Over the last two weeks, I’ve shared two predictions for higher education in 2026: a federally imposed two-tier bachelor’s degree model and a boost to cross-border online master’s enrollment as international mobility falters.This week, I will make my final 2026 prediction for Higher Ed—or perhaps you might call it an anti-prediction:Prediction #3: Higher Education Spending Will Not Shift Away From People—Despite AI, Cost Pressure, and Enrollment Risk. Colleges will still NOT steer (relative) spending toward technology and away from faculty and staff (and maybe that’s smart).Prediction #3: Higher Education Spending Will Not Shift Away From People—Despite AI, Cost Pressure, and Enrollment RiskOver the years, whenever I wanted to challenge a company or institution that saw rapid technology-driven change on the horizon for higher education, I would show the following chart. Figure 1 tracks the share of college and university spending devoted to wages and benefits over time. It shows that despite years of investment in everything from Constituent Relation Management (CRM) systems to Student Information Systems (SIS) to Learning Management Systems (LMS) to Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems —all billed as labor-saving wonders—the sector’s expenditure on labor (faculty and staff) barely budged as a proportion of the total.Figure 1 sets out the trend for public four-year schools over the past 20 years. (The private four-year sector trend is very similar.),Figure 1.What may be the world’s most uneventful chart is nonetheless striking. Despite the pain of the Great Recession and the gyrations of the COVID-19 pandemic, public schools did not waver in their proportional labor expenditure. Despite the difficulties of state funding, enrollment, and philanthropy, college commitment to employment stood firm. In the years 2023 and 2024, post-Chat GPT, and amid much fuss about radical automation via AI, higher education’s “people” spending line maintained its course.The ratio of total students per employee actually fell recently, meaning that the average student at a public four-year school has more faculty and staff to support them. And mean wages and benefits per employee rose a bit faster than inflation in recent years. Even the full-time employee ratio has ticked up. Of course, there have been layoffs at individual colleges and universities, and federal attempts to upend funding norms caused institutional staffing headaches in 2025.Are colleges cutting back on facility maintenance to balance the books? Is higher education employment trending more part-time and precarious? Are shared services among departments and across institutions taking up the slack? Net tuition is flat over time on average, so students are not paying more. What am I missing?A negative reading is that higher education remains structurally resistant to process efficiencies and technological substitutions. A more charitable—and likely more accurate—reading is that leaders are adapting in ways that do not register cleanly in top-line spending ratios, finding new students, new revenue, and incremental productivity gains.What is certain is that the data underscores that higher education is a fundamentally human-centric endeavor, whatever pundits and AI vendors might say. People are expensive (and difficult to make more productive) but seemingly essential if quality programs and student transformation are the goals. Online learning can be a boon for students, but it’s the people who make it work. Making AI useful will inevitably require a lot of people to figure it out, freeing up time for people to do valuable things AI cannot.Notably, even a giant, fully online school like Western Governors University reports a similar and stable people-spend ratio—albeit at a lower per-student spend overall.I usually predict that things will change and be disrupted. But here, I predict NO CHANGE. Despite another year of AI commotion, federal pressure, and enrollment uncertainty, the 2025 people expenditure data will be unmoved.How institutions pay for this stubbornly people-centric enterprise is the real disruption—and the answer—as laid out in  Prediction #1—likely lies in credential structure rather than cost-cutting. If higher education changes in 2026, it will be in what it offers and who it serves, not in how much it relies on people to do the work.,Eduventures Summit, higher education's premier thought leadership event, serves as a one-of-a-kind opportunity for college and university leaders to come together and hear from compelling keynote speakers, interact with enrollment and academic leaders from across the nation, and network with your peers.

Wake Up Calls Navbar Items

Over the last two weeks, I’ve shared two predictions for higher education in 2026: a federally imposed two-tier bachelor’s degree model and a boost to cross-border online master’s enrollment as international mobility falters.This week, I will make my final 2026 prediction for Higher Ed—or perhaps you might call it an anti-prediction:Prediction #3: Higher Education Spending Will Not Shift Away From People—Despite AI, Cost Pressure, and Enrollment Risk. Colleges will still NOT steer (relative) spending toward technology and away from faculty and staff (and maybe that’s smart).Prediction #3: Higher Education Spending Will Not Shift Away From People—Despite AI, Cost Pressure, and Enrollment RiskOver the years, whenever I wanted to challenge a company or institution that saw rapid technology-driven change on the horizon for higher education, I would show the following chart. Figure 1 tracks the share of college and university spending devoted to wages and benefits over time. It shows that despite years of investment in everything from Constituent Relation Management (CRM) systems to Student Information Systems (SIS) to Learning Management Systems (LMS) to Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems —all billed as labor-saving wonders—the sector’s expenditure on labor (faculty and staff) barely budged as a proportion of the total.Figure 1 sets out the trend for public four-year schools over the past 20 years. (The private four-year sector trend is very similar.)

Predictions 2026, Part 3: People Before Technology

Last week I shared my opening prediction for higher education in 2026, that the confluence of test-optional undergraduate admissions and a federal push for accreditation reform will convince the Trump administration to impose a two-tier (four-year vs. three-year) bachelor’s degree model. Now for my second prediction: Prediction #2:  Another Step-Change for Cross-Border Online Learning Just as international student enrollment falters, the cross-border online master’s market will get a boost.Prediction #2: Another Step-Change for Cross-Border Online Learning When I first got involved with online learning in the late 1990s, what excited (or frightened) higher education leaders was the notion that the technology would enable “anyone, anywhere” to enroll in the “best” universities in the world. This was naive. For a host of reasons—cost, regulation, complexity, culture—online learning markets have remained fundamentally domestic. Indeed, international students are still much more likely to endure the travails of visas and airplanes to study overseas than embrace the convenience of online. The problem for U.S. higher education is that new international student enrollment fell 17% in 2025 (vs. 2024). Federal concern about “hostile actors” mulled restrictions on Optional Practical Training (a work rights pathway for international students) and massively inflated fees for H-1B visas. At the same time, a growing list of countries from which immigrant or non-immigrant travel is banned is making many students and families think twice before applying to American universities. Future enrollment declines are expected. Could international online come to the rescue? International online enrollment surged during the pandemic and (as with domestic students) settled at a new high (Figure 1). ,Figure 1.
Pre-pandemic, international online enrollment was below 20,000 (for both undergraduate and graduate students respectively). Post-pandemic, each sector surpassed 40,000.  
This is still a fraction of both total international enrollment and total online enrollment.  
I predict that international online enrollment will start to pick up again. Yes, driven by the necessity of restricted flows of mobile students to America but also because of burgeoning bachelor’s demand and attainment in countries outside the West.  
In 2012, according to UNESCO, there were about 95 million bachelor’s-level students in the “Developing World” (i.e., middle-and-lower-income countries). By 2024, this had jumped to over 150 million, pushed up by both population growth and expanding economies.  
Graduate enrollment has kept pace, but the ratio is not growing. In America, the ratio of graduate (master’s and doctoral) enrollment to bachelor’s is close to 30%. In the “Developing World,” it is stuck at about 13%. As countries evolve and bachelor’s attainment increases, the graduate enrollment ratio might be expected to grow as well. But the ratio has barely moved over the past decade. Could cross-border online help?  
There is international demand for the right online programs at the right price. Georgia Tech’s outstandingly successful online computer science master’s program reported 7,500 international enrollees in fall 2024. University of Illinois’ similarly low-priced online MBA reported almost 1,000 international students.  
High-speed internet access has reached the mainstream among the ever-expanding middle class in many countries. Phones may be the most popular device, but north of 40% of households have a laptop or tablet in countries as wide-ranging as Argentina, Malaysia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Turkey, and Kazakhstan, according to the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a U.N. Agency.  
Adult undergraduate enrollment is in its infancy in much of the world. Adult learners are much less likely to move abroad to study. Local online options are increasingly common, but a U.S. program might win out on quality and return-on-investment (e.g., employment at foreign multinationals).  
Just as the pandemic forced a step-change in international online enrollment, I predict that the second Trump administration will “force” another hike in institutional effort and market interest.  
But, how big a hike? I expect that fall 2026 data will show both undergraduate and graduate non-U.S. online enrollment above 50,000 students. That is still tiny compared to mobile student totals and the domestic online market but a significant jump from today’s baseline.  
No one is claiming cross-border online learning is an easy win. “International” is not a country, and schools must get specific in terms of countries, programs, pricing, marketing, and local partnerships. But just as domestic higher education is increasingly online, the same will prove true cross-border. And online can strengthen long-term mobile student pipelines and be a component of hybrid programs, too.  
By the time I come to review my 2026 predictions (December of this year), the most recent official data will be for fall 2025. This new trend will take a few years to build, but I think we will begin to see evidence for it in the 2025 numbers.  
Next week I will review my third and final prediction for 2026… 
,Eduventures Summit, higher education's premier thought leadership event, serves as a one-of-a-kind opportunity for college and university leaders to come together and hear from compelling keynote speakers, interact with enrollment and academic leaders from across the nation, and network with your peers.

Last week I shared my opening prediction for higher education in 2026, that the confluence of test-optional undergraduate admissions and a federal push for accreditation reform will convince the Trump administration to impose a two-tier (four-year vs. three-year) bachelor’s degree model. Now for my second prediction: Prediction #2:  Another Step-Change for Cross-Border Online Learning Just as international student enrollment falters, the cross-border online master’s market will get a boost.Prediction #2: Another Step-Change for Cross-Border Online Learning When I first got involved with online learning in the late 1990s, what excited (or frightened) higher education leaders was the notion that the technology would enable “anyone, anywhere” to enroll in the “best” universities in the world. This was naive. For a host of reasons—cost, regulation, complexity, culture—online learning markets have remained fundamentally domestic. Indeed, international students are still much more likely to endure the travails of visas and airplanes to study overseas than embrace the convenience of online. The problem for U.S. higher education is that new international student enrollment fell 17% in 2025 (vs. 2024). Federal concern about “hostile actors” mulled restrictions on Optional Practical Training (a work rights pathway for international students) and massively inflated fees for H-1B visas. At the same time, a growing list of countries from which immigrant or non-immigrant travel is banned is making many students and families think twice before applying to American universities. Future enrollment declines are expected. Could international online come to the rescue? International online enrollment surged during the pandemic and (as with domestic students) settled at a new high (Figure 1). 

Higher Ed Predictions 2026, Part 2: A Boost for Cross-Border Online Learning

One certainty about higher education in 2025—attempted cuts to federal research funding, the halving of the U.S. Department of Education, and the Trump administration’s very public feuds with elite universities—is that outlandish predictions now seem more plausible. This is unlikely to be a quiet year.  My predictions for 2026 speak to growing tensions in our sector around student access and admission standards, international student demand, and higher education technology versus labor.  For this  Wake-Up Call, we will focus on my first prediction, with two more to follow next week.  Prediction 1: Admissions Backlash and a New Kind of Bachelor’s Degree An incredible shift took place in traditional-aged undergraduate admissions over the past few years: the number of institutions requiring a standardized test dropped from over 1,000 in 2019 to fewer than 100 today. Debate about the fairness or accuracy of the SAT and ACT as predictors of college success is not new, and there was a slow but steady move to “test-optional” during the 2000s and 2010s, but test requirements collapsed in 2020 and 2021 (Figure 1). 
,Figure 1.Of course, disrupted testing logistics and uncertain student enrollment during the pandemic, plus the “racial reckoning” spurred by the murder of George Floyd, drove the flood to test-optional. But post-pandemic (and post-race-based affirmative action following  SFFA vs. Harvard), test-optional continues to gain ground. Why? The obvious reason is softening student demand and the looming “Demographic Cliff.” In today’s tough enrollment environment, most schools want to signal accessibility. According to IPEDS’ most recent data, 1,056 four-year schools are test-optional and another 744 are “test-blind” (meaning that standardized test results are not considered at all). Only 85 require a standardized test. A much-covered recent report from the University of California San Diego (one of the California system’s more selective schools) portrayed the test-optional surge as “very troubling” for academic standards. Lack of demand is not a problem for the likes of UC San Diego or other public flagships. For these schools, test-optional is a way to address access and equity concerns.  The UC San Diego report found that one in eight enrolled students needed remedial math and one out of 10 struggled with middle school material, far higher than usual. Serious decline was also cited in language and reasoning ability. School resources are strained, and students are not well-served, according to the report. The report’s authors recommend stricter admission criteria for math-heavy majors, ramped up summer remediation classes so students are ready for fall, and collaboration with high schools where GPA and student ability are most misaligned.  The UC San Diego situation is unlikely to be the exception. Such dramatic changes to national admission norms must have downstream effects. Selective schools that do not use standardized tests get a pass on access but must find other ways to demonstrate rigor. Other institutions are in a bind between returning to more conventional admission criteria and softening demand, and between failing weaker students versus keeping graduation rates artificially high.  But this is not just a matter for institutions to figure out. The current federal administration (not known for sitting on the sidelines) has an opinion.  Enter Accreditation Reform In October, the White House made standardized tests one of the conditions of its (widely rejected) “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” The administration sees testing as the best way to ensure academic rigor and as another means to banish much-maligned DEI conceptions of merit. A new federal directive demands that elite schools hand over troves of data to “prove” that admission is based on academic merit only.  I anticipate that in 2026 the Trump administration will double-down on linking federal funds to standardized tests. There is no statutory authority to do this. The  Higher Education Act (HEA) does not mention admission criteria for colleges (beyond the baseline of a high school diploma or equivalent). But I see an opening.  The HEA  (Section 496 (a)(5)(G)  requires recognized accreditors to assess institutions’ “recruiting and admissions practices.” Accreditors today have policies on admissions transparency and fairness but leave the details to institutions. The Trump administration has signaled that accreditation reform is on the agenda this year, and I doubt the intervention will be a light touch. The Obama administration used reference in the HEA in preparing students for “gainful employment” as a criterion to admit for-profit and non-degree programs to federal student aid as the kernel for ambitious “Gainful Employment” regulations (leading to today’s “Do No Harm” graduate earnings criteria for programs at nonprofit and for-profit schools). I foresee the Trump administration using the “admissions practices” HEA language as a pretext to insist that institutional accreditors “toughen” their standards by requiring colleges use some kind of standardized test for undergraduate entry. My Prediction: A New Kind of Bachelor’s Degree So where does the new kind of bachelor’s degree come in? It does not make sense to require all schools and programs to use a standardized test. Many colleges and universities are minimally selective or open admission. The Trump administration’s priority is to ensure “rigor” in admission to selective institutions.  This logic—and seeing a bigger reform opportunity—will convince the government to make a distinction between bachelor programs that require testing and those that do not. In short, the Trump administration will latch on to nascent interest in reduced-credit bachelor’s degrees to forge a two-tier system:  Four-year degrees for students who aspire to graduate or attend professional schools Three-year degrees focused on workforce entry Standardized tests will be required for entry to four-year degrees only.  The rationale for three-year degrees will be to boost lackluster bachelor’s completion rates at many schools, lower student debt, and force a system-level credential redesign that the sector could never manage alone. General Education will be pared back or eliminated for three-year programs in favor of the major, work experience, and job-aligned skills development.  A school might offer both four- and three-year degrees, even in the same discipline. This will allow flagship public institutions to continue to emphasize both selectivity and community access. Two types of bachelor’s degrees will make the balancing act less strained, offering a way for students to be “college-ready” and schools to be “study-ready.” A three-year degree graduate could have the option to transfer into the final year of a four-year program. (Of course, institutional accreditors will be “required” to revise their standards to accommodate a two-tier bachelor model.) The Bottom Line There are reasons to dislike my predictions. Student diversity will suffer in programs that require testing. There is evidence that less prepared students admitted to stronger schools benefit more than by attending less selective institutions. Pandemic-induced “learning loss” (as much as test-optional) may be fueling frustrations at the likes of UC San Diego. Mishandled, three-year degrees might end up preparing students for yesterday’s jobs.  Would the two types of bachelor’s degrees be roughly balanced in terms of enrollment numbers, or would one outpace the other? How would schools decide on program length? Market forces will reveal a lot, and the Trump administration may tip the scales by altering loan limits to steer demand in a direction to its liking (perhaps toward shorter programs). What is not in question is that unprecedented pressure is building for change—with the extra volatility of a president willing to blow up the status quo. The surge of test-optional may have addressed some problems, but it is creating new ones. Standardized tests may not be the perfect gauge of anything, but schools have not produced a crisp alternative, and today’s federal government has no patience for “holistic” admissions. It would be an intriguing twist to the test-optional tale if the sidelining of testing in the cause of equity led to federal insistence on testing and a two-tier bachelor’s degree. I see the confluence of motivation, mechanism, and disregard for precedent to make it happen.  ,Eduventures Summit, higher education's premier thought leadership event, serves as a one-of-a-kind opportunity for college and university leaders to come together and hear from compelling keynote speakers, interact with enrollment and academic leaders from across the nation, and network with your peers.

