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. 


Wake Up Calls Navbar Items

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?

Today’s prospective students are surrounded by more information and opinions than ever as they consider colleges. Yet, when it comes down to making a choice, people still matter most. The Eduventures Admitted Student Research™ shows that 86% of college-bound high school students cite at least one individual as influential in their college decision making.  This week’s  Wake-Up Call™ looks at the people behind the process—family, friends, counselors, and others—and explores how students perceive their influence. What roles do these individuals play, and how should institutions think about including them in outreach? Influence and Trust Eduventures research tracks both the influence and trust students assign to different roles in college search. By pairing insights from our  Admitted Student Research (who influenced the college choice) with our  Student Sentiment Research™ (trusted college resources), we gain a richer picture of how people shape enrollment decisions. The result is four key roles, explored in Figure 1:  Champions: Higher Influence, Higher Trust (Parents, Peers/Friends, Current Students, Alumni) Advocates: Higher Trust, Lower Influence (School Counselors, Admissions Counselors) Peripheral Players: Lower Influence, Lower Trust (Teachers, Extended Family, Others) Anomalies: Higher Influence, Lower Trust  
,Figure 1 shows how trust and influence don’t always play out the way one might expect.  Parents  Peers/Friends are the clear frontrunners when it comes to influence. This group is also highest when it comes to trust, making them “Champions” of college choice among prospective students. Current Students  Alumni are also in the top right quadrant—notably rivaling admissions counselors in terms of trust.  But there is a clear standout when it comes to trusted sources of college information: School Counselors. Both School Counselors and Admissions Counselors fall within the “Advocates” quadrant, garnering the highest levels of trust among all roles, although less influence than parents, peers, and current students. “Peripheral Players”  also shape student decisions, but their impact varies more widely across groups. Their influence depends on factors like institution type or student background. While not as consistently powerful as parents, peers, or counselors, these roles still matter—and for some students, they can make a decisive difference . Finally, the “Anomalies” quadrant is noticeably empty. Clearly, anyone who is highly influential in the college search is also highly trusted.  Trust Varies by Background While Parents and Peers/Friends dominate overall, student access factors (students from low-income households, first-generation college students, students from historically underrepresented racial groups) shift the picture in Figure 2.
,When segmenting by student access factors, a different view of influencers comes into focus. Students with no access factors leaned most heavily on parents/guardians, peers/friends and current students and alumni. Students with multiple access factors reported higher influence from teachers, school counselors, and admissions counselors. This finding underscores an important nuance: While all students value close personal networks, students from historically underrepresented populations are more likely to look more to education professionals for guidance. What This Means for Institutions Each role has a unique place in enrollment strategy:  Parents/Guardians are the most influential voices. With 92% open to direct communication from colleges (according to the Eduventures 2025 Prospective Parent Research™), engaging parents isn’t optional—it’s essential. Well-informed parents amplify institutional messages and boost student confidence. Peers/Friends, however, are a more elusive group, since they’re often in the midst of their own college searches. Institutions can leverage student announcements, commitment celebrations, and social sharing to fuel peer-to-peer conversation. Current Students  Alumni are storytellers who bring the campus experience to life. Current students are particularly powerful, while alumni connect institutional value to real-world outcomes. School  Admissions Counselors are trusted advocates who play an outsized role for students facing systemic barriers. Strengthening counselor relationships can broaden access and trust with diverse student groups. Professors have influence when students have access. Creating connections and visibility to professors in ways that meet prospective students where they are allows these important roles to have broader impact. The Bottom Line When it comes to choosing a college, students rarely decide alone. Two groups emerge as both highly trusted and highly influential: Parents and Peers/Friends, and Current Students and Alumni. While these roles are important to all, a student’s background may lead them to lean on people differently, with students from underrepresented student populations more frequently finding influence from education professionals.  The most effective enrollment strategies build multi-layered relationships: empowering parents, activating peers, amplifying student and alumni voices, and equipping education professionals with the right tools. In short, influence is shared—outreach should be too. 


Today’s prospective students are surrounded by more information and opinions than ever as they consider colleges. Yet, when it comes down to making a choice, people still matter most. The Eduventures Admitted Student Research™ shows that 86% of college-bound high school students cite at least one individual as influential in their college decision making.  This week’s  Wake-Up Call™ looks at the people behind the process—family, friends, counselors, and others—and explores how students perceive their influence. What roles do these individuals play, and how should institutions think about including them in outreach? Influence and Trust Eduventures research tracks both the influence and trust students assign to different roles in college search. By pairing insights from our  Admitted Student Research (who influenced the college choice) with our  Student Sentiment Research™ (trusted college resources), we gain a richer picture of how people shape enrollment decisions. The result is four key roles, explored in Figure 1:  Champions: Higher Influence, Higher Trust (Parents, Peers/Friends, Current Students, Alumni) Advocates: Higher Trust, Lower Influence (School Counselors, Admissions Counselors) Peripheral Players: Lower Influence, Lower Trust (Teachers, Extended Family, Others) Anomalies: Higher Influence, Lower Trust  


