-life of skills is shrinking, that model no longer works.
The alternative he proposes is closer to a service model. One where learners return regularly for new knowledge, updated skills, and support as their careers evolve.
This is not simply continuing education. It is a redesign of the relationship itself.
Why This Matters for Trust
If trust is rooted in lived experience, then it cannot be rebuilt through campaigns alone.
Students and families are asking practical questions.
Will this lead to a job?
Will I be able to afford this?
Will this still matter in five or ten years?
Will the institution support me beyond graduation?
Our current model answers the first question unevenly. It struggles with the second. It rarely addresses the third. It almost never addresses the fourth.
A lifetime relationship model changes that.
It signals that the institution is not just selling a product. It is investing in the long-term success of the learner. It creates a framework where value is delivered over time, not just at the point of graduation.
That is how trust is built. Not in a moment, but across an arc.
The Challenge Ahead
None of this is a quick fix. It requires redesign and difficult decisions about programs, pricing, delivery, and support, along with rethinking how we measure success beyond first-time enrollment and graduation to include long-term engagement and outcomes. It also requires a shift in mindset. We are not just recruiting students to complete a degree. We are inviting them into a long-term relationship with learning. That is a different promise, and if we get it right, a far more compelling one.
A Final Thought
The challenge is not just getting students in the door, but building systems and relationships that support learning across a lifetime. In the end, trust will not come from what we say, but from what students experience over time.