The Signals Are Converging: Why Colleges Must Rethink Program Planning Now

Anyone responsible for the strategic direction of a college or university is managing an extraordinary level of complexity. Demographic change and pricing pressure alone have made the industry far more challenging. But beneath the noise of any given news cycle, a deeper convergence is taking shape. It’s one that deserves the attention of everyone at the table where institutional strategy gets made.

Federal policy, the labor market, and student and family expectations are all pointing in the same direction: the institutions that thrive in the next decade will be those that treat program planning as a workforce strategy question, not just an enrollment question.

Here is what's driving that convergence, and what it means for your institution.

The Job Market for Graduates Has Fundamentally Shifted

This isn't a cyclical downturn. Multiple structural forces are reshaping entry-level employment simultaneously, and colleges need to understand what their graduates are walking into.

The unemployment rate for recent college graduates climbed to roughly 5.7% in the fourth quarter of 2025, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, above the overall unemployment rate of 4.2% during the same period. Underemployment hit 42.5%, its highest level since 2020. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink warned in March 2026 that this year's graduates could face the highest jobless rate in years.

Roughly 45% of employers now characterize the job market for new graduates as merely "fair," the most pessimistic assessment since 2020–21. Only 30% of 2025 graduates reported securing a full-time job in their field, according to a Cengage Group survey.

No single factor is driving this shift. Post-pandemic hiring corrections, economic uncertainty, and the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence are all contributing. AI deserves particular attention because it is accelerating a change in what employers expect from entry-level talent. As routine, task-based work is increasingly handled by technology, employers are asking new graduates to contribute at a higher level from the outset.

A Harvard University study tracking 62 million workers across 285,000 firms found that junior positions are shrinking at companies integrating AI. Stanford's Digital Economy Lab found steep employment declines among workers aged 22–25 in AI-exposed roles like software development and customer service. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that programmer employment fell 27.5% between 2023 and 2025. PwC UK publicly acknowledged cutting roughly 200 entry-level roles as generative AI reshapes the work those roles used to perform. 

The implications for higher education are serious. As one economist at the Burning Glass Institute put it to CNBC, a bachelor's degree is no longer, by itself, a reliable path to professional employment. The routine, task-oriented work that once served as a training ground for early-career professionals is increasingly being handled by AI tools, which means that employers are expecting new hires to contribute at a higher level from day one.

This is not an issue that can be solved by better career services, employer partnerships, and experiential learning, although they all matter enormously.

It’s also a program planning problem.

Federal Policy Is Reorienting Around Workforce Outcomes

While the labor market is shifting, federal higher education policy is undergoing its most significant structural realignment in decades. The direction is clear: workforce outcomes are becoming the central organizing principle.

The Department of Education is being systematically restructured. As of April 2026, the Education Department has struck ten interagency agreements with five Cabinet-level agencies, transferring at least 119 programs, according to Education Week. The Department of Labor is absorbing a major share of this portfolio, including TRIO programs, career and technical education, and other Higher Education Act programs. The ED-DOL Postsecondary Education Partnership, announced in late 2025, explicitly positions DOL as the central hub for America's postsecondary education and workforce development programs. The first grant competition under this partnership, for the Talent Search program, launched in March 2026, with awards being issued through DOL's GrantSolutions platform.

Whatever one’s political view of these changes, the operational reality is clear: the administrative infrastructure of federal higher education programs is being merged with workforce development infrastructure. The center of gravity is shifting from access to education and degree completion toward workforce readiness, economic mobility, and closing a skilled worker shortage.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is codifying outcomes-based accountability into law. Signed in July 2025, the OBBBA introduced, for the first time in statute, an earnings accountability measure for college programs. Beginning July 1, 2026, undergraduate programs must demonstrate that their graduates' median earnings exceed the median earnings of working adults aged 25–34 with only a high school diploma in the institution's state. Graduate programs face a similar benchmark against bachelor's degree holders. This is no longer just a policy signal. It is now embedded in statute, which raises the stakes for institutional leaders.