Who To Turn To: The Roles Impacting Students’ College Choices

As competition intensifies, many institutions are experimenting with new admissions practices—such as direct admissions—or rethinking policies left over from the COVID era, like hastily-adopted test optional approaches. But how effective are these changes, really? To help answer that, let’s turn to a group of expert “judges” in the process—parents. Not only are they influential in application decisions, but they often foot the bill. So, what do parents think of your admissions practices? 
Show Me the Money The Eduventures 2025 Prospective Parent Research™—conducted each fall with parents of college-bound high school students nationwide—examines the factors that shape how parents view the institutions their children should consider. Notably, 62% of these parents believe they have at least equal influence over where their children apply. While reputation is shaped by many elements, we asked: Does the admissions process itself play a role? Figure 1 below highlights how parents perceive institutions that employ specific admissions practices.
,Figure 1.

Overall, most parents have a neutral to positive perception of institutions that use the admissions practices featured in Figure 1. This is particularly true of institutions that  award merit scholarships at the time of admission. In fact, about half of all parents  expect their children to receive merit-based aid, trailing slightly behind need-based aid expectations. More might secretly  hope for it.  For parents, merit-based aid represents more than financial relief—it’s a sign that the institution recognizes and values their children’s hard work and achievements. This acknowledgment leaves parents with a positive impression of the school. In many ways, this expectation has been cultivated by higher education itself. Years of a high-tuition/high-discount model have trained families to anticipate substantial aid, with merit awards now seen as a standard part of the process. Institutions with  rolling admissions also earn positive marks from parents. Rigid application deadlines create stress not only for college administrators but for families as well, and rolling admissions offers welcome flexibility in the process. Even  direct admissions—a relatively new and less familiar practice among families—receives largely positive reviews from parents. Overall, few changes to the admissions process appear likely to generate significant pushback from families. Attention should be given, however, to  test optional or test blind practices. Institutions that do not require test scores or do not consider them in admissions decisions garner the least positive reactions from parents. Perhaps this is due to the reversal of these policies at some top-tier institutions in recent years.  On the flip side, parents are not especially enthusiastic about institutions that weigh  standardized test scores in admissions (49% approval, compared to 41% for test-optional or test-blind policies). Perceptions also vary by the types of schools parents prefer. Table 1 highlights which parent groups expressed the most positive—and the most negative—views of specific admissions practices by institutional type. Table 1. Most Positive and Negative Perceptions of Admissions Practices by Institutional Preference ,Table 1
As Table 1 shows, parents who prefer  private, secular institutions tend to view most admissions practices positively—aside from test-optional and test-blind policies. In contrast, parents favoring  religious institutions are more critical, particularly of test-optional, test-blind, and direct admissions. Still, even through the lens of institutional preference, negative perceptions are proportionally rare.  
Standardized testing policies emerge as the most polarizing issue. They may also be the most confusing for parents, since the meaning of “test-optional” or “test-blind” can vary widely by institution and is not always communicated clearly. 
So where do parents stand when it comes to standardized testing? When we asked which factors parents believe institutions should focus on when evaluating their children’s applications, standardized test scores played an important role, but two other factors were rated higher (Figure 2). 
,Figure 2.


Two-thirds of parents believe high school GPA should play a deciding role in admissions, while 42% say test scores should be considered. This indicates that parents place greater value on their children’s sustained efforts across high school than on performance from a single test day. Far fewer, however, want institutions to weigh course rigor or class rank in the evaluation.  
Parents, it seems, want their children evaluated as individuals rather than strictly measured against peers. They believe GPA should carry weight as a reflection of achievement, but they also place high importance on character and personal qualities—the second most valued factor in admissions. 
The Bottom Line 
No matter the admissions practice, most parents tend to approve—if they pay attention at all. One possible exception is test-optional policies, which appear to have fallen out of favor. Overall, though, parents are less concerned with the fine print of your admissions processes and more focused on whether you recognize their children as the talented, hardworking individuals they are—and ideally in the form of merit aid. 
When it comes to getting parents to advocate for your institution, there are a few things to consider: 

  Prioritize transparency and timing of scholarship offers. Parents (and students!) believe their children have worked hard and deserve to be rewarded with merit aid. When possible, try to synch the timing of admissions and financial aid offers and be transparent about merit aid options and requirements. 
  Direct admissions can impact yield. Results vary but admitting non-applications can muddy the yield waters. Will families feel flattered that you expressed strong interest in their students? Yes, likely. Will this sway them toward your institution? It depends. As the practice spreads, you can sweeten the deal by sending scholarship offers along with the admissions notice. 
  Personalization is key in communications about admissions decisions. Of course, you don’t have to justify every admissions decision you make, but transparency about how you evaluate applicants and inclusion of holistic reviews can ease the anxiety families feel over the admissions process. 



