Higher education is at a crossroads, facing pressures ranging from student success and affordability to digital transformation and public perception. In this issue, we explore three timely discussions shaping the sector: the benefits of direct college placement in improving student outcomes, the complexities of online course construction costs, and the emotional realities of higher education’s evolving landscape. As institutions work to adapt to these challenges, these insights provide valuable context for decision-making and future planning.  

After reading today’s issue, use the comments section to tell us how your institution plans for remedial coursework. 

Direct Placement Improves Success 

From Study: Direct college placement boosts student success, lowers cost | University Business  

A study from the Center for Analysis of Postsecondary Readiness found that enrolling students directly in college-level courses instead of remedial courses leads to better outcomes.   

Our Thoughts 

As someone finishing a PhD (as noted in my bio below), I’m always excited to see new research that informs strategies for improving student success. While I had no concrete data, I’ve long suspected that many students placed into remedial coursework didn’t actually need it. This study reinforces that suspicion, demonstrating that high school GPA is often a stronger predictor of college success than a single placement exam score.  

With direct placement emerging as a key strategy for student success, I hope to see institutions accelerate the pathways for students to earn degrees and credentials. By implementing multiple measures assessment (MMA) for placement, colleges can place more students directly into credit-bearing courses and improve completion rates while reducing costs for both students and institutions.  

Beyond individual student outcomes, this study has broader implications for higher education policy. Remedial education has long been a contentious issue, but these findings provide valuable evidence to guide institutions in refining their placement policies. As colleges grapple with declining enrollments and increasing pressure to improve completion rates, MMA offers a promising, cost-effective solution that aligns with equity-driven student success initiatives. 

Online Course Construction Costs 

From How Much Does It Cost to Build an Online Course? | On EdTech  

Glenda Morgan explores the challenges of developing a standardized model for determining the cost of building an online course.   

Our Thoughts 

In an era where online education is increasingly seen as a strategic priority, institutions are making significant investments in digital learning. However, without consistent benchmarks, it’s difficult to determine whether those investments are efficient, sustainable, or comparable across institutions.  

Morgan highlights how factors like faculty stipends, instructional design support, production values, and course maintenance contribute to significant cost variability. While this variability makes sense given the diversity of institutional missions and approaches, the absence of a standard measurement framework makes it nearly impossible to engage in meaningful cost comparisons. This, in turn, fuels unrealistic expectations and flawed debates about whether online courses should be cheaper than their on-campus counterparts.  

What makes this issue particularly urgent is the increasing scrutiny online education faces from both internal and external stakeholders. University administrators, policymakers, and even students expect transparency around the costs of online learning, yet institutions struggle to provide clear answers due to inconsistent accounting methods. Without a common cost model, institutions risk making uninformed financial decisions that could undermine the quality and long-term viability of their online programs. 

Ultimately, we need to shift the conversation beyond broad generalizations about whether online education is “cheaper” or “more expensive” than in-person learning and instead focus on creating a sustainable framework for digital education. 

Acceptance into Action 

From Grief and Acceptance | Inside Higher Ed  

John Warner makes the case for transitioning through the stages of grief to help higher education process the current situation.   

Our Thoughts  

Regardless of political perspective, it’s clear that higher education is experiencing a tumultuous period, leaving many wondering about their place within their institution and the broader higher education landscape. While there is no shortage of news related to the current federal administration and its impact on higher education, the HEat Index staff aims to provide context on a wide range of higher education issues each week. We recognize that political commentary is abundant elsewhere, so we strive to keep this blog a neutral source of insight and analysis.  

Although I don’t typically feature opinion pieces, I suspect many of our clients may be struggling right now. Warner’s essay is worth reading because it acknowledges the emotional toll that comes with watching our field shift in ways that can feel like profound losses.  

Higher education has long been viewed as a transformative institution, one that enables students to grow and contributes to the advancement of knowledge. However, increasing politicization, shifting public perceptions, and ongoing funding challenges have left many feeling that higher education is losing something essential. Recognizing this as a form of grief is an important step toward understanding what comes next.  

As you process these changes, Warner challenges us to move toward acceptance as soon as possible, as only then can we focus on the actions that will shape the future. He argues that while the landscape may be shifting, the core mission of education remains. By acknowledging what has been lost, we can find new ways to advocate for – and strengthen the future of – learning. Warner’s piece is both sobering and motivating, reminding us that, while the landscape has changed, the work itself – and its importance – has not.