One certainty about higher education in 2025—attempted cuts to federal research funding, the halving of the U.S. Department of Education, and the Trump administration’s very public feuds with elite universities—is that outlandish predictions now seem more plausible. This is unlikely to be a quiet year.  My predictions for 2026 speak to growing tensions in our sector around student access and admission standards, international student demand, and higher education technology versus labor.  For this  Wake-Up Call, we will focus on my first prediction, with two more to follow next week.  Prediction 1: Admissions Backlash and a New Kind of Bachelor’s Degree An incredible shift took place in traditional-aged undergraduate admissions over the past few years: the number of institutions requiring a standardized test dropped from over 1,000 in 2019 to fewer than 100 today. Debate about the fairness or accuracy of the SAT and ACT as predictors of college success is not new, and there was a slow but steady move to “test-optional” during the 2000s and 2010s, but test requirements collapsed in 2020 and 2021 (Figure 1). 


2026 Higher Education Prediction #1: A New Kind of Bachelor’s Degree

Last week, I reviewed  two of my three predictions for higher education in 2025: Prediction 1 (WRONG): The number of fully online undergraduates will surpass the “campus-only” cohort for the first time. Prediction 2 (RIGHT): U.S. Department of Education will become collateral damage in the first year of Trump’s presidency.  I now turn to my final 2025 prediction: Prediction #3 (PART-RIGHT): Grad PLUS loans will be eliminated, and schools will be on the hook for unpaid student debt. What happened? Grad PLUS was indeed eliminated. The  One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) amended the  Higher Education Act, terminating the federal government’s ability to offer these loans. Congress sees an opportunity to reduce spending and shake up the market.  Champions of Grad PLUS elimination say that the scheme undermines market discipline, encourages schools to raise tuition, and funds some questionable programs. Critics worry that without public subsidy, high-potential but lower-income students will be forced out of the grad school pipeline.  Graduate students, from July 2026, may now borrow up to $20,500 a year in federal Stafford Unsubsidized loans, up to a maximum of $100,000. Professional students (defined for federal loan purposes — and to the chagrin of programs judged not “professional” — as students pursuing specific credentials in 11 fields, such as Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmacy) may borrow up to $50,000 a year (maximum of $200,000).  The prior cap, for both graduate and professional students, was $138,500, which factored in any prior Stafford loans (including at the undergraduate level).  The $20,500 annual cap has been in place since 2011. This means that its value has eroded. If it had been adjusted for inflation, the value of the cap would be almost $30,000 today (Figure 1). Grad PLUS stood in the breach, providing additional borrowing up to the unmet total cost of attendance.  ,Figure 1.
For many schools and programs, the annual cap is not a problem. Average in-state tuition and fees for graduate programs at public institutions was about $12,000 in 2024. The average was $21,500 at privates. But because the cap has not grown with inflation, many more programs are above the cap today than back in 2011. Grad PLUS closed the gap. The fact that the Department chose not to raise the cap, even with the demise of Grad PLUS, signals that the priorities are market rationalization and cost reduction.  
Many “professional” programs under the federal definition cost more than the new $50,000 annual cap. In 2024, the average Dentistry (DDS) program was $60,000 and Medicine (MD), $48,000. 
As of June 2025, there were 1.8 million Grad PLUS borrowers with debt outstanding of $119 billion. Only 16% of current graduate and professional students (about 450,000 people) have a Grad PLUS loan but account for a third of total federal graduate and professional student borrowing. Current Grad PLUS students owe about $14 billion. 
What happens now?  
For schools (particularly the more expensive and less elite focused on programs that lead to lower-paying jobs), adaptation will not be easy, but solutions will emerge. After all, undergraduate federal loan limits are much lower than the new graduate/professional caps. Pell Grants and Parent PLUS loans make up some of the gap, but a combination of family cash, institutional and state aid, private lenders, and institutional sorting do the heavy lifting.   
A personal anecdote points the way: My niece (daughter of a nurse and a social worker) just started nursing school at an elite private university. She already took out a private loan with a better rate than Grad PLUS.  
My niece’s experience suggests that talented students will still get into top programs, and that funding alternatives are waiting in the wings. But is she representative? 
New Lenders vs. New Models 
Grad PLUS (in place since 2006) has curbed the private loan market. It may seem like a good bet to lend to an aspiring doctor or lawyer (or someone like my niece who wants to be a Nurse Practitioner), but lenders are wary of applicants with limited credit histories, modest present income, and professional futures that are not guaranteed. A first-generation college student who is admitted to medical school and plans to work as a general practitioner in a rural area back home may struggle to repay a big loan.  
Such a scenario may be exceptional in medicine or law (which will generally prove enticing to mainstream lenders). Expensive programs in less lucrative fields, such as social work and counseling, however, may be passed over.  
Grad PLUS, charging above-market interest, was supposed to generate a positive return for the taxpayer but mixed student outcomes and loan forgiveness dragged the program into the red. This is not reassuring for private lenders who will insist on comprehensive completion and earnings data from schools to inform underwriting. 
Other private market possibilities include: 

  Good-Fit Lenders. Pension funds and other large-scale, risk averse entities willing to trade returns for predictability might find grad loans at scale attractive.  
  Institutional Lending. Large universities might help finance some graduate/professional students or sign up to absorb a portion of losses to incent a conventional lender to buy-in. 
  Employer Lending. Large employers that hire graduates in certain occupations could plug the funding gap for some students, linking repayment to employment. 
  Philanthropy. Foundations will step forward to support some needy students.   

It will take time for private options to coalesce. In the meantime, expect to see the following institutional sorting: 

  Downsizing. Smaller class sizes at less prestigious, higher-price graduate and professional programs associated with lower-paid occupations.  
  Retrenchment. Caps or pauses at doctoral programs accustomed to a funding mix of institutional support and Grad PLUS. 
  Cost Reduction. Further resort to shorter programs and online and self-paced program components to drive down cost and tuition.  
  Economies of Scale. Use of scholarships to boost enrollment to offset smaller margins. 
  Degree Alternatives. Schools will use cheaper certificate programs to tempt students toward degree enrollment.  

The Bottom Line 
In summary, more lucrative graduate/professional programs will assemble new coalitions of lenders, while programs with more modest returns will re-think credentials, cut costs, and lower prices. Some programs will prove non-viable, but most will make the transition. Less expensive graduate programs in social work and counseling may replenish parched pipelines.  
Regardless, the demise of Grad PLUS puts more pressure on the graduate market, already facing flattening domestic cohorts, reduced international student demand, and big cuts to federal research funding.  
The second part of my prediction did not pan out. The OBBBA did not include any requirement for schools to repay delinquent student loans, as had been proposed by the (not-enacted)  College Cost Reduction Act. The idea may re-emerge, whether from a congressional committee or a  Truth Social post. For now, institutions face new program-level accountability metrics and disclosures (simplified versions of  Gainful Employment and  Financial Value Transparency) that risk federal loan eligibility but not loan repayment.  
Look out for my 2026 predictions later in January.  
,Dive into the top 5 digital marketing trends that will lead higher education in 2026.

Last week, I reviewed  two of my three predictions for higher education in 2025: Prediction 1 (WRONG): The number of fully online undergraduates will surpass the “campus-only” cohort for the first time. Prediction 2 (RIGHT): U.S. Department of Education will become collateral damage in the first year of Trump’s presidency.  I now turn to my final 2025 prediction: Prediction #3 (PART-RIGHT): Grad PLUS loans will be eliminated, and schools will be on the hook for unpaid student debt. What happened? Grad PLUS was indeed eliminated. The  One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) amended the  Higher Education Act, terminating the federal government’s ability to offer these loans. Congress sees an opportunity to reduce spending and shake up the market.  Champions of Grad PLUS elimination say that the scheme undermines market discipline, encourages schools to raise tuition, and funds some questionable programs. Critics worry that without public subsidy, high-potential but lower-income students will be forced out of the grad school pipeline.  Graduate students, from July 2026, may now borrow up to $20,500 a year in federal Stafford Unsubsidized loans, up to a maximum of $100,000. Professional students (defined for federal loan purposes — and to the chagrin of programs judged not “professional” — as students pursuing specific credentials in 11 fields, such as Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmacy) may borrow up to $50,000 a year (maximum of $200,000).  The prior cap, for both graduate and professional students, was $138,500, which factored in any prior Stafford loans (including at the undergraduate level).  The $20,500 annual cap has been in place since 2011. This means that its value has eroded. If it had been adjusted for inflation, the value of the cap would be almost $30,000 today (Figure 1). Grad PLUS stood in the breach, providing additional borrowing up to the unmet total cost of attendance.  

Reviewing My 2025 Higher Ed Predictions: Part II

Last year, from the admittedly hazy vantage point of early January, I set out  three predictions for higher education in 2025: Prediction #1: The number of fully online undergraduates will surpass the “campus-only” cohort for the first time. Prediction #2: U.S. Department of Education will become collateral damage in the first year of Trump’s second presidency.  Prediction #3: Grad PLUS loans will be eliminated, and schools will be on the hook for unpaid student debt. Turns out I was wrong, right, and part-right. Taking each prediction in turn, let’s evaluate what happened.  Review of Prediction #1: The number of fully online undergraduates will surpass the “campus-only” cohort for the first time. Alas, my first prediction did not come to pass. Fully online undergraduate enrollment grew to a record 4.7 million students in 2024, but the “campus-only” cohort (5.5 million) grew faster (1% and 2% year-over-year respectively). Undergraduates who combine online and campus courses grew fastest (3% year-over-year). What does this mean? My prediction discounted the post-pandemic revival of campus-only students, which is obvious in the 2022 and 2023 data. This trend continued in 2024 but appears to be peaking. Campus-only undergraduate enrollment grew by 2% in 2024 compared to 11% the prior year and 50% the year before that. Growth in the size of the high school graduating cohort aided campus-only momentum. But if 2024 is close to the new-normal post-pandemic, that leaves campus-only enrollment of more than three million students or 37% below the pre-crisis total. Fully online headcount ticked up a mere 1% in 2024, but that is still 1.2 million (36%) higher than the pre-pandemic baseline.  Fully online enrollment may be slowing down and has yet to surpass the campus-only total, but the latest figures nonetheless represent a dramatic modality shift.  It is instructive to look at year-over-year growth by online enrollment scale (Figure 1).  ,Figure 1.Figure 1 spotlights that the “online giants” continue to take market share. Just 22 schools reported 20,000+ fully online undergraduates in 2024 but commanded almost 30% of the market and grew faster than average. Yes, schools with fewer than 500 fully online undergraduates also saw above-average growth, but these nearly 1,500 institutions have only 5% market share and a mean of just 163 fully online students. The other four school categories show signs of maturation: holding the line but struggling to sustain growth. Of course, individual schools out- or underperform, but fully online programming for undergraduates may have reached a new demand plateau.  What’s next? Economic uncertainty is fueling student demand, which may push more adult learners into convenient online programs. Younger students will continue to opt for campus-based experiences with a few online courses. Cratering international student demand may persuade more schools to pivot to online programs to try to make up the shortfall.  As our latest Changing Landscape of Online Education (CHLOE)  Report (produced in partnership with Quality Matters and EDUCAUSE) demonstrates, the online market is more crowded than ever.  The big question is whether AI, simulations, personalized learning, or other pedagogic innovation can take the online student experience to another level any time soon. Interesting experiments aside, I do not see much evidence so far.  Innovation at scale is needed for the fully online undergraduate sector to achieve another market breakthrough. In 2024 — contrary to my prediction — campus-only (and hybrid) enrollment outpaced fully-online. How schools take strategic advantage of this growing hybrid trend — for example, leveraging technology to expand student access to off-campus work experience and moderating dependence on expensive physical infrastructure — should be a major agenda item for higher education leaders in 2026 and beyond.  Evaluation of Prediction #2: U.S. Department of Education will become collateral damage in the first year of Trump’s presidency.  According to Linda McMahon, U.S. Education Secretary, in October 2025: “Millions of American students are still going to school, teachers are getting paid, and schools are operating as normal. It confirms what the president has said: the federal Department of Education is unnecessary.”  In short, I was right on this one. The U.S. Department of Education still exists but is a shadow of its former self. Between major cuts in March and a smaller reduction in force (held up in the courts) in October, about half the department’s staff (over 2,000 people) have been let go. The cuts impact K12, special education, and adult education, as well as postsecondary.  Secretary McMahon casts the department as wasteful, meddling, and ideologically captured. She is committed to a “momentous final mission” to return education to the states by tearing up red tape, throwing out needless functions, and pivoting core activities to other agencies. In November, the department announced new agreements with the Departments of Labor, Health, Interior, and State to assume various departmental roles. For example, the Department of Labor will now manage a long-list of programs previously under the purview of the Office of Postsecondary Education. Programs include TRIO (support services for K12 and college students from disadvantaged backgrounds), various HBCU initiatives, and the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) — a longstanding grant to spur innovation in higher education.  The Secretary has acted swiftly, rendering Congress (with ultimate authority over the department) a nervous bystander. The Secretary has assured that all statutory duties will be maintained. The department is positioned to oversee the new inter-agency arrangements. Indeed, such agreements are presented as a normal way of doing business across the federal government.  What does all this mean for colleges and universities? There are no signs of disruption to the lifeblood of the higher education system: Pell grants and student loans. FAFSA filings are ahead of schedule. The Secretary has been careful to swing her ax at optional initiatives and discretionary oversight rather than funding fundamentals.  Despite deep cuts to staffing at the National Center for Education Statistics, core data sources maintained by the department (such as IPEDS) appear unaffected, while many longstanding nice-to-have studies (e.g., National Postsecondary Aid Study) have been deemed disposable. New mandates for institutions to report on student outcomes and admission demographics did not stay the Secretary’s hand.  Colleges and universities are reeling from multiple other federal disruptions (e.g., slashed federal research grants, frozen funding and “fines” for elite schools over alleged discrimination, increased scrutiny of international students), but the Department of Education is only a bit-player.  Not Just “Collateral Damage” It would be naive to think that bigger changes are not on the horizon.  The  Fact Sheet about the inter-agency agreement with the Department of Labor promises a “better coordinated Federal approach to postsecondary education and workforce development to help more Americans achieve career success.” In August, three departments (Commerce, Education, Labor) released a joint  Workforce Development Strategy to drive the reindustrializing of America, address skills shortages, and prepare workers for the AI-driven economy. The document says that college-for-all has “failed,” millions of Americans are disconnected from high-wage jobs and career paths, and that identifying alternatives to the four-year degree is a priority.  This is a vision for a smaller bachelor’s-focused higher education system and a ramped up non-degree and two-year sector. “Workforce Pell” will launch in July 2026, making Pell grants available to non-degree programs as short as eight weeks. One of the four priority areas under the latest  FIPSE grant cycle (applications closed in early December) is “supporting capacity-building for high-quality short-term programs” ($50 million available).  For most colleges and universities, the U.S. Department of Education is vital in terms of FAFSA, Pell, and student loans, but in other respects is rarely mission critical. The agency is a source of valuable special purpose but ultimately discretionary funds.  New federal coordination is emerging around degree alternatives and alignment of postsecondary investments and workforce development. The U.S. Department of Education will continue to circle the drain while more functions are handed off. The more important story for colleges and universities is the federal paradigm shift from education to the workforce.  And what about Prediction #3? You’ll have to wait until next week…,Dive into the top 5 digital marketing trends that will lead higher education in 2026.

