Rethinking What’s Possible in U.S. Higher Education with André Dua and Leslie Fenwick

As soaring tuition, shifting demographics and skepticism about return on investment reshape America’s colleges and universities, a far-reaching debate is underway over what higher education should become. In “U.S. Higher Education: Rethinking the Possibilities,” presented by The Washington Post, McKinsey senior partner André Dua and education scholar Leslie Fenwick outline how the nation’s vast higher-ed ecosystem could be redesigned to better meet the needs of today’s learners, employers and communities. Their discussion probes systemic inequities, the evolving demands of the labor market and the intensifying expectation that institutions prove their value, offering a roadmap for restoring trust and relevance in U.S. higher education.

A New Value Proposition in U.S. Higher Education for a Changing Student Population

With economic volatility and demographic change reshaping who enrolls in college, families are evaluating the cost of a degree with unprecedented scrutiny. André Dua and Leslie Fenwick contend that the long-standing narrative—“earn a degree and you will automatically move up”—no longer satisfies students who face rising prices and uncertain job markets. Instead, institutions are being asked to show both immediate, practical benefits and durable career advantages.

This new calculus revolves around clear, measurable outcomes: graduates’ employment rates, starting salaries, total debt loads, and how directly coursework connects to real-world problems and in-demand skills. Across the country, presidents and provosts are experimenting with alternative models such as:

• Competency-based education that allows students to progress when they demonstrate mastery instead of just logging seat time.
• Short-term credentials—certificates and micro-credentials—embedded within four-year degrees so students earn marketable milestones along the way.
• Deep employer partnerships that weave paid work experiences into academic programs from the first or second year.

These shifts matter most for students historically underserved by higher education—first-generation students, working adults, and communities of color. These groups are less interested in prestige alone and more focused on tangible outcomes like manageable debt and clear pathways into stable careers. For them, “access” is necessary but not sufficient; the promise of higher education must be visible in their lives and paychecks.

The emerging value equation is increasingly organized around four expectations:

• Transparent pricing that demystifies the gap between the advertised sticker price and what students actually pay after aid.
• Stackable credentials that allow learners to build from short programs to full degrees without losing credits along the way.
• Evidence-based support including proactive (often called “intrusive”) advising, mental health services and basic-needs assistance.
• Work-aligned learning through internships, apprenticeships, co-op programs and project-based courses linked to employers.

Recent national data highlight why these concerns are so central. According to the Federal Reserve, Americans collectively hold more than $1.6 trillion in student loan debt, and surveys show waning public confidence in whether a traditional degree is “worth it.” In response, more students are considering community colleges, apprenticeships and alternative credentials—pressuring universities to prove their unique value.

How André Dua and Leslie Fenwick Envision Aligning Colleges with Workforce and Equity Goals

Dua and Fenwick argue that institutions must move beyond counting degrees granted and instead measure how effectively those degrees translate into resilient, well-compensated careers and engaged citizenship. They call for integrated data systems that link academic programs to regional and national labor-market intelligence so that universities can continuously update curricula to reflect fast-growing fields like clean energy, data science, cybersecurity and advanced manufacturing.

Their vision rests on three pillars: early employer engagement, paid experiential learning and rigorous accountability for closing equity gaps in completion and wages. That means not only asking whether graduates get jobs, but which graduates succeed, in what fields and at what pay levels over time.

• Curriculum redesign anchored in real-time labor-market data and employer feedback.
• Paid internships and apprenticeships treated as central program components rather than optional extras.
• Equity audits of recruitment, admissions, advising, financial aid and program funding to uncover structural barriers.
• Transparent outcome dashboards that show graduation, job placement and earnings data to students, families and policymakers.

Fenwick emphasizes that “workforce alignment” must be pursued with a justice lens. Without intentional safeguards, she warns, efforts to match programs to jobs can inadvertently sort underrepresented students into low-wage, low-mobility fields, even as more privileged peers access majors linked to higher earnings and leadership roles. Equity, in this sense, cannot be an afterthought; it must shape which programs grow, who gets into them and how resources are allocated.

Both leaders support public policies that reward colleges not simply for enrolling students, but for graduating them into stable, well-paying roles—while also avoiding blunt formulas that punish institutions serving large numbers of high-need students. They point to emerging models in which a portion of state funding is tied to completion rates, employment outcomes and equitable access. Done well, these policies can encourage collaboration among community colleges, regional universities, research institutions, employers and local governments, turning campuses into engines of shared prosperity rather than isolated ivory towers.