The OBBBA also eliminates Graduate PLUS loans effective July 1, 2026, introduces new borrowing caps, and expands Pell Grant access to short-term workforce training programs ("Workforce Pell"). Taken together, these changes send a strong signal: colleges will face growing pressure to demonstrate that their programs lead to meaningful economic outcomes.

Students and Parents Already Think This Way

The policy shifts and labor market data would matter on their own, but they're also converging with how students and families are already evaluating college choice.

The 2025 NACCAP/CCCU Market Research, the most comprehensive study of its kind since 2009, which our team at JM Partner Solutions led in partnership with NACCAP and the CCCU, found that 91% of students and 94% of parents rate career or graduate school preparation as very or extremely important, making it the highest-rated attribute for both groups before a college decision is made.

At the same time, there is a clear confidence gap. Nearly half of recent graduates say they feel unprepared to even apply for entry-level positions, according to the Cengage Group's 2025 Graduate Employability Report. Among graduates who said their program didn't prepare them for the workforce, 56% cited job-specific skills as the top gap. However, 90% of educators believe their students are workforce-ready, a stark disconnect from what graduates report. Meanwhile, Pew Research Center found that 70% of Americans believe the higher education system is heading in the wrong direction, with poor job preparation and high costs among the top concerns cited. The confidence problem is systemic.

Our 2025 research also found that cost is the primary reason students disengage at every stage of the enrollment funnel. According to those findings, 55% of inquiry students have ruled out a college because of cost, up from 35% in 2009. Cost objections and career confidence are closely linked. When families can see a clear pathway from credential to career to income, they can evaluate whether the investment makes sense. When they can't, sticker price alone drives the decision.

This is where the three forces converge. Federal policy is increasingly requiring institutions to demonstrate workforce outcomes. The labor market is making those outcomes harder to achieve for programs that haven't adapted. And students and families are already making enrollment decisions on precisely these criteria, whether institutions are ready for that or not.

What This Means for Program Planning

The traditional approach to program planning at most institutions starts with student demand: What do prospective students say they want to study? Where is inquiry volume growing? Those questions still matter, but they are no longer sufficient.

Program planning must now begin with a different set of questions:

What does the regional and national labor market actually need? The programs that will thrive are those aligned with demonstrable employer demand, not just student interest. Institutions need to be running regular labor market analyses at the program level and making strategic decisions about where to invest, where to redesign, and where to sunset.

How do our graduates compare with the accountability benchmark? Under the OBBBA's earnings premium test, every program's viability now has a measurable federal standard. Institutions that haven't modeled their programs against this test are operating without essential information. This analysis should be happening now, not after the first metrics are published in 2027.

This does not mean institutions should evaluate every program only by first-job salary or narrow workforce metrics. Liberal arts and mission-centered programs still create real value, often in ways that unfold over time through critical thinking, communication, adaptability, ethical reasoning, and long-term career mobility. But institutions can no longer assume that value is self-evident. They need a clearer, evidence-based way to connect every program, including liberal arts programs, to meaningful student outcomes.

Are we building the skills employers now expect from day one? The convergence of AI disruption and employer expectations means that programs heavy on theory and light on applied, experiential learning are increasingly risky, both for students and for institutional sustainability. NACE data consistently shows that experiential education is the top differentiator in a challenging job market: 84% of the Class of 2025 participated in an internship, co-op, or other experiential program, and students overwhelmingly rated internships as the top method for developing their skills.

Are we telling the ROI story clearly enough? Our 2025 research found that families form cost and value perceptions early, often before an institution has any contact with them, and those perceptions drive attrition at every stage of the funnel. Colleges that publish program-level career outcomes data, that lead with employer partnerships, and that help families see the pathway from enrollment to employment will have a measurable enrollment advantage.

The Opportunity

This convergence is not just a threat. It's an opportunity, particularly for institutions willing to move before their competitors do.

The institutions that will be best positioned are those that align program planning with workforce demand, build their case for ROI with real data, and communicate that value clearly to students, families, and the federal government simultaneously. That's not a marketing exercise. It's a strategic planning exercise that touches academics, enrollment, financial aid, career services, and institutional leadership.

The signals are clear. The question is whether your institution will act while there is still time or wait until the costs of inaction become unavoidable.