Last year, from the admittedly hazy vantage point of early January, I set out  three predictions for higher education in 2025: Prediction #1: The number of fully online undergraduates will surpass the “campus-only” cohort for the first time. Prediction #2: U.S. Department of Education will become collateral damage in the first year of Trump’s second presidency.  Prediction #3: Grad PLUS loans will be eliminated, and schools will be on the hook for unpaid student debt. Turns out I was wrong, right, and part-right. Taking each prediction in turn, let’s evaluate what happened.  Review of Prediction #1: The number of fully online undergraduates will surpass the “campus-only” cohort for the first time. Alas, my first prediction did not come to pass. Fully online undergraduate enrollment grew to a record 4.7 million students in 2024, but the “campus-only” cohort (5.5 million) grew faster (1% and 2% year-over-year respectively). Undergraduates who combine online and campus courses grew fastest (3% year-over-year). What does this mean? My prediction discounted the post-pandemic revival of campus-only students, which is obvious in the 2022 and 2023 data. This trend continued in 2024 but appears to be peaking. Campus-only undergraduate enrollment grew by 2% in 2024 compared to 11% the prior year and 50% the year before that. Growth in the size of the high school graduating cohort aided campus-only momentum. But if 2024 is close to the new-normal post-pandemic, that leaves campus-only enrollment of more than three million students or 37% below the pre-crisis total. Fully online headcount ticked up a mere 1% in 2024, but that is still 1.2 million (36%) higher than the pre-pandemic baseline.  Fully online enrollment may be slowing down and has yet to surpass the campus-only total, but the latest figures nonetheless represent a dramatic modality shift.  It is instructive to look at year-over-year growth by online enrollment scale (Figure 1).  

Reviewing My 2025 Higher Ed Predictions: Hits, Misses, and What Actually Happened

Each December, we ask our analysts to reflect on the past year and share one insight that truly stood out.  In Part I, we examined three takeaways from the traditional student demand landscape. This week, we’ll explore the increasing student demand in the non-degree market, and the impact AI is having on bachelor’s programs.,Who will ride the undergraduate certificate wave? By:  Richard GarrettThis year I learned that the undergraduate non-degree market is breaking records (and “Workforce Pell” is going to shake things up).  It took until 2022 for undergraduate certificates (for-credit) to surpass the conferral peak after the Great Recession, but over 1.2 million of these affordable alternatives to the embattled bachelor’s degree were awarded in 2024, 16% more than the previous high. Figure 1 compares undergraduate certificate conferrals and bachelor’s degree conferrals.,Figure 1.
In 2020, undergraduate certificate conferrals were 45% of the bachelor's degree total. By 2024, the gap narrowed to 59%. Bachelor’s conferrals have started falling, playing up the notion that the bachelor’s market is over-built. Federal policy favors non-degree. “Workforce Pell” is coming in 2026, offering federal student aid for non-degree programs as short as eight weeks (the current threshold is 16 weeks), and promising a big boost to the undergraduate non-degree market. But which schools will benefit? There are innumerable non-degree providers (that awarded 23% of undergraduate certificates in 2024), but only accredited providers are eligible, and programs must have been running for at least a year. There are over 600 fewer accredited non-degree, Title IV-eligible institutions than a decade ago. Program economics is challenging (narrow program range, rapid student turnover, low revenue-per-student), and it will take time for accreditors and novel providers to ramp up.  Might four-year schools benefit from “Workforce Pell?” These schools awarded over a quarter of undergraduate certificates (vs. 7% in 2010).  Four-year schools can design non-degree programs — quickly fashioned from existing degree courses — with optional on-ramps to bachelor’s degrees to sustain the core business. This can address student anxiety about degree relevance and value.  The catch is that “Workforce Pell” requires 70%-plus completion and job placement, and programs must lead to good salaries. Four-year schools may need to choose between supporting their degree businesses and offering high-value, non-degree programs in their own right. Rather than disruptive non-degree providers or defensive four-year institutions, two-year schools may win out. These schools awarded half of undergraduate certificates in 2024 and may be a “safe bet” for policymakers and students. “Workforce Pell” might revive total two-year enrollment (down by a third over the past decade).  Student non-degree demand is growing, and federal aid is opening up, but providers — four-year, two-year, and non-degree alike — must get strategic to take advantage.  ,AI’s Uneven Impact Across Programs By  Chris Gardiner What I learned in 2025 is that AI’s reach across bachelor’s programs will be universal, but the depth of its impact will vary widely.  AI is already reshaping the labor market — 31,000 out of 153,000 total layoffs in October 2025 cited AI as a contributing factor. As AI’s disruption accelerates, prospective students are questioning the value of a bachelor’s degree. But AI’s impact is uneven: some fields may shrink while others gain efficiency or evolve in new directions.  Understanding these differences is key to articulating program value and preparing students for an AI-driven workforce. The AI Program Risk Metric To quantify these differences, Eduventures has adopted an AI Program Risk metric, which estimates the likelihood that occupations aligned to a given program will be automated by AI or related digital tools.   The median AI Program Risk score for all bachelor’s programs is 50.  Higher scores indicate greater risk of AI-driven automation, while  lower scores indicate more insulation. Figure 1 shows the scores of several popular programs and how they compare to the median. ,Figure 1.
Key observations of Figure 1: Business Administration  (27),  Nursing (34), and  Psychology  (34) are the largest bachelor’s programs by conferrals. While all fall below the median program risk score of 50, their aligned occupations still face some automation exposure.  Elementary Education is the largest bachelor’s market with a  very low risk score (2), driven by the high interpersonal communication demands that make these roles hard to automate. Computer Science is the largest high-risk bachelor’s market with a score of 62. Most programs in the broader Computer and Information Sciences category score above average due to their largely computer-oriented work, though demand for AI-related skills remains strong. Notably, while the AI score provides valuable input, it cannot capture the rapid evolution of this technology. Robust program evaluation must also consider supply and demand dynamics, labor market trends, and prospective student preferences.  AI Opportunity AI is still in the early days, and higher education has an opportunity to be proactive about program evaluation and aligned skills and outcomes. Institutions should incorporate durable skills that are resistant to automation, such as leadership, communication, creativity, and critical thinking. Institutions can use this disruption to revamp curriculum and align with workforce needs to produce graduates who can thrive into the 2030s and beyond. 

Each December, we ask our analysts to reflect on the past year and share one insight that truly stood out.  In Part I, we examined three takeaways from the traditional student demand landscape. This week, we’ll explore the increasing student demand in the non-degree market, and the impact AI is having on bachelor’s programs.

What We Learned in 2025: The Top Takeaways From Our Analysts: Part II

Each December, we ask our analysts to reflect on the past year and share one insight that truly stood out. In Part I, we explore what three of our analysts uncovered as they examined the traditional student demand landscape. From shifting student behaviors that favor in-person interaction to the growing pressure for institutions to own their unique brand identities to the rise of shared enrollment leadership on campus, this year’s reflections underscore the need for institutions to recalibrate toward more intentional, student-centered strategies to meet students where they are.In Part II, coming next week, we’ll dive into the lessons learned in the graduate market and in program innovation.,Senior Engagement Is ShiftingBy  Johanna TrovatoIn 2025, I learned that even in an age of digital recruitment, prospective students are spending more time engaging with institutions in person than they were just three years ago.Figure 1 shows the pre-application college search activities of high school seniors in 2022 and 2025, revealing a steep drop in website exploration and moderate increases in campus visits and interactions with college representatives. ,Figure 1.Does this suggest a recalibration of the digital-forward trend of recent years? Likely not.  While the 2025 Student Sentiment Research suggests that digital search remains prominent, students report using fewer institutional sources. Gone seem the days of intensive website exploration in favor of short-form content and quickly accessible factoids. This may be a sign of evolving technology, but I believe there are other forces at play. In preparation for the demographic decline, many institutions started engaging more students earlier in the enrollment cycle, which can pay off. Many high school sophomores seem eager to explore. They are more likely to think institutional websites (50% vs. 42% seniors) and emails (53% vs. 37%) are among the best sources of information in early search. Seniors appear to be more overwhelmed with the college search, likely because they receive far more outreach than younger students. To manage this influx, they gravitate toward tools that present key details in a clear, digestible way as they explore options. Once they narrow their lists, however, seniors shift gears. They’re ready for deeper, more personal engagement with a small set of institutions they are seriously considering.For institutions, this might mean they need to consider how to streamline top-of-funnel digital communications to free up resources for the critical decision stages that require more hands-on personal attention. 
,You Have to Know Your Brand Neighborhood to Own It By  Kim Reid In 2025, I learned how important it is for institutions, especially those who struggle to stand out, to own their brand neighborhoods. The Eduventures  Prospective Student Brand Research™ shows, for example, that in the eyes of students, most private institutions offer VALUE (35%) or BALANCE (34%) but struggle with brand distinction. Fewer private institutions offer ACADEMIC (20%) or CAREER (10%) orientations and occupy more distinct brand positions. How do VALUE or BALANCE institutions stand out in the crowd? They deliver outcomes. One important measure of the impact an institution has on its students is the debt-to-earnings ratio of its graduates (Figure 1).  ,Figure 1.Three observations from Figure 1 include:Students who can attend an institution in the ACADEMIC neighborhood will leave school with the lowest debt burden compared to their earnings (33% median). But, these are selective institutions that most students will not realistically be able to attend. Consider the range, not just the median. At the 75th percentile, some CAREER institution graduates face debt equal to 89% of first-year earnings — revealing that even “strong outcomes” neighborhoods can harbor hidden risks at specific institutions. Where there is “hidden risk” there is also “hidden value.” Among the brand neighborhoods, VALUE and BALANCE institutions struggle to keep up with ACADEMIC or CAREER institutions. But top VALUE and BALANCE performers are nearly as strong as ACADEMIC institutions. And they far outpace the poorest performers in the CAREER neighborhood.  What does this mean for institutions?The grass looks greener on the other side of the fence. Institutions might envy the outcomes of ACADEMIC or CAREER institutions, but they cannot truly emulate those outcomes without the endowment resources, selectivity, or sharp career connections of these institutions. The better choice is not to look over the fence; instead, look in your own backyard. If you build best-in-class outcomes for the students you serve, you will stand out. ,Shared Leadership Is Essential to Enrollment SuccessBy:  Emily RossIn 2025, I learned more about the growing importance of  shared leadership for enrollment teams — a reflection of how essential and complex the enrollment function has become. This summer, I had the privilege of interviewing enrollment leaders about the future of the profession for the Eduventures Enrollment Management Maturity Model. These conversations revealed that mature teams are often operating under a shared leadership approach. As VPEM roles become increasingly embedded in executive infrastructure, the complexity of the work requires shared ownership, collaboration across functions, and leaders at multiple levels keeping momentum.  From the ground up, mature enrollment teams understand strategy. Middle managers keep daily operations moving and are empowered to lead across the aisles while keeping sight of big-picture needs. This shared approach requires leaders to rethink the strengths of their teams, how they approach talent development and onboarding, and even the rhythms of everyday staff meetings and connection points.  At  Eduventures Summit in June, speaker Clint! Runge highlighted how different generations approach leadership in Figure 1.,Figure 1.According to this model, Gen X and Millennials tend to favor collaborative, less hierarchical leadership styles, while Gen Z gravitates toward an “Empowering” approach. As enrollment teams welcome more Gen Z staff, generational research suggests the field is shifting toward shared leadership both by necessity and by the natural inclinations of the workforce. This generation embraces many of the core elements of shared leadership — visibility into the big picture, transparency around strategy, and collaboration.Given these trends, I expect this approach to expand across enrollment units. In a year of heightened visibility and pressure, shared leadership stands out as the model that can sustain the work ahead. It isn’t just emerging; it’s becoming essential to enrollment success on today’s campuses.

Each December, we ask our analysts to reflect on the past year and share one insight that truly stood out. In Part I, we explore what three of our analysts uncovered as they examined the traditional student demand landscape. From shifting student behaviors that favor in-person interaction to the growing pressure for institutions to own their unique brand identities to the rise of shared enrollment leadership on campus, this year’s reflections underscore the need for institutions to recalibrate toward more intentional, student-centered strategies to meet students where they are.In Part II, coming next week, we’ll dive into the lessons learned in the graduate market and in program innovation.

What We Learned in 2025: The Top Takeaways From Our Analysts: Part I

Four-year institutions increasingly rely on community college transfers to stabilize enrollment, but many of these students never finish their degrees. According to the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC), only 49% of community college transfers who began in 2016 earned a bachelor’s degree — essentially a coin flip.  The Eduventures 2025 Admitted Student Research™ offers a clue: more than two-thirds of community college transfer admits reported difficulties during the transfer process itself. These are students who  succeeded in getting to your campus yet arrived already off balance.  Their experiences point to a deeper issue: the transfer pathway is financially fragile, structurally inconsistent, and far less seamless than many institutions assume. 
Too often, institutions assume that partnering with local community colleges, securing articulation agreements, and enrolling their students is enough to stabilize enrollment. The reality is more complicated.  Community college transfers account for just 63% of all four-year transfer activity, according to NSC; the remaining students arrive laterally from other four-year institutions with no structured pathways to guide them. And even community college transfers — those with advising support and articulated credits — do not enjoy a clear advantage. Both groups encounter unexpected barriers once they arrive, making retention just as critical as recruitment in any transfer strategy. The Eduventures Admitted Student Research, which includes transfer admits, highlights the unexpected challenges students encounter when moving from a community college to a four-year institution. Figure 1 illustrates specific pain points in the transfer process.,Figure 1
Figure 1 shows that 26% of transfer students reported confusion during the transfer process — confusion driven largely by finances. Nearly a third received less financial aid than they expected, and another 23% anticipated graduating with more debt than planned. Nineteen percent found that credits did not transfer as expected, adding both time and cost. In contrast, uncertainty about school choice or the decision to transfer is far less common. 
The dominant theme is financial mismatch: transfer students are less likely than first years to receive scholarships or grants and more likely to face higher debt loads. What may seem predictable to institutions is often a shock to students. The community-college-to-state-school pathway is widely viewed as the most affordable route to a bachelor’s degree, an assumption reinforced by online forums and well-meaning advice. 
For many students, transfer is driven by financial pressure, not careful planning. Community college transfer admits reported household incomes under $100,000 at far higher rates than first-year students (61% vs. 38%) and are more likely to be first-generation (53% vs. 28%). Their decisions sit at the intersection of financial need and institutional complexity, where an unexpected lack of aid can quickly derail their educational trajectories. 
So where do these students, who have already navigated financial aid once, struggle most? Figure 2 compares the types of support community college transfer, and first-year students say they need to manage the financial aid process. 


,Figure 2
Figure 2 shows that both first year and transfer students want clearer information about scholarships and better access to financial aid advisors, ideally through proactive outreach. But important differences emerge between the two groups.  
Transfer students are less interested in general financial aid guidance, such as how to complete the FAFSA, because they have already done it. What they want instead is individualized support: to help understand how their specific circumstances affect aid eligibility and which federal resources remain available to them. 
In many cases, their familiarity with the process may create a false sense of financial preparedness. When aid packages from transfer schools don’t align with expectations, their need for guidance increases sharply. In hindsight, many transfer students wish for more advising at both their transfer institutions (29%) and their colleges of origin (28%).  
This indicates that even with prior experience, the transfer process remains complex and unpredictable — one misstep away from becoming a financial minefield. 
The Bottom Line 
Transferring from a community college to a four-year school is rarely seamless. Many students encounter unexpected financial hurdles that challenge the belief that the transfer pathway is the more affordable option. These obstacles reveal clear opportunities to better support these students. Here are a few: 

  Communicate costs and aid clearly and early. Too many transfer students are surprised by their financial aid packages. Be explicit up front about tuition, expected costs, available transfer scholarships, and the role of loans. 
  