As competition intensifies, many institutions are experimenting with new admissions practices—such as direct admissions—or rethinking policies left over from the COVID era, like hastily-adopted test optional approaches. But how effective are these changes, really? To help answer that, let’s turn to a group of expert “judges” in the process—parents. Not only are they influential in application decisions, but they often foot the bill. So, what do parents think of your admissions practices? 
Show Me the Money The Eduventures 2025 Prospective Parent Research™—conducted each fall with parents of college-bound high school students nationwide—examines the factors that shape how parents view the institutions their children should consider. Notably, 62% of these parents believe they have at least equal influence over where their children apply. While reputation is shaped by many elements, we asked: Does the admissions process itself play a role? Figure 1 below highlights how parents perceive institutions that employ specific admissions practices.


What Do Parents Think About Your College’s Admissions Practices?

While higher education has received a barrage of criticism about the value of the bachelor’s degree, non-degree credentials have been lauded for providing career-ready skills faster and cheaper. Seeing opportunity, institutions have rushed to serve this market.  But new research from Burning Glass Institute and American Enterprise Institute showed that just 12% of non-degree credentials delivered wage gains that they would not have received otherwise. Has the luster of the non-degree credential market already started to wane? What should institutions know about this promising but unpredictable market? Non-Degree Dominates the Credential Market  Eduventures previously  reported that the non-degree boom is real for graduate programming, although the market size and interest in master’s degrees still outweighs many non-degree alternatives. Non-degree alternatives have even greater potential to disrupt the undergraduate market, as most non-degree programs take less than a year compared to the two-or four-year commitments for a degree. Credential Engine, a non-profit focused on mapping the credential landscape,  counted nearly 1.1 million total credentials in 2022 across higher education, secondary education, and non-academic providers. See this credential breakdown in Figure 1.  
,Figure 1.


Degrees account for nearly 240,000 credentials, which means that nearly three-quarters of the 1.1 million credentials are non-degree offerings. Noncredit credentials, which are not regulated by Title IV funds, are the most prolific. These include bootcamps, programs on MOOC providers ( Coursera,  edX, etc.), online course completion certificates ( Udemy,  LinkedIn Learning, etc.), and digital badges ( Instructure,  Edalex, etc.).   Ultimately, non-degree credentials (skills-focused) outnumber degree credentials three to one, and the gap has been growing. But while non-degree credentials have boomed, has prospect interest kept up?  Putting Non-Degree Interest in Context Figure 2 shows interest levels in key non-degree credentials among undergraduate prospects (those with a high school diploma, some college- no credential, and associate degree holders) according to the Eduventures Adult Prospect Research™. ,Figure 2.


Figure 2 shows that interest among adult prospects with only a high school diploma has surged between 2022 and 2024, with noncredit credential preference nearly doubling (13% to 25%). Notably, this increase did come at the expense of degree options: both associate and bachelor’s degrees have remained essentially flat during these years. This data indicates that the shift may be away from vocational and technical training (29% in 2022 to 20% in 2024).  
This preference shift may result from perceptions of these credentials and the fact that noncredit alternatives are usually the quickest to complete. The National Student Clearinghouse reports that two-year public colleges have experienced annual growth in undergraduate certificate and diploma programs, also reflecting this shift.  
For prospects with some college credit (and an understanding of the college experience), we see small increases in preferences for noncredit courses and certificates (8% in 2022,12% in 2024), vocational and technical training (20%, 22%), and undergraduate certificates (6%, 7%). While interest has grown for these non-degree alternatives at the expense of degrees, the associate degree is still the most preferred credential (32% in 2024). 
A Non-Degree Mirage? 
New research from the  American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Burning Glass Institute (BGI) addresses outcomes of non-degree credentials. Assessing over 20,000 credentials evaluated across 65 million career records, they found that just 12% of credentials lead to significant wage gains that would not have happened otherwise. The best programs yield gains of nearly $5,000, improve upward mobility, and can help move people into aligned careers. The vast majority, however, are not delivering on key economic or career outcomes.  
Additionally, a  new report from Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) reveals that the U.S. could expect an  annual shortage of 712,000 certificates and associate degrees aligned with “high-paying middle-skills occupations” through 2032. These shortages fall into four occupation groups: blue-collar (360,800), management and professional office (253,000), STEM (87,500), and protective services (10,600). 
A key drawback of the CEW report, however, is that it only accounts for official certificates and associate degrees reported to IPEDS, which includes a minority of the total credential landscape. There is no doubt that more nimble nonacademic providers will step in to fill this gap—even more than they already have. 
Taken together, these reports underscore the potential for non-degree credentials to power our economy, but they also highlight the limitations of this market. Stronger, more systematic data transparency is needed. These programs should be intentionally designed to support career paths while raising awareness and providing education for those who may not benefit from traditional college routes, ensuring equity for every learner.  
The Bottom Line 
Following the rush to build new non-degree credentials, the collective reality is setting in about the quality of outcomes. The non-degree credential market has matured, with many moving parts for leaders to consider: 