Ultimately, Dua and Fenwick argue that the fate of U.S. higher education will hinge on whether it can simultaneously fuel economic competitiveness and dismantle long-standing barriers that dictate who benefits from a degree.

Policy Shifts Needed to Close Access and Completion Gaps Across Campuses

Some of the most significant changes in American higher education are emerging not from high-profile speeches, but from technical shifts in policy—how students are admitted, placed into courses, awarded credit and supported when they struggle. Across systems, leaders are rethinking practices like placement testing, developmental (remedial) education and transfer credit evaluation, all of which have historically derailed first-generation, low-income and students of color at disproportionate rates.

At the same time, more states are tying budget allocations to measurable outcomes such as gateway course completion, second-year retention and on-time graduation. By requiring data to be broken down by race, income and age, these policies make longstanding equity gaps impossible to ignore.

The new wave of reform centers around a small set of policy levers that research indicates can significantly alter student trajectories when implemented comprehensively:

• Data transparency: Publishing clear, disaggregated outcome data—by race, income, gender and geography—through user-friendly dashboards that inform campus decision-making and public oversight.
• Redesigned aid policies: Simplifying financial aid letters, increasing need-based grants, aligning work-study opportunities with students’ fields of interest and minimizing surprise charges that lead to stop-outs.
• Structured pathways: Replacing chaotic course selection with default degree maps, proactive advising and early alert systems tied to attendance, grades and engagement.
• Credit mobility: Creating statewide transfer guarantees, common course numbering and articulation agreements so students do not lose time and money when they move between institutions.

States that have embraced corequisite remediation, for example, have seen dramatic increases in the share of students completing college-level math and English in their first year—a critical milestone toward graduation. Similarly, simplified transfer pathways have reduced the number of “lost” credits when students move from two-year to four-year campuses, saving time and tuition dollars.

Concrete Steps for Universities and Lawmakers to Make Degrees More Affordable and Relevant

Affordability, Dua and Fenwick suggest, will depend on both how institutions manage their own budgets and how federal and state policymakers structure financial aid. On campuses, leaders are piloting “lean degree pathways” that streamline bachelor’s programs to the credits students actually need, embed paid work experience into the curriculum and swap expensive textbooks for open educational resources and low-cost digital materials.

These internal reforms are increasingly paired with transparent pricing dashboards that show students and families four-year cost projections, likely debt levels and typical earnings by major. The goal is to give prospective students clearer, more reliable information before they borrow. Meanwhile, faculty and governing boards are under growing pressure to align program offerings with regional labor needs—expanding applied learning opportunities in climate technology, public health, logistics, cybersecurity, AI governance and other growth sectors—while phasing out chronically under-enrolled programs that drain resources without delivering meaningful outcomes.

In legislatures and on Capitol Hill, policymakers are debating tools that could fundamentally reshape incentives across the system. Much of that discussion now centers on:

• Outcomes-based public funding that rewards institutions for graduating more low-income, first-generation and adult learners, rather than simply increasing enrollment.
• Targeted debt relief and income-driven repayment plans that cap monthly student loan payments at an affordable percentage of income and forgive remaining balances after a set period.
• Last-dollar scholarships that make community college tuition-free for eligible students once federal and state aid is applied.
• Portable micro-credential grants that allow working adults to finance short, job-relevant programs and stack them toward degrees over time.

The combination of institutional and policy changes can substantially alter the affordability landscape. For example, research from the College Board and other organizations shows that expanding Pell Grants and state need-based aid correlates with higher enrollment and lower borrowing among low-income students. Meanwhile, states that offer tuition-free community college through last-dollar scholarships have seen spikes in participation, especially from older students and those balancing work and family responsibilities.

The Conclusion

As debates over the future of U.S. higher education intensify, the insights of André Dua and Leslie Fenwick highlight both the urgency of reform and the range of options available to leaders at every level. Their emphasis on equity, affordability and institutional accountability reflects mounting public pressure on colleges and universities to adapt to economic change, demographic shifts and evolving expectations about value.

Whether these ideas lead to lasting transformation will hinge on choices made by lawmakers, trustees, presidents, faculty and students themselves. The central questions they raise—who higher education serves, how it is financed and what outcomes it delivers—are unlikely to fade from the national spotlight. Instead, they will continue to shape a long-running conversation about how to design a system of U.S. higher education that is both economically powerful and genuinely inclusive.