     Offer personalized advising that integrates academics  and finances. Transcript evaluation and credit transfer are essential, but not enough. Transfer students also need guidance on how to pay for their remaining degrees — before and after they arrive. 
  
  Make the transfer pathway more affordable. Advising can’t overcome financial barriers alone. Increase grant and scholarship opportunities for transfers or strengthen credit transfer generosity to shorten time to degree and improve outcomes. 





Four-year institutions increasingly rely on community college transfers to stabilize enrollment, but many of these students never finish their degrees. According to the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC), only 49% of community college transfers who began in 2016 earned a bachelor’s degree — essentially a coin flip.  The Eduventures 2025 Admitted Student Research™ offers a clue: more than two-thirds of community college transfer admits reported difficulties during the transfer process itself. These are students who  succeeded in getting to your campus yet arrived already off balance.  Their experiences point to a deeper issue: the transfer pathway is financially fragile, structurally inconsistent, and far less seamless than many institutions assume. 
Too often, institutions assume that partnering with local community colleges, securing articulation agreements, and enrolling their students is enough to stabilize enrollment. The reality is more complicated.  Community college transfers account for just 63% of all four-year transfer activity, according to NSC; the remaining students arrive laterally from other four-year institutions with no structured pathways to guide them. And even community college transfers — those with advising support and articulated credits — do not enjoy a clear advantage. Both groups encounter unexpected barriers once they arrive, making retention just as critical as recruitment in any transfer strategy. The Eduventures Admitted Student Research, which includes transfer admits, highlights the unexpected challenges students encounter when moving from a community college to a four-year institution. Figure 1 illustrates specific pain points in the transfer process.

Your Transfers Made It to Campus, But Will They Stay?

Choosing the right college is hard enough. For many 17- and 18-year-olds, choosing the right college  and the right major can feel impossible. “Undecided” consistently ranks among the top 10 major selections for first-time students in the Eduventures Admitted Student Research™, yet these students report significantly lower confidence in their college choices than peers with defined academic goals.Given that  academics remains a leading motivator in college selection, how can enrollment teams help “Undecided” students feel more confident about their choices?“Undecided” Student ConfidenceAdmitted students face many decisions ahead, and for the “Undecided” students, the unknown of college  plus the unknown of their academic selections can create a different kind of uncertainty. Figure 1 compares the confidence levels among those who selected “Undecided” as their major to those of all first-time students. ,Figure 1.
Figure 1 shows a 17 percentage point gap among those who selected they are “very confident” in their college choices between “Undecided” students and all other students. This confidence gap matters. Students with lower confidence in their college choices may signal potential for higher melt. Students with lower confidence may keep their options more open and seek additional reassurance in their college choices.  Looking further down the student journey, this uncertainty may also impact their sense of belonging and engagement on campus. Student confidence reveals that without an academic driver, “Undecided” students may find it more difficult to find affinity to their college choices.
This confidence gap raises an important question: What are “Undecided” students looking for when making their college choices? The Eduventures Student Mindsets™ reveal what drives “Undecided” students and how institutions can better align messaging and programs to meet them where they are.


The Role of the Eduventures Student Mindsets
The Eduventures Student Mindsets describe how students approach college search and selection, accounting for the outcomes, experiences, and motivators that shape their decisions. Figure 2 shows the Student Mindsets of “Undecided” students segmented by the types of institutions students chose. 
,Figure 2.Figure 2 shows that, regardless of institution type, “Undecided” students most often identify with the  Social Focus  Mindset (31% “Undecided” students vs. 21% all students), those who prioritize connection, belonging, and engagement. While they may still be exploring their academic directions, “Undecided” students are ready to find their places socially. They are motivated by connection — looking for community, activities, and belonging.For institutions, this means that social messaging can be just as influential as academic content for “Undecided” students. Highlighting student organizations, campus traditions, and community spaces helps them picture themselves on campus, strengthening both their confidences in fit and their emotional connections to your institution.The other predominant Mindsets among “Undecided” students are  Experiential Interest (18%, same as all students) and  Exploration and Meaning (17% vs. 11% all students). While distinct from each other, both emphasize engagement that feels purposeful and enriching. Experiential Interest students value hands-on learning connected to real-world application and career, while Exploration and Meaning students are globally oriented and drawn to opportunities that make an impact such as study abroad, service learning, or social innovation initiatives.For institutions, this means that messages showcasing active, applied, and mission-driven learning experiences can resonate deeply with “Undecided” students, helping them see how exploration on your campus can lead to both personal and professional growth.Public vs. Private. Clear nuances also emerge when comparing Mindsets of “Undecided” students who chose public vs. private institutions. Private institutions enroll a higher proportion of Exploration and Meaning students, reflecting liberal arts and mission-driven traditions. At public institutions, however, Career Pragmatist students slightly edge out Exploration and Meaning students, consistent with perceptions of public institutions as affordable and accessible. Still, “Undecided” students enrolling at public institutions show a five percentage point higher share of Exploration and Meaning compared to all students, suggesting these environments also appeal to students seeking purpose and connection.For institutions, marketing that emphasizes community and campus experience can build confidence in their college choices. Many may feel a version of academic “imposter syndrome,” unsure of what to study and therefore less certain about where they belong.Beyond messaging, institutions can reinforce belonging by developing programs that help “Undecided” students envision their paths forward. Early advising, exploratory seminars, and integrated experiential learning can transform uncertainty into engagement, showing students that exploration itself can be a strength.Case Study: Adelphi UniversityAdelphi University offers a strong example of how to intentionally support “Undecided” students as they explore academic fit. The university offers exploration workshops and “360 courses,” classes that explore a broad topic from multiple perspectives and feature collaboration with various campus experts. Furthermore, Adelphi has re-envisioned its General Education courses to “promote self-discovery, shared experiences, diverse and inclusive instruction, and socially engaged community action.”  Adelphi’s efforts reflect the Student Mindsets of “Undecided” students, creating tangible ways for them to see their paths while also providing opportunities to engage with campus, find community, and explore interests. In doing so, Adelphi translates the Social Focus and Exploration and Meaning Mindsets into actionable programming — making belonging and discovery part of the curriculum.The Bottom Line“Undecided” students want reassurance that they will fit in and that their college choices are right for them, even without a defined major. Enrollment teams can build confidence by emphasizing opportunities to connect, engage, and explore, showing that students don’t need to have it all figured out to find their places.Institutions that go further, developing tailored programming that helps students navigate both campus life and academic discovery, will stand out. This means going beyond career assessments by creating experiences and support systems to build stronger connections with these students. Supporting “Undecided” students is not just about guidance; it’s about transforming uncertainty into confidence and long-term commitment.

Choosing the right college is hard enough. For many 17- and 18-year-olds, choosing the right college  and the right major can feel impossible. “Undecided” consistently ranks among the top 10 major selections for first-time students in the Eduventures Admitted Student Research™, yet these students report significantly lower confidence in their college choices than peers with defined academic goals.Given that  academics remains a leading motivator in college selection, how can enrollment teams help “Undecided” students feel more confident about their choices?“Undecided” Student ConfidenceAdmitted students face many decisions ahead, and for the “Undecided” students, the unknown of college  plus the unknown of their academic selections can create a different kind of uncertainty. Figure 1 compares the confidence levels among those who selected “Undecided” as their major to those of all first-time students. 

Keeping “Undecided” About the Major, Not the College

The Eduventures annual  Student Sentiment Research™ spotlights the institutions communicating most effectively with high school students. This year, the 2024–2025 incoming freshman class — the first true wave of Gen Alpha — joined the study. Seventy-one percent already named a college whose outreach impressed them, surpassing the percentage of high school seniors who did the same (66%). As many institutions struggle to build awareness before senior year, one question emerges: Who’s already winning mindshare among ninth graders?The Early School Gets the Attention Gen Alpha has officially entered high school, and many have already begun looking into their college options. Of these college-bound Gen Alphas, 60% have explored a college website, 58% have read about colleges on a college planning site, and 87% said they have already received emails from colleges, according to the Eduventures research. Some institutions are already forging connections with prospects through early web and email engagement. Whether these efforts lead to applications remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: Capturing Gen Alpha’s attention won’t get easier. As they approach application season, competition will intensify — and with fewer of them than Gen Z, the stakes are higher than ever. So, which institutions are already on the minds of Gen Alpha? The 71% of high school ninth graders in our sample, who recalled a specific institution that had impressed them, listed a total of 278 schools. But some were mentioned more frequently than others. Below are the institutions topping the best communicator list for Gen Alpha.Top Memorable Communicators Mentioned by Gen Alpha  Baylor University Harvard University Auburn University Ball State University The Ohio State University The University of Alabama University of Nebraska - Lincoln It’s no surprise that many top communicators are household names. This list reflects recall, not reputation or selectivity, and sometimes the “outreach” began with students themselves through websites or social media visits. But for these brands, even routine communication leaves a mark on the next generation. Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana, is not like the others. Baylor University stood out primarily for its emails, which suggests targeted outreach efforts. This indicates that some institutions may be more intentional about their communications to Gen Alpha than others. What are they doing that’s working? Let’s take a closer look at some of these memorable communicators.,Ball State University More than half of Gen Alpha respondents who mentioned Ball State said an email impressed them most. Email mentions surpassed social media mentions — proof that even for the youngest prospects, email still cuts through. Students seemed flattered that the university showed interest in them but also that it did not pressure them to take the relationship any further, at least for now. Student comments include: “It shows that they were interested in me.” “I loved that it had pictures and did not feel like they were pressuring me to pick their college.” “It was inviting, signed by a person instead of coming from a bot, and included opportunities to visit the college in person or online; though, I was too anxious to attend any of the opportunities sadly.” ,Baylor University Baylor University, already a national brand, successfully connected with Gen Alpha through well-timed, personalized emails and a tangible campus feel — supported by occasional print mail. Even small touches, like stickers — mentioned by several students — reinforced a friendly, authentic brand voice that resonates early. Student comments include: “I felt as if they were being truthful, and I also got some stickers from the college in the mail.” “They just talked a lot about the culture of the school (But I'm not sure if I'm willing to travel that far).” “It was very well worded, and it felt personal.” ,The University of Nebraska - Lincoln The University of Nebraska (Nebraska) stood out with a mix of print and email. Students liked that the information was easy to digest and relevant to them — showing that Nebraska already understands the unwritten rules of communicating with this rising generation. As one student pointed out, Nebraska also actively inquired about its prospects’ interests. Student comments include: “(I loved) That they reached out and asked me about what I would want for college.” “I loved how much information was provided and how presentable and easy it was to read.” “It’s really informative.” The Bottom Line It’s no surprise that most top communicators identified by Gen Alpha are large research universities with deeper marketing budgets. Many institutions may hesitate to use more limited resources to engage students this young, unsure if the effort will translate into enrollment. But in an increasingly competitive environment, many can’t afford not to take this risk, either. Early contact, especially when genuine and personalized, can leave a lasting impression long before application season. Early outreach at this phase works precisely because few institutions do it. Once everyone does, the signal will get lost in the noise. Now is the time to build awareness and affinity before the competition catches up. Even without major budgets, institutions can build Gen Alpha equity by: Delivering on their brand promise: Strong student outcomes fuel authentic word-of-mouth. Refreshing digital channels: Make key information easy to find and engage with for younger audiences. Activating community connections: Use athletic events, campus clubs, and youth programming to make their brand tangible locally. 


The Eduventures annual  Student Sentiment Research™ spotlights the institutions communicating most effectively with high school students. This year, the 2024–2025 incoming freshman class — the first true wave of Gen Alpha — joined the study. Seventy-one percent already named a college whose outreach impressed them, surpassing the percentage of high school seniors who did the same (66%). As many institutions struggle to build awareness before senior year, one question emerges: Who’s already winning mindshare among ninth graders?The Early School Gets the Attention Gen Alpha has officially entered high school, and many have already begun looking into their college options. Of these college-bound Gen Alphas, 60% have explored a college website, 58% have read about colleges on a college planning site, and 87% said they have already received emails from colleges, according to the Eduventures research. Some institutions are already forging connections with prospects through early web and email engagement. Whether these efforts lead to applications remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: Capturing Gen Alpha’s attention won’t get easier. As they approach application season, competition will intensify — and with fewer of them than Gen Z, the stakes are higher than ever. So, which institutions are already on the minds of Gen Alpha? The 71% of high school ninth graders in our sample, who recalled a specific institution that had impressed them, listed a total of 278 schools. But some were mentioned more frequently than others. Below are the institutions topping the best communicator list for Gen Alpha.Top Memorable Communicators Mentioned by Gen Alpha  Baylor University Harvard University Auburn University Ball State University The Ohio State University The University of Alabama University of Nebraska - Lincoln It’s no surprise that many top communicators are household names. This list reflects recall, not reputation or selectivity, and sometimes the “outreach” began with students themselves through websites or social media visits. But for these brands, even routine communication leaves a mark on the next generation. Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana, is not like the others. Baylor University stood out primarily for its emails, which suggests targeted outreach efforts. This indicates that some institutions may be more intentional about their communications to Gen Alpha than others. What are they doing that’s working? Let’s take a closer look at some of these memorable communicators.

The Best Communicators of 2025: Gen Alpha Edition

Every college wants to stand out — but what institutions  say, and what students  see don’t always match. Eduventures research shows that even small misalignments between institutional identity and student perception can make or break enrollment decisions.Rather than asking how your institution defines itself, flip the question: How do  students define you? Understanding where perceptions align — and where they don’t — will sharpen your brand story and your enrollment strategy.Start by asking this question:  What Brand Neighborhood does my institution live in?  The Eduventures Brand Neighborhoods So, what is a  Brand Neighborhood? Take public institutions as an example. According to the Eduventures  Prospective Student Brand Research™, the top three brand constructs that traditional-aged undergraduates associate with their top-choice publics schools are  friendly/community (57%),  affordable/value (47%), and  high quality (37%). These constructs capture how students broadly view public institutions, but they don’t provide enough insight into how schools differentiate in their minds.Our analysis shows that public institutions cluster into distinct “Brand Neighborhoods” — groups defined by shared brand constructs and quality perceptions. Each neighborhood attracts and serves different kinds of students.We identified nine distinct Brand Neighborhoods and subdivisions among public institutions in our data, defined by how students associate key brand constructs and perceive institutional quality across major enrollment drivers. In other words, these are the “areas” where public institutions live — according to students.Figure 1 highlights four top-level Brand Neighborhoods for public institutions:  Accessible,  Affordable,  Spirit, and  Academic. Three of these (Accessible, Affordable, and Spirit) include additional subdivisions for a grand total of nine.,Figure 1.


In Figure 1, the top-level Brand Neighborhoods represent the primary characteristics students associate with an institution, while the subdivisions below reflect secondary traits — together forming a composite image of how each school is perceived. For example, almost a fifth (19%) of public schools are in the Spirit neighborhood. This neighborhood has two subdivisions: one where the schools are known for their Community, like University of California, Santa Cruz, and one where the schools are seen as more Academic, like Auburn University.
Figure 2 illustrates the brand constructs (i.e., friendly/community or affordable/value) and quality perceptions (i.e., academic strength or physical environment) of institutions within each neighborhood, alongside key institutional demographics drawn from federally-reported data.


