Expert analysis made easy. Breaking down the news with data, charts, and maps.
Edited by Brady Africk and Hannah Bowen
Happy Thursday! In today’s newsletter, we examine the recent trend of decreasing enrollment numbers for low-performing US colleges, cost projections for a Golden Dome missile defense system, and an expected decline in the US population.
Don’t forget—subscribe and send DataPoints to a friend
Topline: College enrollment has been in decline since reaching a peak shortly after the Great Recession. While this is often viewed as a crisis in US higher education, a new report by AEI’s Preston Cooper finds that the drop in college enrollment is almost entirely attributable to America’s lowest-quality colleges. This implies that the enrollment decline may not be a crisis at all but instead may demonstrate that students have some sense of variation across US colleges and make enrollment decisions accordingly.
Students Want Quality: Colleges in the lowest-quality quintile—as measured by an index of student outcomes such as loan repayment rates, graduation rates, and median earnings after graduation—explain half of the overall drop in college enrollment from the fall of 2010 to the fall of 2023. Meanwhile, colleges in the top two quality quintiles actually saw enrollment increase by 3 percent and 8 percent, respectively.
A Return on Education Investment: Cooper’s findings suggest the recent downward trend in enrollment numbers means that students are “learning with their feet.” They are choosing higher-quality schools and degree options that are more likely to offer them a higher financial return on their education investment. This trend is not a crisis, but rather a demonstration of the US education market evolving to fit its consumers’ choices.
"While higher education reform has taken decades to come to fruition, the market has been quietly working its magic. Students deserve credit for being savvy consumers.”—Preston Cooper
Topline: President Donald Trump issued an executive order earlier this year for the Department of Defense to develop a homeland air and missile defense system—an initiative later named Golden Dome for America. AEI’s Todd Harrison analyzes the trade-offs of different proposals to create a Golden Dome system and the cost, coverage, and resilience of each in the face of China and Russia’s growing missile stockpiles. According to Defense Intelligence Agency assessments, in 10 years, the two countries could hold a combined force of more than 16,000 missiles.
An Impenetrable Defense: The Golden Dome is not a single system but a “system of systems” where different air and missile defense technologies work in tandem to confront an array of threats. These threats can vary, with air- or sea-launched cruise missiles, for example, typically traveling at altitudes that range from a few hundred feet above the surface to more than 50,000 feet. The exact makeup and cost of a Golden Dome will depend on the types of weapons it is expected to confront, the areas it must protect, and the resilience it requires to remain effective.
How Much Can We Pay? Harrison’s analysis shows that achieving the Trump administration’s goals for the Golden Dome will cost far more than the president has stated. A Golden Dome system that protects against the full range of aerial threats could cost the US $3.6 trillion, and would still fall short of the 100 percent effectiveness President Trump claimed.
"No architecture can deliver total protection from every threat, and Golden Dome’s cost depends on its ambition. As this analysis demonstrates, the more threats Golden Dome is designed to counter, and the broader its coverage, capacity, and resilience, the higher the cost.” —Todd Harrison
Topline: The most important demographic trend of the 21st century will be depopulation, and the United States is likely to experience this shift in the years ahead, AEI’s Nicholas Eberstadt warns. Fertility and immigration have historically served as the demographic engines that power the US, but both are faltering today.
Depopulation Begins: Between 1972 and 2007, the annual fertility rate for the US was just barely below the replacement rate of 2.1. In 2008, that number began to slide even further. Today, the US has a fertility rate of 1.6. Although this is higher than nearly all rich countries globally, it is almost 20 percent below the estimated 2.1 births per woman needed for long-term population stability.
The Burdened Population: The Census Bureau estimates US deaths will exceed births in 2038, forcing the US population into decline. Immigration may prevent this, but net immigration is falling under the current presidential administration. Without immigration, the working-age population would shrink and burden the remaining labor force, which has already faced a drop in older Americans’ participation since COVID-19 and the flight of prime-age men (25–54).
"The golden age of postwar growth, it is true, came when immigration played little role—1950 to 1973. But that was a very different America: Family breakdown was in its early phases; men’s flight from work had not really gotten underway; Lyndon Johnson’s and Richard Nixon’s entitlement programs were only just revving up; and both political parties hadn’t abandoned budget discipline.”—Nicholas Eberstadt