Public Institution Brand Neighborhoods

,Figure 2.Sources: The Eduventures Prospective Student Brand Research and National Center for Education Statistics
Figure 2 shows that the four neighborhoods vary in perceptions of quality, affordability, school spirit, and the types of students each school is likely to serve. Here are the key descriptors for each neighborhood:Accessible –These schools are not only affordable, but they also serve the highest degree of underserved students (i.e., Rutgers University, Newark)Affordable– Affordability is prominent, but these institutions serve fewer underserved students in comparison to the previous neighborhood (i.e., Towson University)Spirit – These are the big research 1 universities with prominent athletics (i.e., Auburn University)Academic – These are highly ranked national public universities (i.e., The University of Texas Austin)The Academic schools stand alone, but three of the top-level neighborhoods—Accessible, Affordable, and Spirit—have subdivisions. Figure 3 shows how Spirit schools break into two further subdivisions: Spirit-Community and Spirit-Academic.


Spirit School Neighborhood Subdivisions
,Figure 3.
Sources: The Eduventures Prospective Student Brand Research and National Center for Education Statistics


The subdivisions shown in Figure 3 represent the secondary characteristics that define separate institutions within their overarching neighborhoods. The two subdivisions of Spirit schools break down like this:

  More community-oriented - affordable institutions that reach more Pell eligible students (i.e., University of Central Florida)
  More academic-oriented - serving fewer Pell eligible students (i.e., University of South Carolina)

Where Do You Live?
It’s important to not only know which neighborhood students think you live in, but also where your competition fits. For example, Figure 4 shows the top-level neighborhoods for 12 public universities in Virginia.


Brand Neighborhoods of Virginia Public Universities
,Figure 4.

Imagine that you are James Madison University residing in the “Spirit School” neighborhood as shown in Figure 4. Are you in the neighborhood that your campus believes it is in? Do you want to be in a different neighborhood? How do you compete with schools that are in disparate neighborhoods?
These are all legitimate questions to ask. But we believe the most important question you can ask is, “How will you “own” your Brand Neighborhood?” The first three questions are important to help you understand your competitive context, but aligning to and delivering on student perceptions of your university is the central task.
The Bottom Line
“Owning” your Brand Neighborhood means two things:

  Understand where students actually place you (not where you wish you were).
  Outperform the other institutions in your neighborhood. You don't need to become University of Virginia if you're in the Affordable neighborhood — you just need to be the best Affordable option for your students.

Institutions that will thrive in a shrinking market won’t be those trying to reinvent themselves, but those doubling down on what they already do best within their neighborhoods. The key question isn't whether your institution is in the “right” neighborhood — it's whether you can win market share by delivering better outcomes than your neighborhood competitors.
Success means retaining and graduating more students and delivering on career outcomes for those who are drawn to your neighborhood.
The Eduventures What Is Your Brand Neighborhood?  report published last week provides further details on top-level neighborhoods and subdivisions for both public and private institutions. The report also shows how student majors and Student Mindsets™ differ in each of these neighborhoods and their subdivisions, giving you deeper insight into the students you serve and for which you compete.


Every college wants to stand out — but what institutions  say, and what students  see don’t always match. Eduventures research shows that even small misalignments between institutional identity and student perception can make or break enrollment decisions.Rather than asking how your institution defines itself, flip the question: How do  students define you? Understanding where perceptions align — and where they don’t — will sharpen your brand story and your enrollment strategy.Start by asking this question:  What Brand Neighborhood does my institution live in?  The Eduventures Brand Neighborhoods So, what is a  Brand Neighborhood? Take public institutions as an example. According to the Eduventures  Prospective Student Brand Research™, the top three brand constructs that traditional-aged undergraduates associate with their top-choice publics schools are  friendly/community (57%),  affordable/value (47%), and  high quality (37%). These constructs capture how students broadly view public institutions, but they don’t provide enough insight into how schools differentiate in their minds.Our analysis shows that public institutions cluster into distinct “Brand Neighborhoods” — groups defined by shared brand constructs and quality perceptions. Each neighborhood attracts and serves different kinds of students.We identified nine distinct Brand Neighborhoods and subdivisions among public institutions in our data, defined by how students associate key brand constructs and perceive institutional quality across major enrollment drivers. In other words, these are the “areas” where public institutions live — according to students.Figure 1 highlights four top-level Brand Neighborhoods for public institutions:  Accessible,  Affordable,  Spirit, and  Academic. Three of these (Accessible, Affordable, and Spirit) include additional subdivisions for a grand total of nine.

How Do Colleges Own Their Brand To Strengthen Enrollment?

President Trump has shaken markets with a slew of tariffs — real and threatened — on U.S. imports. Declaring “Liberation Day,” he promises billions in duties, a manufacturing renaissance, and an end to “unfair” free trade. Once unthinkable, protectionism is now reality.  What does this have to do with  online learning? For over a decade, U.S. online higher education has operated under its own internal “free trade agreement” allowing institutions to enroll students across state lines: The National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (NC-SARA). Advocates trumpet its efficiency, but critics warn of lost state control. A tariff hawk might see trade deficits or “degree dumping.”  Are some states disadvantaged by NC-SARA? Could today’s quiet consensus become tomorrow’s flashpoint?  A Big, Beautiful Deal Before NC-SARA, colleges faced a confusing web of rules governing online enrollment across state lines. Definitions of “physical presence” varied by state: advertising, faculty residence, server location, or even student practicum arrangements could trigger cumbersome regulations. Some states treated simply enrolling a state resident in an online program as “physical presence.”  The enrollment surge during and after the Great Recession of 2007–09, combined with the rise of for-profits and the mainstreaming of online learning, spurred the Obama administration to demand stronger oversight. States scrambled to define their regulations, and schools raced to comply — often at great cost. Some built whole compliance offices, while others barred student enrollment from certain states.  Out of this chaos came what many thought impossible: an interstate compact. NC-SARA launched in 2014 and soon every state joined, except for California. States agreed to minimum standards, designating home-state oversight (along with NC-SARA) for out-of-state activity. The result: fewer approvals and booming online enrollment.  Looted and Pillaged? Just as U.S. manufacturing saw winners and losers under free trade, NC-SARA has produced its own imbalances. Figure 1 shows each state’s online learning “trade deficit,” comparing out-of-state enrollment of state residents (online “imports”) to the enrollment of out-of-state residents in in-state online programs (“exports”). NC-SARA data includes nearly all accredited schools in each state, combining undergraduate and graduate online enrollments.  ,Figure 1.How to read Figure 1? States on the  top of the chart post a “trade surplus” — they enroll more out-of-state residents in their own online programs than they lose. States on the  bottom show a “trade deficit” — more residents enroll elsewhere.   The location of an “online giant” in a state explains the surplus in New Hampshire (Southern New Hampshire University), Arizona (Arizona State University, Grand Canyon University, University of Phoenix), Utah (Western Governors University), D.C. (Strayer University), and West Virginia (American Public University System (APUS)), among others. Large military installations partly explain deficits in Texas, California, Georgia, and the Carolinas. But for other states, such as Nevada, Washington, New Jersey, and Michigan, does a large online learning trade deficit reflect lack of investment in in-state online programming? It might be judged a public policy failure to have such a high volume of educational dollars leaving the state.  States that are home to an online giant or two might appreciate the boost in tax revenue, but their presence obscures the trade balance with respect to other institutions. Remove these giants, and the trade picture flips: New Hampshire’s ratio drops to 0.25. The same applies to Maryland, (0.36, after removing University of Maryland Global Campus), Minnesota (0.66, after removing Capella University), Utah (0.59, minus Western Governors University), Virginia (0.30, minus Liberty University), and West Virginia (0.71, minus APUS).  California, Coming Home Another way to view online learning “trade” is to compare how many state residents enrolled at in-state schools versus out-of-state ones. Figure 2 shows these ratios range from nearly 3:4 to less than 1:1 — revealing wide variations in how states serve their own students online.  ,Figure 2.
California, the only state not to join NC-SARA, has the “best” ratio of residents served by in-state schools. Is it because California is not being “ripped off” by “unfair” free trade policies? 
Not really. California’s  Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education requires out-of-state institutions with no physical presence in the state, but enrolling California residents online, to register. But public and private nonprofit institutions are exempt. For-profit schools, by contrast, must register, but the process is simple and inexpensive. As of now, some 130 for-profit institutions are registered, including all the leading online schools. A ballooning budget deficit in California may encourage more out-of-state schools to target The Golden State. 
Nonetheless, out-of-state schools report enrolling fewer Californians online than you might expect. California’s population is 26% larger than Texas’, yet non-Texas schools report 3% more Texas-based online students than non-California-based schools report Californians.  
Non-California institutions may market less aggressively in the state, and many nonprofit schools may not realize their scope for action.  
The Bottom Line 
In 2012, before NC-SARA existed, 59% of fully online students were enrolled at an in-state school. After a decade of online “free trade,” this percentage is actually higher, at 63%. 
At a national level, it is hard to argue that NC-SARA has favored the biggest online schools at the expense of others. The compact has simplified operations for all institutions and widened consumer choice. Over the same period, all states saw increased investment in online programs by local schools.  
It is also difficult to conclude that students have been “ripped off.” NC-SARA handles complaints from out-of-state students: some 350 complaints have been received over the past decade. Out of millions of enrollments — and among complaints resolved — 72% were decided in favor of the institution.  
During the Biden administration, the U.S. Department of Education, encouraged by the likes of  The Institute for College Access  Success, toyed with the idea of diluting NC-SARA and boosting state autonomy — in the name of consumer protection against “predatory” institutions — but nothing came of it. Whether NC-SARA will be emboldened or incinerated by Trump’s promised regulatory bonfire remains to be seen.  
The lesson from 10 years of NC-SARA? States with too few in-demand online programs (or programs that are poorly marketed or unduly expensive) attract disproportionate out-of-state competition. Prospective students benefit from fewer “trade barriers” to online learning but will “buy local” if there are good options. Hybrid programming might prove a strategic way to lock in in-state business, so long as student experience enhancements outweigh inconvenience.  
In most states, a majority of residents in online programs are enrolled at in-state institutions, but in eight (the “red” states in Figure 2), this is not the case. Several others are close to the line. Renewed investment in online offerings, rather than exiting NC-SARA and erecting trade barriers, is likely to be the best solution. But a contrarian lawmaker, in a state with a yawning online learning trade deficit, might want to tie new funding for local schools to barriers to entry for “predatory” outsiders.  
Online learning disrupts higher education’s place-based center of gravity. So far, co-location of online students and schools has been a winning formula, and state policymakers see more benefits than drawbacks in online “free trade.”  
But is it inconceivable that a state would leave NC-SARA in a protectionist mood? Stranger things have happened.  


President Trump has shaken markets with a slew of tariffs — real and threatened — on U.S. imports. Declaring “Liberation Day,” he promises billions in duties, a manufacturing renaissance, and an end to “unfair” free trade. Once unthinkable, protectionism is now reality.  What does this have to do with  online learning? For over a decade, U.S. online higher education has operated under its own internal “free trade agreement” allowing institutions to enroll students across state lines: The National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (NC-SARA). Advocates trumpet its efficiency, but critics warn of lost state control. A tariff hawk might see trade deficits or “degree dumping.”  Are some states disadvantaged by NC-SARA? Could today’s quiet consensus become tomorrow’s flashpoint?  A Big, Beautiful Deal Before NC-SARA, colleges faced a confusing web of rules governing online enrollment across state lines. Definitions of “physical presence” varied by state: advertising, faculty residence, server location, or even student practicum arrangements could trigger cumbersome regulations. Some states treated simply enrolling a state resident in an online program as “physical presence.”  The enrollment surge during and after the Great Recession of 2007–09, combined with the rise of for-profits and the mainstreaming of online learning, spurred the Obama administration to demand stronger oversight. States scrambled to define their regulations, and schools raced to comply — often at great cost. Some built whole compliance offices, while others barred student enrollment from certain states.  Out of this chaos came what many thought impossible: an interstate compact. NC-SARA launched in 2014 and soon every state joined, except for California. States agreed to minimum standards, designating home-state oversight (along with NC-SARA) for out-of-state activity. The result: fewer approvals and booming online enrollment.  Looted and Pillaged? Just as U.S. manufacturing saw winners and losers under free trade, NC-SARA has produced its own imbalances. Figure 1 shows each state’s online learning “trade deficit,” comparing out-of-state enrollment of state residents (online “imports”) to the enrollment of out-of-state residents in in-state online programs (“exports”). NC-SARA data includes nearly all accredited schools in each state, combining undergraduate and graduate online enrollments.  

Is Online Learning Vulnerable to a Trade War?

Fully online enrollment jumped 10% between fall 2022 and fall 2024, an increase of more than 400,000 students across all levels. But that growth is not evenly distributed. Enrollment in some states is surging, as others are quietly losing ground.For colleges aiming to expand online enrollment, the first step is always to look locally. But increasingly, local markets have become porous, many “losing” students to institutions in other states.NC-SARA data reveals who else may be recruiting in your backyard, and an understanding of this can provide the foundation for your growth strategy. Which institutions have large online market share in your state, and what should your institution do to combat it?Online enrollment scale largely follows a state’s population, but a few key players have led the way in upending this rule of thumb. To understand online enrollment state-by-state, we have to begin with the largest providers, including  Western Governors University (WGU),  Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), and  University of Phoenix, which have dominated online enrollment since fall 2016. To illustrate, while online enrollment grew 10% between 2022 and 2024, WGU grew 33% — from 161,000 to nearly 215,000 students.These online giants are the primary online competitors known for attracting students nationwide, but what is less understood is how their enrollment is drawn unevenly, coming from certain states more than others.Enter NC-SARAAlthough it has its limitations, NC-SARA enrollment data is valuable because it shows student enrollment by the student’s state of residence, unlike IPEDS, which reports by the institution’s state. Figure 1 shows each state’s total online enrollment in 2024, as represented by the size of each bubble.Texas, Florida, and Georgia lead in terms of enrollment scale (notably, California, the largest state overall, does not participate in NC-SARA.) The Figure also shows that 14 of the largest states exceeded the national online enrollment growth benchmark of 10%. The three states with the largest online enrollment growth include Indiana (+37%), Georgia (+34%), and South Carolina (+24%)—perhaps not the ones you would expect.,Figure 1.States with larger population growth (25-64-year-olds) should, in theory, have better online enrollment. The national population growth between 2022 and 2024 was 1%, but only 10 of the largest 25 grew faster than that. Of those largest states, Florida (4%), Texas (3.7%), and South Carolina (2.9%) saw the highest population increases. Both total population size and growth appear to influence online enrollment scale.  Figure 1 reveals a striking pattern: Online enrollment growth often outpaces population growth, indicating that online education is reshaping how states’ residents access higher education rather than simply mirroring demographics. But let us take a closer look to see what could be driving online enrollment growth in these states.  Key State Findings Texas, the largest state, lacks a flagship online institution. Most major online providers are community colleges that offer bachelor’s degrees, such as Dallas College. But WGU draws 12% of its total enrollment from Texas, the most by far. The largest “true” four-year online providers are the University of Texas at Arlington and Lamar University, both growing through partnerships with online program management (OPM) firms.  The absence of a flagship online leader leaves Texas institutions vulnerable to national providers with scale and brand recognition. Florida, the fastest-growing state, saw 9% enrollment growth. Like Texas, its online market is dominated by public two- and four-year institutions. A notable exception is Full Sail University, a private for-profit enrolling 22% of its roughly 37,000 students from Florida, despite its niche in entertainment, media, and technology. The University of Florida Online, a counterpart to the on-campus undergraduate program, enrolls 71% of its students from Florida. Larger state institutions like the University of Central Florida and Florida International University, with less restrictive admissions, enroll 94% of their online students from the state.  Florida demonstrates how scale plus public-sector coordination can retain online students in-state. Georgia institutions have been late to enter the online market and are working to catch up; the University System of Georgia eCampus is expanding the state’s online presence. Five of the 10 largest institutions enrolling Georgia students, however, are out-of-state online giants. Georgia Tech, often lauded for its innovative and affordable master’s programs, enrolls just 20% from inside the state, suggesting that prestige is optimal for a national (and international) audience.  Prestige travels well online, but it does little to protect a state from enrollment leakage without broad-access options. South Carolina has half of its state’s online enrollment at out-of-state institutions. The University of South Carolina Columbia (USC) is the largest in-state provider with 6,567 students and doubled its enrollment between 2022 and 2024. USC, however, accounts for only 8% of the state’s total online enrollment, highlighting that many students choose out-of-state options.  Even fast-growing institutions can lose the market when local capacity fails to meet demand. Indiana experienced the largest online enrollment growth despite having a nearly flat working-age population (0.2%). While Purdue University Global is based in Indiana, Ivy Tech Community College had the largest online enrollment with 13,260 students. While WGU is often among the top institutions in any state, it is especially dominant as it enrolls 8% of all Indiana enrollment. This strength is due to Indiana being the first state to partner with WGU in 2010.  Early policy decisions can lock in competitive advantages for decades. These states each have their own stories and different challenges and opportunities for online enrollment growth. But knowing the size of your state’s online student population, its growth, and where they are enrolling is vital competitive intelligence.  The Bottom Line  The data reveals an uncomfortable truth: Most states are losing market share to a few national players that compete on scale, speed, and student experience—not on geography or reputation. For regional and state institutions seeking growth, competitive intelligence is now a strategic necessity. Institutions that want to retain or grow local online students must:  Use NC-SARA data to reveal out-of-state institutions that are primary competitors. Identify competitive programs and determine if they are losing or gaining ground. Differentiate through strong state employer partnerships, aligned workforce programs, seamless transfer pathways from community colleges, and hybrid offerings that balance proximity with flexibility. Online education may be borderless, but enrollment losses are local. Institutions that fail to understand their competitive environments risk ceding their own students — state by state — to competitors who already understand the terrain. ,Submit Your Institution for a 2026 Innovation AwardRecognize your work and team efforts with an Innovation Award at Eduventures Summit 2026! Each year, Eduventures Research solicits award applications, completes judging, and announces winners in five categories. We welcome submissions focused on enrollment, student experience, and technology.

Solutions

Products & Services

Resources

About

Login

Fully online enrollment jumped 10% between fall 2022 and fall 2024, an increase of more than 400,000 students across all levels. But that growth is not evenly distributed. Enrollment in some states is surging, as others are quietly losing ground.For colleges aiming to expand online enrollment, the first step is always to look locally. But increasingly, local markets have become porous, many “losing” students to institutions in other states.NC-SARA data reveals who else may be recruiting in your backyard, and an understanding of this can provide the foundation for your growth strategy. Which institutions have large online market share in your state, and what should your institution do to combat it?Online enrollment scale largely follows a state’s population, but a few key players have led the way in upending this rule of thumb. To understand online enrollment state-by-state, we have to begin with the largest providers, including  Western Governors University (WGU),  Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), and  University of Phoenix, which have dominated online enrollment since fall 2016. To illustrate, while online enrollment grew 10% between 2022 and 2024, WGU grew 33% — from 161,000 to nearly 215,000 students.These online giants are the primary online competitors known for attracting students nationwide, but what is less understood is how their enrollment is drawn unevenly, coming from certain states more than others.Enter NC-SARAAlthough it has its limitations, NC-SARA enrollment data is valuable because it shows student enrollment by the student’s state of residence, unlike IPEDS, which reports by the institution’s state. Figure 1 shows each state’s total online enrollment in 2024, as represented by the size of each bubble.Texas, Florida, and Georgia lead in terms of enrollment scale (notably, California, the largest state overall, does not participate in NC-SARA.) The Figure also shows that 14 of the largest states exceeded the national online enrollment growth benchmark of 10%. The three states with the largest online enrollment growth include Indiana (+37%), Georgia (+34%), and South Carolina (+24%)—perhaps not the ones you would expect.

Your Backyard, Their Students: The New Geography of Online Enrollment

Custom Code

RichText

Four-year institutions have long regarded the “Some College, No Credential (SCNC)” market as a potential boon to enrollment. Headlines boast its potential: 37.6 million adults under age 65 — nearly one in six American adults — have completed some college courses but hold no credential.&nbsp;&nbsp;But recent data from the <a href="https://nscresearchcenter.org/some-college-no-credential/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">National Student Clearinghouse (NSC)</a>&nbsp;forces a reality check. Of this enormous population, just 2.7% re-enrolled last year. Additionally, these adults are increasingly credential-agnostic: only 28% of SCNC re-enrollees pursued bachelor's degrees, while many opted for shorter, career-focused options.&nbsp;The question for institutions seeking a greater share of this market isn’t market size but whether their programs and outreach strategies truly align with what these learners actually want.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h2>New Data From National Student Clearinghouse</h2>According to NSC, the overall “Some College No Credential” population grew 2% from 2022-2023, reaching 37.6 million in 2023-2024. A majority (58%) are adults aged 25 to 44 — prime career years when education decisions are tied directly to work and family realities.&nbsp;&nbsp;Stopouts declined across nearly all sectors except private for-profit four-year and online institutions. Community colleges and online providers play a large role in the SCNC market due to their accessibility, flexibility, and affordability.&nbsp;One million SCNC adults re-enrolled in 2023-24, a 7% jump from the year prior — encouraging momentum but still 8% below 2019 pre-pandemic levels. Despite economic uncertainty and job insecurity, these numbers suggest a growing readiness to return, but perhaps on new terms.&nbsp;&nbsp;Notably, 52% of re-enrollees in 2024 opted for associate degrees (52%), while just 28% pursued bachelor’s degrees. For many, the end goal isn't necessarily a four-year degree — it’s a credential that offers a clear and quick path to career advancement.&nbsp;<h2>Some College No Credential Re-Enrollment&nbsp;</h2>Figure 1 shows how re-enrolled students navigate credential pathways — often sticking with their original credential but with meaningful shifts that reveal how adults reassess goals once they return.&nbsp;

Image

Figure 1. According to Figure 1:<ul><li>57% of those who previously pursued a bachelor’s degree re-enrolled in another bachelor’s program—showing persistence in long-term goals.</li><li>31%&nbsp;of bachelor’s degree stopouts shifted down to associate degrees—suggesting pragmatic recalibration around time, cost, or career needs.</li><li>67% of associate degree stopouts typically remain in associate pathways, making up 53% of the total re-enrollment in 2023-24.</li></ul>Undergraduate certificate stopouts (a relatively small market at 130,000 re-enrollments in 2024) are the most mobile: 47% shifted to associate programs and 15% advanced to bachelor’s degrees. This underscores the need for flexible pathways and effective transfer of credits as certificate programs can serve as stepping-stones rather than endpoints.&nbsp;&nbsp;This indicates that much of the SCNC market doesn’t want a second chance — it wants a streamlined route. Institutions that simplify re-entry, clarify credit transfers, and connect credentials directly to job outcomes will win.&nbsp;<h2>SCNC Prospect Credential Preferences</h2>The Eduventures Adult Prospect Research™ adds context by capturing future intent among SCNC adults who say they’re committed or strongly likely to enroll in the next three years (Figure 2).&nbsp;&nbsp;

Figure 2. According to Figure 2:<ul><li>Associate degrees remain the top preference, holding steady around one-third of prospects.</li><li>Bachelor’s degree interest rebounded to 26% in 2024—welcome news for four-year institutions after several years of decline.</li><li>Vocational/Technical training dropped sharply (from 27% to 13%), while noncredit and certificate interest more than doubled (from 9% to 19%).</li></ul>Taken together, this suggests a complex story: Degree completion remains important, but flexibility, speed, and career linkage are decisive. For returning adults, the credential of choice is increasingly one that fits into adult life.&nbsp;<h2>The Bottom Line</h2>While the size of the SCNC market makes it enticing, the data shows it is no quick fix. Only a fraction of these adults re-enrolls each year — and even fewer complete. They are not all looking for a bachelor’s degree, but their motivations are clear: They seek affordable, short, stackable pathways with obvious career payoff. We also know that these prospects overwhelmingly choose online for its flexibility.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Institutions that want to grow this population must rethink the experience from the ground up:&nbsp;<ul><li>Make it easy to return. A streamlined and transparent credit transfer policy is a prerequisite, along with dedicated support in the enrollment process.</li><li>Offer flexible and affordable pathways. Address financials by offering affordable tuition, credit for prior work and life experience, and even free online introductory courses.</li><li>Build stackable credentials. Don’t force SCNC students into existing program silos: Design stackable pathways that allow students to progress from certificates to associate to bachelor’s degrees.</li><li>Consider strategic partnerships. Consider partnering with firms like <a href="https://reupeducation.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">ReUp Education</a> or <a href="https://myfootpath.com/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">myFootpath</a> that specialize in reconnecting stopouts with institutions by providing students with coaching and personalized outreach—an investment that can pay off quickly.</li></ul>Ultimately, winning in the SCNC market means meeting adults where they are with distinct strategies. The opportunity is real, but it demands realistic expectations and a specialized approach.

Promo Section Card

Join us this Thursday, October 30 as we explore how AI-powered predictive modeling can serve as a strategic solution for enrollment and academic leaders. Learn how to cut through the complexity and focus limited resources on which students need what kind of engagement, and when, to help meet institutional enrollment goals.

Four-year institutions have long regarded the “Some College, No Credential (SCNC)” market as a potential boon to enrollment. Headlines boast its potential: 37.6 million adults under age 65 — nearly one in six American adults — have completed some college courses but hold no credential.  But recent data from the  National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) forces a reality check. Of this enormous population, just 2.7% re-enrolled last year. Additionally, these adults are increasingly credential-agnostic: only 28% of SCNC re-enrollees pursued bachelor's degrees, while many opted for shorter, career-focused options. The question for institutions seeking a greater share of this market isn’t market size but whether their programs and outreach strategies truly align with what these learners actually want.  New Data From National Student ClearinghouseAccording to NSC, the overall “Some College No Credential” population grew 2% from 2022-2023, reaching 37.6 million in 2023-2024. A majority (58%) are adults aged 25 to 44 — prime career years when education decisions are tied directly to work and family realities.  Stopouts declined across nearly all sectors except private for-profit four-year and online institutions. Community colleges and online providers play a large role in the SCNC market due to their accessibility, flexibility, and affordability. One million SCNC adults re-enrolled in 2023-24, a 7% jump from the year prior — encouraging momentum but still 8% below 2019 pre-pandemic levels. Despite economic uncertainty and job insecurity, these numbers suggest a growing readiness to return, but perhaps on new terms.  Notably, 52% of re-enrollees in 2024 opted for associate degrees (52%), while just 28% pursued bachelor’s degrees. For many, the end goal isn't necessarily a four-year degree — it’s a credential that offers a clear and quick path to career advancement. Some College No Credential Re-Enrollment Figure 1 shows how re-enrolled students navigate credential pathways — often sticking with their original credential but with meaningful shifts that reveal how adults reassess goals once they return. ,Figure 1.
According to Figure 1:57% of those who previously pursued a bachelor’s degree re-enrolled in another bachelor’s program—showing persistence in long-term goals.31% of bachelor’s degree stopouts shifted down to associate degrees—suggesting pragmatic recalibration around time, cost, or career needs.67% of associate degree stopouts typically remain in associate pathways, making up 53% of the total re-enrollment in 2023-24.Undergraduate certificate stopouts (a relatively small market at 130,000 re-enrollments in 2024) are the most mobile: 47% shifted to associate programs and 15% advanced to bachelor’s degrees. This underscores the need for flexible pathways and effective transfer of credits as certificate programs can serve as stepping-stones rather than endpoints.  This indicates that much of the SCNC market doesn’t want a second chance — it wants a streamlined route. Institutions that simplify re-entry, clarify credit transfers, and connect credentials directly to job outcomes will win. SCNC Prospect Credential PreferencesThe Eduventures Adult Prospect Research™ adds context by capturing future intent among SCNC adults who say they’re committed or strongly likely to enroll in the next three years (Figure 2).  ,Figure 2.
According to Figure 2:Associate degrees remain the top preference, holding steady around one-third of prospects.Bachelor’s degree interest rebounded to 26% in 2024—welcome news for four-year institutions after several years of decline.Vocational/Technical training dropped sharply (from 27% to 13%), while noncredit and certificate interest more than doubled (from 9% to 19%).Taken together, this suggests a complex story: Degree completion remains important, but flexibility, speed, and career linkage are decisive. For returning adults, the credential of choice is increasingly one that fits into adult life. The Bottom LineWhile the size of the SCNC market makes it enticing, the data shows it is no quick fix. Only a fraction of these adults re-enrolls each year — and even fewer complete. They are not all looking for a bachelor’s degree, but their motivations are clear: They seek affordable, short, stackable pathways with obvious career payoff. We also know that these prospects overwhelmingly choose online for its flexibility.   Institutions that want to grow this population must rethink the experience from the ground up: Make it easy to return. A streamlined and transparent credit transfer policy is a prerequisite, along with dedicated support in the enrollment process.Offer flexible and affordable pathways. Address financials by offering affordable tuition, credit for prior work and life experience, and even free online introductory courses.Build stackable credentials. Don’t force SCNC students into existing program silos: Design stackable pathways that allow students to progress from certificates to associate to bachelor’s degrees.Consider strategic partnerships. Consider partnering with firms like  ReUp Education or  myFootpath that specialize in reconnecting stopouts with institutions by providing students with coaching and personalized outreach—an investment that can pay off quickly.Ultimately, winning in the SCNC market means meeting adults where they are with distinct strategies. The opportunity is real, but it demands realistic expectations and a specialized approach.

Four-year institutions have long regarded the “Some College, No Credential (SCNC)” market as a potential boon to enrollment. Headlines boast its potential: 37.6 million adults under age 65 — nearly one in six American adults — have completed some college courses but hold no credential.  But recent data from the  National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) forces a reality check. Of this enormous population, just 2.7% re-enrolled last year. Additionally, these adults are increasingly credential-agnostic: only 28% of SCNC re-enrollees pursued bachelor's degrees, while many opted for shorter, career-focused options. The question for institutions seeking a greater share of this market isn’t market size but whether their programs and outreach strategies truly align with what these learners actually want.  New Data From National Student ClearinghouseAccording to NSC, the overall “Some College No Credential” population grew 2% from 2022-2023, reaching 37.6 million in 2023-2024. A majority (58%) are adults aged 25 to 44 — prime career years when education decisions are tied directly to work and family realities.  Stopouts declined across nearly all sectors except private for-profit four-year and online institutions. Community colleges and online providers play a large role in the SCNC market due to their accessibility, flexibility, and affordability. One million SCNC adults re-enrolled in 2023-24, a 7% jump from the year prior — encouraging momentum but still 8% below 2019 pre-pandemic levels. Despite economic uncertainty and job insecurity, these numbers suggest a growing readiness to return, but perhaps on new terms.  Notably, 52% of re-enrollees in 2024 opted for associate degrees (52%), while just 28% pursued bachelor’s degrees. For many, the end goal isn't necessarily a four-year degree — it’s a credential that offers a clear and quick path to career advancement. Some College No Credential Re-Enrollment Figure 1 shows how re-enrolled students navigate credential pathways — often sticking with their original credential but with meaningful shifts that reveal how adults reassess goals once they return. 

Myth-Busting the Some College, No Credential Market

The Online Program Management (OPM) industry has weathered considerable criticism from policymakers and watchdogs in recent years, accused of misleading students, pursuing growth at all costs, and price gouging. Some companies have not survived, while others are leaner and diversified.&nbsp;&nbsp;The term “OPM” still carries a stigma, one that makes some faculty and administrators wary of outsourcing. Yet online remains a viable and necessary way to grow enrollment. Ignoring the online market is not an option for many schools.&nbsp;Perhaps the OPM sector needs a reset. By reframing OPMs through a human-centered lens, focused less on services and business models and more on students and faculty, there is potential to move beyond old perceptions and appeal to schools again.&nbsp;&nbsp; <h2>OPM Market Recap&nbsp;&nbsp;</h2>For those who haven’t been closely following these companies in recent years, the Biden Administration’s Department of Education had threatened to (but did not) revoke the bundled service exception to the incentive compensation ban. But some states have curtailed or regulated OPM partnerships.&nbsp;&nbsp;Minnesota, for example, banned tuition-sharing OPM partnerships that bundle marketing and recruitment, while Ohio now requires institutions to disclose OPM contracts publicly and ensure transparency in how OPM staff members interact with students.&nbsp;A coalition of non-profits and think tanks has created a “<a href="https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/online-program-manager-state-legislative-toolkit/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">State Legislative Toolkit</a>” to restrict OPMs at the state level. One group in the coalition supports lawsuits against institutions using OPM providers.&nbsp;Many OPMs are adopting fee-for-service models and elevating technology as the core of their offerings. Others have formed platforms, following the edX model. Here are some examples:&nbsp;<ul><li>The Australian branch of Keypath Education launched an “AI-enabled short course platform” for business professionals.&nbsp;</li><li>Following the rise of Guild and InStride, many OPMs now link employers with institutions to meet workforce learning goals and cut digital marketing costs.&nbsp;</li><li>Risepoint (formerly Academic Partnerships and Wiley University Services) announced multiple new and expanded partnerships, consolidating its top market position.&nbsp;</li><li>Meanwhile, 2U, for years the OPM market leader, has been quietly emerging from bankruptcy and managing lawsuits.&nbsp;</li></ul>With a diminished OPM market and growing expectations for institutions to build online capacity in-house: Do institutions still need these companies?&nbsp;<h2>Most Institutions Are Not Considering OPMs&nbsp;</h2>In CHLOE 9, just 10% of chief online officers (COLOs) at four-year schools indicated they were considering an OPM partnership (Figure 1), while a majority (59%) said they were not considering an OPM.&nbsp;

Figure 1.
 
This reflects the trend toward strengthening in-house capacity, building core competencies in online learning and turning to selective fee-for-service outsourcing only when needed—a reaction (in part) to the negative perceptions that have dogged the “OPM” label.&nbsp;
One could expect this market to fade if institutions slowed their plans for online growth. Yet new data from CHLOE 10 shows that nearly half of COLOs plan to launch between one and four new online programs in the next three years. In total, 88% of leaders expect to add programs.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Online leaders report that program growth is most often driven by online enrollment goals, but growing online enrollment can be challenging in the current environment, especially for leaders with limited resources. This points to a need for a strategic partner.&nbsp;
But leaders are torn: Use an OPM and face internal political fall-out or try to grow online programs and enrollment with insufficient resources.&nbsp;&nbsp;
<h2>The “OPM” Brand Problem&nbsp;</h2>
With the OPM industry regrouping, now is a good time to reevaluate this market and perhaps even the descriptor “Online Program Management,” which has become toxic in many higher education circles. Today, companies go out of their way to avoid the term. Some say, “online program enablement,” and HolonIQ once tried the broader “OPX” label referring to “the entire spectrum of services models supporting universities in the design, development, and delivery of online higher education.”&nbsp;
There is a strong case for reframing this market. Perhaps a broader categorization of Digital Program Enablement would fit the bill. “Digital” reflects the multimodal reality that students and institutions now experience, whereas “online” is confined to one end of the modality spectrum. And “enablement” emphasizes collaboration—augmenting and supporting current staff and faculty with additional expertise, personnel, or technology— countering the outsourcing impression left by “management.” Institutions still need to identify gaps and strategically outsource services and technology, but enabling an institution should be a core goal of a partnership.&nbsp;
Some “OPM” companies—like Human Capital Education (formerly Elsmere) and EducationDynamics—are ramping up research capabilities. Others, such as Archer Education, Collegis Education, and iDesign are promoting the benefits of leaving OPM partnerships while offering a similar set of services and technologies.&nbsp;Some of these companies did not fit neatly under the historic “OPM” label. “Digital Program Enablement” could be a more inclusive way of understanding companies that support digital strategy.&nbsp;
Often, OPMs are categorized by the services they provide or the business models they offer rather than by whom they support within an institution. The framework in Figure 2 takes a human-centered approach to thinking about these partnerships. It shows how these companies can support four main stakeholders—institutional leadership, staff and administrators, faculty—with students at the center (see Figure 2).&nbsp;&nbsp;

Figure 2.
 
Figure 2 illustrates how three institutional stakeholder groups are interconnected, each with distinct but often overlapping services and technologies that support digital programming. In the middle are students, since all work flows to benefit them. Inside each stakeholder box is an illustrative (though not comprehensive) list of services and technologies providing support to each group.&nbsp;
One stakeholder not represented in the framework is employers. As discussed earlier, some companies are increasingly catering to this group, given higher education’s dual role in preparing new employees and upskilling the existing workforce.&nbsp;
This framework acknowledges that these OPM and OPM-adjacent companies are rarely just enrollment partners. For institutions, this means rethinking not only who they partner with but how they add value to digital program offerings.&nbsp;&nbsp;
<h2>The Bottom Line&nbsp;</h2>
“OPM” once implied a specific business model, service mix, or company origin. The long-standing recipe of bundling recruitment, marketing, and other services in a revenue-share model, while still popular with a shrinking minority of institutions, is no longer sufficiently descriptive of how these companies have evolved. The “Digital Program Enablement” terminology might not catch on, but the framework offers a more accurate and flexible lens.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Today, it’s about enabling digital capacity across the institution by supporting students and faculty, leveraging data and technology, and engaging employers. That broader scope, stepping back from business-model and bundling debates, raises the stakes and the opportunity.&nbsp;&nbsp;
As leaders aim to grow enrollment amid tightening budgets and intensifying competition, and they weigh the possibilities of partnership, they should ask some fundamental questions: How can this company support my staff, faculty, and students? And how can this company enable our institutional digital strategy?

Symbol

The Online Program Management (OPM) industry has weathered considerable criticism from policymakers and watchdogs in recent years, accused of misleading students, pursuing growth at all costs, and price gouging. Some companies have not survived, while others are leaner and diversified.  The term “OPM” still carries a stigma, one that makes some faculty and administrators wary of outsourcing. Yet online remains a viable and necessary way to grow enrollment. Ignoring the online market is not an option for many schools. Perhaps the OPM sector needs a reset. By reframing OPMs through a human-centered lens, focused less on services and business models and more on students and faculty, there is potential to move beyond old perceptions and appeal to schools again.  
OPM Market Recap  For those who haven’t been closely following these companies in recent years, the Biden Administration’s Department of Education had threatened to (but did not) revoke the bundled service exception to the incentive compensation ban. But some states have curtailed or regulated OPM partnerships.  Minnesota, for example, banned tuition-sharing OPM partnerships that bundle marketing and recruitment, while Ohio now requires institutions to disclose OPM contracts publicly and ensure transparency in how OPM staff members interact with students. A coalition of non-profits and think tanks has created a “ State Legislative Toolkit” to restrict OPMs at the state level. One group in the coalition supports lawsuits against institutions using OPM providers. Many OPMs are adopting fee-for-service models and elevating technology as the core of their offerings. Others have formed platforms, following the  edX model. Here are some examples: The Australian branch of  Keypath Education launched an “AI-enabled short course platform” for business professionals. Following the rise of  Guild and  InStride, many OPMs now link employers with institutions to meet workforce learning goals and cut digital marketing costs. Risepoint (formerly Academic Partnerships and Wiley University Services) announced multiple new and expanded partnerships, consolidating its top market position. Meanwhile,  2U, for years the OPM market leader, has been quietly emerging from bankruptcy and managing lawsuits. With a diminished OPM market and growing expectations for institutions to build online capacity in-house: Do institutions still need these companies? Most Institutions Are Not Considering OPMs In CHLOE 9, just 10% of chief online officers (COLOs) at four-year schools indicated they were considering an OPM partnership (Figure 1), while a majority (59%) said they were not considering an OPM. ,Figure 1.


This reflects the trend toward strengthening in-house capacity, building core competencies in online learning and turning to selective fee-for-service outsourcing only when needed—a reaction (in part) to the negative perceptions that have dogged the “OPM” label. 
One could expect this market to fade if institutions slowed their plans for online growth. Yet new data from CHLOE 10 shows that nearly half of COLOs plan to launch between one and four new online programs in the next three years. In total, 88% of leaders expect to add programs.  
Online leaders report that program growth is most often driven by online enrollment goals, but growing online enrollment can be challenging in the current environment, especially for leaders with limited resources. This points to a need for a strategic partner. 
But leaders are torn: Use an OPM and face internal political fall-out or try to grow online programs and enrollment with insufficient resources.  
The “OPM” Brand Problem 
With the OPM industry regrouping, now is a good time to reevaluate this market and perhaps even the descriptor “Online Program Management,” which has become toxic in many higher education circles. Today, companies go out of their way to avoid the term. Some say, “online program enablement,” and HolonIQ once tried the broader “OPX” label referring to “the entire spectrum of services models supporting universities in the design, development, and delivery of online higher education.” 
There is a strong case for reframing this market. Perhaps a broader categorization of  Digital Program Enablement would fit the bill. “Digital” reflects the multimodal reality that students and institutions now experience, whereas “online” is confined to one end of the modality spectrum. And “enablement” emphasizes collaboration—augmenting and supporting current staff and faculty with additional expertise, personnel, or technology— countering the outsourcing impression left by “management.” Institutions still need to identify gaps and strategically outsource services and technology, but enabling an institution should be a core goal of a partnership. 
Some “OPM” companies—like  Human Capital Education (formerly Elsmere) and  EducationDynamics—are ramping up research capabilities. Others, such as  Archer Education,  Collegis Education, and  iDesign are promoting the benefits of leaving OPM partnerships while offering a similar set of services and technologies. Some of these companies did not fit neatly under the historic “OPM” label. “Digital Program Enablement” could be a more inclusive way of understanding companies that support digital strategy. 
Often, OPMs are categorized by the  services they provide or the  business models they offer rather than by whom they  support within an institution. The framework in Figure 2 takes a human-centered approach to thinking about these partnerships. It shows how these companies can support four main stakeholders—institutional leadership, staff and administrators, faculty—with students at the center (see Figure 2).  
,Figure 2.


Figure 2 illustrates how three institutional stakeholder groups are interconnected, each with distinct but often overlapping services and technologies that support digital programming. In the middle are students, since all work flows to benefit them. Inside each stakeholder box is an illustrative (though not comprehensive) list of services and technologies providing support to each group. 
One stakeholder not represented in the framework is employers. As discussed earlier, some companies are increasingly catering to this group, given higher education’s dual role in preparing new employees and upskilling the existing workforce. 
This framework acknowledges that these OPM and OPM-adjacent companies are rarely just enrollment partners. For institutions, this means rethinking not only who they partner with but how they add value to digital program offerings.  
The Bottom Line 
“OPM” once implied a specific business model, service mix, or company origin. The long-standing recipe of bundling recruitment, marketing, and other services in a revenue-share model, while still popular with a shrinking minority of institutions, is no longer sufficiently descriptive of how these companies have evolved. The “Digital Program Enablement” terminology might not catch on, but the framework offers a more accurate and flexible lens.  
Today, it’s about enabling digital capacity across the institution by supporting students and faculty, leveraging data and technology, and engaging employers. That broader scope, stepping back from business-model and bundling debates, raises the stakes and the opportunity.  
As leaders aim to grow enrollment amid tightening budgets and intensifying competition, and they weigh the possibilities of partnership, they should ask some fundamental questions: How can this company support my staff, faculty, and students? And how can this company enable our institutional digital strategy?


The Online Program Management (OPM) industry has weathered considerable criticism from policymakers and watchdogs in recent years, accused of misleading students, pursuing growth at all costs, and price gouging. Some companies have not survived, while others are leaner and diversified.  The term “OPM” still carries a stigma, one that makes some faculty and administrators wary of outsourcing. Yet online remains a viable and necessary way to grow enrollment. Ignoring the online market is not an option for many schools. Perhaps the OPM sector needs a reset. By reframing OPMs through a human-centered lens, focused less on services and business models and more on students and faculty, there is potential to move beyond old perceptions and appeal to schools again.  
OPM Market Recap  For those who haven’t been closely following these companies in recent years, the Biden Administration’s Department of Education had threatened to (but did not) revoke the bundled service exception to the incentive compensation ban. But some states have curtailed or regulated OPM partnerships.  Minnesota, for example, banned tuition-sharing OPM partnerships that bundle marketing and recruitment, while Ohio now requires institutions to disclose OPM contracts publicly and ensure transparency in how OPM staff members interact with students. A coalition of non-profits and think tanks has created a “ State Legislative Toolkit” to restrict OPMs at the state level. One group in the coalition supports lawsuits against institutions using OPM providers. Many OPMs are adopting fee-for-service models and elevating technology as the core of their offerings. Others have formed platforms, following the  edX model. Here are some examples: The Australian branch of  Keypath Education launched an “AI-enabled short course platform” for business professionals. Following the rise of  Guild and  InStride, many OPMs now link employers with institutions to meet workforce learning goals and cut digital marketing costs. Risepoint (formerly Academic Partnerships and Wiley University Services) announced multiple new and expanded partnerships, consolidating its top market position. Meanwhile,  2U, for years the OPM market leader, has been quietly emerging from bankruptcy and managing lawsuits. With a diminished OPM market and growing expectations for institutions to build online capacity in-house: Do institutions still need these companies? Most Institutions Are Not Considering OPMs In CHLOE 9, just 10% of chief online officers (COLOs) at four-year schools indicated they were considering an OPM partnership (Figure 1), while a majority (59%) said they were not considering an OPM. 

Reimagining the OPM Market: A Human-Centered Framework

The MBA has long been the cornerstone of graduate education, conferring over 100,000 degrees a year for over a decade. It’s also one of the most popular online offerings—70% of MBA programs were fully online by 2023, up from just 50% in 2016.&nbsp;And demand remains strong: 64% of business schools reported online MBA application growth in 2024, according to the Graduate Management Admission Council, provider of the GMAT.&nbsp;But in a saturated market, differentiation is tough—and price is emerging as a key battleground. So, what are online MBA prospects willing to pay, and how does that align with program pricing?&nbsp; No single degree program has seen greater online adoption than the MBA (except perhaps the RN-BSN), aided in part by the Online Program Management industry that helped to launch these programs en masse.&nbsp;While online MBA programs are as varied as the institutions that offer them, most online master’s degree prospects indicate “affordable tuition and fees” as the feature they care about most when evaluating a program. The question is, what does affordability mean to these prospects?&nbsp;&nbsp;<h2>Price Expectation vs. Price Reality&nbsp;&nbsp;</h2>Figure 1 shows the difference between the price online master’s in business prospects are willing to pay and actual tuition prices of online MBA programs. It’s important to note that these prospects are asked how much they would pay “out of pocket” so some could expect employer benefits and institutional grants/scholarships to defray the cost.&nbsp;With that in mind, Figure 1 shows that a sizable number (30%) would only pay up to $10,000 out-of-pocket … but don’t slash your online MBA tuition just yet. Only 1% of online MBA programs are actually priced that low.&nbsp;Another 36% of prospective students are willing to pay between $10,000 and $30,000, and 61% of online MBA programs are priced within this range.&nbsp;

Figure 1.
Among pricier online MBA programs, 39% charge over $30,000 in tuition, which exceeds what 28% of prospective students are willing to pay. While it may be good news that there are prospects willing to pay over $50,000 for an online MBA, it is a small audience.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Overall, the data highlights a gap between what prospects expect and what the market delivers, prompting a closer look at which institutional types tend to have higher total tuition.&nbsp;
<h2>Online MBA Segmentation and Price&nbsp;</h2>
Further analysis of the online MBA program price data reveals differences by institutional type, ranking, and business accreditation. Figure 2 shows online MBA program price range (minimum and maximum), the middle 50% range, and the median (red dot).

Figure 2.
While total tuition for online MBA programs ranges widely—from just under $8,000 to more than $130,000—half of all programs fall between $20,000 and $35,000 (the middle 50%). Nationally, the median tuition is $25,380, and the average is $30,781. When segmenting online MBA programs by ranking, and institution type, clear pricing differences emerge.&nbsp;&nbsp;
<ul>
 <li>Top ranked institutions in the top 100 by U.S. News &amp; World Report (USNWR) offer online MBAs that are by far the most expensive, with median tuition of about $62,000 and a 75th percentile of nearly $94,000. These programs carry a significant premium, reflecting the value placed on institutional prestige.&nbsp;</li>
 <li>AACSB-accredited programs also trend higher in program cost, with a median tuition of about $32,000. This reflects the perceived rigor and quality associated with the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accreditation.&nbsp;</li>
 <li>Public universities offer broad value with median tuition of $26,000, which is close to the national median of $25,000. Notably, 71% of public institutions now charge a single online rate instead of basing tuition on the student’s state of residency.&nbsp;&nbsp;</li>
 <li>For-profit institutions have some of the oldest online MBA programs with the lowest median tuition ($23,000) and the lowest maximum tuition of $40,500, which shows a targeted effort to attract cost-conscious students.&nbsp;</li>
 <li>Private nonprofits with no business accreditation fall at the lower end of the price spectrum with middle 50% ranging from a price of $18,000 to $25,000, indicating limited pricing power without key institution and accreditation factors.&nbsp;</li>
</ul>
&nbsp;
Assessing how an institution compares with others at the national, state, or regional level is a critical first step. From there, programs must decide how to position themselves: either by competing on cost, or by demonstrating the value, outcomes, and distinctiveness that justify a higher price.&nbsp;&nbsp;
<h2>The Bottom Line&nbsp;</h2>
As schools have added online MBA programs, MBA conferrals have not changed dramatically. This suggests that online MBA programs are drawing students away from campus-based programs rather than growing the overall market.&nbsp;&nbsp;
But changes could be on the horizon. Labor market volatility could be a boost for this market and ease pricing pressures. At the same time, the elimination of GRAD Plus loans starting in 2026 may force higher-priced programs to reevaluate pricing and positioning.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Only time will tell.&nbsp;
For now, institutions are exploring a range of strategies to stand out—from adding unique concentrations to offering accelerated completion options to emphasizing faculty with industry connections.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Price remains a primary factor for many prospective students, and the market remains segmented into distinct pricing tiers by institution type and accreditation. Institutions will also need to more intentionally measure and communicate outcomes—career advancement, salary gains, employability—to justify their prices and to distinguish themselves in a market showing increasing signs of commoditization.

The MBA has long been the cornerstone of graduate education, conferring over 100,000 degrees a year for over a decade. It’s also one of the most popular online offerings—70% of MBA programs were fully online by 2023, up from just 50% in 2016. And demand remains strong: 64% of business schools reported online MBA application growth in 2024, according to the Graduate Management Admission Council, provider of the GMAT. But in a saturated market, differentiation is tough—and price is emerging as a key battleground. So, what are online MBA prospects willing to pay, and how does that align with program pricing? 
No single degree program has seen greater online adoption than the MBA (except perhaps the RN-BSN), aided in part by the Online Program Management industry that helped to launch these programs en masse. While online MBA programs are as varied as the institutions that offer them, most online master’s degree prospects indicate “affordable tuition and fees” as the feature they care about most when evaluating a program. The question is, what does affordability mean to these prospects?  Price Expectation vs. Price Reality  Figure 1 shows the difference between the price online master’s in business prospects are willing to pay and actual tuition prices of online MBA programs. It’s important to note that these prospects are asked how much they would pay “out of pocket” so some could expect employer benefits and institutional grants/scholarships to defray the cost. With that in mind, Figure 1 shows that a sizable number (30%) would only pay up to $10,000 out-of-pocket … but don’t slash your online MBA tuition just yet. Only 1% of online MBA programs are actually priced that low. Another 36% of prospective students are willing to pay between $10,000 and $30,000, and 61% of online MBA programs are priced within this range. 

What Are Today’s Students Willing To Pay for an Online MBA?

When ChatGPT became mainstream in 2022, colleges and universities immediately worried about the potential for plagiarism. But generative AI offers other opportunities, too, including aiding in college search.&nbsp;&nbsp;According to the Eduventures 2025 Student Sentiment Research™, only about 16% of college-bound high school students have used generative AI to learn about colleges. But this number has increased from 12% in 2024, indicating we might be at the dawn of a new search era.&nbsp;&nbsp;Just as early adopters of social media 15 years ago speculated about what role it would eventually play in college search, it is time to explore the growing role of ChatGPT and other language models.&nbsp;While still a novelty in college search, many students have discovered the benefit of getting quick answers to their most pressing questions about college from AI—even if these answers can’t always be trusted. As one student in our 2025 Student Sentiment Research discovered: “ChatGPT lies to you sometimes so I don’t know if I can ever believe what it’s telling me.”&nbsp;Some were kind enough to share with us some typical questions they would ask ChatGPT about college. Here are the top six prompt themes students shared with Eduventures:&nbsp;<h2>1.) College Selection and Comparisons&nbsp;</h2>As one of the most common prompts, many students asked ChatGPT for side-by-side comparisons of factors such as cost and campus culture, pros and cons of different institutions or of institutional types, and recommendations based on GPA or interests. Examples include:&nbsp;“What kind of sports, scholarships, job outcomes, and financial aid is available at WSU compared to CBC?”&nbsp;“I am looking to see if there is a school in Georgia that has amazing facilities such as classroom space, gyms, rankings, &amp; also that has great exceeding athletics.”&nbsp;<h2>2.) Major Selection&nbsp;</h2>Academic program selection and ideas on the best-fit institutions for specific fields are also common themes among students. These queries include major exploration and major-specific institutional comparisons. Examples include:&nbsp;“Which colleges in Florida do you suggest that I attend when I want to major in Chemistry and also pursue study abroad?”&nbsp;“What are the most and least popular majors at USC in the cinematic arts school?&nbsp;<h2>3.) Career Preparation and Outcomes&nbsp;</h2>Closely related to major exploration are, of course, career preparation and outcomes. These questions include career pathways, specific job outcomes, and the best majors for specific careers. For example:&nbsp;“What major would be most helpful in entering the Fashion Marketing industry after college?”&nbsp;“What is a good school to go to Lock Heed Martin?”&nbsp;“Do I need college if I wanna become an actor?”&nbsp;<h2>4.) Cost, Scholarships, and Financial Aid&nbsp;</h2>Questions about college inevitably come back to the topic of cost. Students report asking ChatGPT for cost comparisons, affordable options, and specific scholarships—with many prompts that reveal misconceptions about the financial aid process. Examples include:&nbsp;“How much will I get from FAFSA?”&nbsp;“What is the average cost of living in a college dormitory?”&nbsp;“Give me scholarships I can apply for as an 18-year-old straight Caucasian male going to a Christian private university in Rochester NY.”&nbsp;<h2>5.) College Admissions Criteria&nbsp;</h2>Concerned about admissibility, many students report asking ChatGPT about realistic options for students with their academic profiles. This includes prompts about admissions requirements for specific institutions and application guidance in general. Examples include:&nbsp;“Based on my 3.9 GPA, please tell me any potential colleges that might accept me.”&nbsp;“How long is a typical essay in college?”&nbsp;“Based on my act scores will I be able to get into this college?”&nbsp;<h2>6.) Campus Life and the Student Experience&nbsp;</h2>While prospective student questions about student life vary, they reveal concerns about what life at college will be like. Prompts range from innocuous queries about daily life to specific worries. For example:&nbsp;“What does an average day on the UAF campus look like when you are majoring in English?”&nbsp;“Is college significantly harder?”&nbsp;“Is college life scary as it is in the movies for women?”&nbsp;Some of the most common queries—scholarship search, college exploration, and admissions chances—are addressed by other AI powered tools as well. And students tell us they use these more than more general language models like ChatGPT. According to our research, 35% of prospective students say they’ve used scholarship search engines, 33% have used college matching tools, and 24% have used admissions calculators.&nbsp;&nbsp;Compared to these numbers, language models like ChatGPT remain on the fringes of college search—for now. But they are notably more frequently used than institution-provided chatbots, offering a convenient “one stop shop” to answering all questions students might have. You may be wondering if they will be the future, potentially replacing the institutional website?&nbsp;The short answer is no, but they may require we evolve our approach to the institutional website—perhaps a topic for a future Wake-Up Call.&nbsp;<h2>The Bottom Line&nbsp;</h2>While generative AI is gaining traction among college-bound students, it will not remain on the margins for long, especially for college exploration. Our data shows that those who have used these tools generally prefer them to more traditional sources.&nbsp;&nbsp;Institutions that want to stay relevant should review their outreach practices:&nbsp;<ul><li>Answer prospective students’ questions before they ask them. Students gravitate to ChatGPT to find quick answers as they begin college searches. The themes outlined in this post provide a roadmap for the most common questions they ask. Ensure that you proactively provide answers through email, social platforms, print mail, and other channels. And, of course, be sure to keep the tone positive and encouraging, just like ChatGPT.&nbsp;</li><li>Review your institutional website. While students may use generative AI for quick answers, your website is still a key resource throughout recruitment. Prospects, applicants, and parents routinely visit for information. Ensure your site offers clear navigation, up-to-date content, and easy access.&nbsp;&nbsp;</li><li>Prioritize quality website content and SEO. If generative AI doesn't mention your institution, you will lose visibility with prospects. Generative AI learns by scraping websites, so make sure your site has accurate information and is optimized to rank highly in search results.&nbsp;</li></ul>

When ChatGPT became mainstream in 2022, colleges and universities immediately worried about the potential for plagiarism. But generative AI offers other opportunities, too, including aiding in college search.  According to the Eduventures 2025 Student Sentiment Research™, only about 16% of college-bound high school students have used generative AI to learn about colleges. But this number has increased from 12% in 2024, indicating we might be at the dawn of a new search era.  Just as early adopters of social media 15 years ago speculated about what role it would eventually play in college search, it is time to explore the growing role of ChatGPT and other language models. While still a novelty in college search, many students have discovered the benefit of getting quick answers to their most pressing questions about college from AI—even if these answers can’t always be trusted. As one student in our 2025 Student Sentiment Research discovered: “ ChatGPT lies to you sometimes so I don’t know if I can ever believe what it’s telling me.” Some were kind enough to share with us some typical questions they would ask ChatGPT about college. Here are the top six prompt themes students shared with Eduventures: 1.) College Selection and Comparisons As one of the most common prompts, many students asked ChatGPT for side-by-side comparisons of factors such as cost and campus culture, pros and cons of different institutions or of institutional types, and recommendations based on GPA or interests. Examples include: “What kind of sports, scholarships, job outcomes, and financial aid is available at WSU compared to CBC?” “I am looking to see if there is a school in Georgia that has amazing facilities such as classroom space, gyms, rankings,  also that has great exceeding athletics.” 2.) Major Selection Academic program selection and ideas on the best-fit institutions for specific fields are also common themes among students. These queries include major exploration and major-specific institutional comparisons. Examples include: “Which colleges in Florida do you suggest that I attend when I want to major in Chemistry and also pursue study abroad?” “What are the most and least popular majors at USC in the cinematic arts school? 3.) Career Preparation and Outcomes Closely related to major exploration are, of course, career preparation and outcomes. These questions include career pathways, specific job outcomes, and the best majors for specific careers. For example: “What major would be most helpful in entering the Fashion Marketing industry after college?” “What is a good school to go to Lock Heed Martin?” “Do I need college if I wanna become an actor?” 4.) Cost, Scholarships, and Financial Aid Questions about college inevitably come back to the topic of cost. Students report asking ChatGPT for cost comparisons, affordable options, and specific scholarships—with many prompts that reveal misconceptions about the financial aid process. Examples include: “How much will I get from FAFSA?” “What is the average cost of living in a college dormitory?” “Give me scholarships I can apply for as an 18-year-old straight Caucasian male going to a Christian private university in Rochester NY.” 5.) College Admissions Criteria Concerned about admissibility, many students report asking ChatGPT about realistic options for students with their academic profiles. This includes prompts about admissions requirements for specific institutions and application guidance in general. Examples include: “Based on my 3.9 GPA, please tell me any potential colleges that might accept me.” “How long is a typical essay in college?” “Based on my act scores will I be able to get into this college?” 6.) Campus Life and the Student Experience While prospective student questions about student life vary, they reveal concerns about what life at college will be like. Prompts range from innocuous queries about daily life to specific worries. For example: “What does an average day on the UAF campus look like when you are majoring in English?” “Is college significantly harder?” “Is college life scary as it is in the movies for women?” Some of the most common queries—scholarship search, college exploration, and admissions chances—are addressed by other AI powered tools as well. And students tell us they use these more than more general language models like ChatGPT. According to our research, 35% of prospective students say they’ve used scholarship search engines, 33% have used college matching tools, and 24% have used admissions calculators.  Compared to these numbers, language models like ChatGPT remain on the fringes of college search—for now. But they are notably more frequently used than institution-provided chatbots, offering a convenient “one stop shop” to answering all questions students might have. You may be wondering if they will be the future, potentially replacing the institutional website? The short answer is no, but they may require we evolve our approach to the institutional website—perhaps a topic for a future Wake-Up Call. The Bottom Line While generative AI is gaining traction among college-bound students, it will not remain on the margins for long, especially for college exploration. Our data shows that those who have used these tools generally prefer them to more traditional sources.  Institutions that want to stay relevant should review their outreach practices: Answer prospective students’ questions before they ask them. Students gravitate to ChatGPT to find quick answers as they begin college searches. The themes outlined in this post provide a roadmap for the most common questions they ask. Ensure that you proactively provide answers through email, social platforms, print mail, and other channels. And, of course, be sure to keep the tone positive and encouraging, just like ChatGPT. Review your institutional website. While students may use generative AI for quick answers, your website is still a key resource throughout recruitment. Prospects, applicants, and parents routinely visit for information. Ensure your site offers clear navigation, up-to-date content, and easy access.  Prioritize quality website content and SEO. If generative AI doesn't mention your institution, you will lose visibility with prospects. Generative AI learns by scraping websites, so make sure your site has accurate information and is optimized to rank highly in search results. 

The Top 6 Things High School Students Ask ChatGPT About College

The webinar explores recent data on changing perspectives of adult and graduate students towards education in 2024, offering insights into adapting digital marketing strategies to effectively engage this demographic and boost recruitment efforts.

Digitally Engaging Grad and Adult Learners to Strengthen Recruitment

Explore the landscape of online higher education as we delve into market trends, student characteristics, and enrollment predictions. Gain insights to enhance your institution’s online programs and recruitment strategies. 

Sign up for upcoming  webinars and explore ondemand webinars

Online Higher Education Market Update: Consolidation, Demographics, & Outcomes

Eduventures Adult Prospect Research data suggests important changes in how prospective graduate students are thinking about education in 2024.

Recruiting Today’s Graduate Students: Master’s Market Insights & Future-Proof Strategies

Breadcrumbs

Wake Up Call Category Nav

Columns

The Wake-Up Call is a weekly analysis of higher education research, news and survey data, as well as industry events, and insider perspectives.

Latest

Latest

The Latest Bachelor’s Field of Study Trends

Featured

Featured Webinars

Recent posts

Like, Follow, Share.

Latest

‌

Latest

The Latest Bachelor’s Field of Study Trends

Featured

Featured Webinars

Recent posts

Like, Follow, Share.