  Workforce Pell. New legislation, which will go into effect July 2026, will expand Pell eligibility to learners and workers who want to pursue a short-term job training program. This change could drive more interest in vocational and technical training programs, but noncredit programs were not explicitly excluded. 
  Financial Value Transparency/Gainful Employment Update. While agreed upon during the Biden administration, new Gainful Employment reporting for the first year was delayed until this month. New rules extend to all institutions’ non-degree offerings that are Title IV eligible, which could push some institutions to reevaluate whether they should be eligible for Title IV funds. 
  State Opportunity Index. The Strada Education Foundation provides a snapshot of which states are making progress and falling short in creating outcome-driven education-to-career systems. One item in the  state opportunity index is the availability of data on non-degree and noncredit programs. 

As markets evolve, they typically segment to address the unique requirements of distinct audiences, and the nondegree market is no exception. For instance, a bachelor’s student may choose to enhance the curriculum with an undergraduate certificate to fulfill elective credits; a working professional may seek to stay updated and acquire new skills; and someone looking to change careers may pursue specialized credentials. 
A nondegree strategy remains an important way to build better outcomes, attract a new audience, and become more skills focused. While many institutions use nondegree credentials to experiment, it’s critical to understand your audience and what they expect to achieve with your program.


While higher education has received a barrage of criticism about the value of the bachelor’s degree, non-degree credentials have been lauded for providing career-ready skills faster and cheaper. Seeing opportunity, institutions have rushed to serve this market.  But new research from Burning Glass Institute and American Enterprise Institute showed that just 12% of non-degree credentials delivered wage gains that they would not have received otherwise. Has the luster of the non-degree credential market already started to wane? What should institutions know about this promising but unpredictable market? Non-Degree Dominates the Credential Market  Eduventures previously  reported that the non-degree boom is real for graduate programming, although the market size and interest in master’s degrees still outweighs many non-degree alternatives. Non-degree alternatives have even greater potential to disrupt the undergraduate market, as most non-degree programs take less than a year compared to the two-or four-year commitments for a degree. Credential Engine, a non-profit focused on mapping the credential landscape,  counted nearly 1.1 million total credentials in 2022 across higher education, secondary education, and non-academic providers. See this credential breakdown in Figure 1.  


The Non-Degree Market: Oasis or Mirage?

The class of 2025 was long been projected to be the largest in U.S. history. As we welcome the class of 2026 to our campuses, it is all downhill from here. But while institutions in some areas of the country are bracing for impact, others have been in free fall for a while. Many are looking to more demographically favorable out-of-state markets like Texas, Florida, and California, hoping to emulate the successes of other institutions in these markets. As we officially cross the demographic cliff this fall, where do we stand on regional demography? What does your institution need to know to develop the best out-of-state strategy? California Dreaming? High school demographics—past and future—vary by region. Figure 1 shows actual numbers of high school graduates from 2010 to 2024 followed by projected numbers in 2025. (Note: for ease of comparison, we will not get more granular than U.S. Census region, but it is worth noting that within these regions, graduation patterns vary.),Figure 1.


Figure 1 reveals that declining graduation trends started well before 2025—as early as 2010 in the  Midwest and  Northeast. In the  West, this trend began in 2020.  
Only in the  South, a large region spanning Delaware to Texas, has there been an increase in high school graduates that will continue for the next decade. The South also produces the greatest volume of high school graduates by far. Perhaps, institutions are right to target Texas and Florida in their out-of-state recruitment—many have been successful. 
But there are also several challenges with pinning your out-of-state strategy to demography alone. 
Not All Students Are Willing To Travel 
First, most students don’t stray far from home for college. According to the Eduventures Admitted Student Research™, the median distance first-year students traveled to college in 2024 was 81 miles in the Northeast, 106 miles in the South, 112 miles in the Midwest, and 609 miles in the West, which includes Hawaii and Alaska.  
Again, there is variation among the individual states within those regions. Figure 2 shows the median distance between school and home among Southern states. 
,Figure 2.

Figure 2 illustrates that half of college-bound seniors in Texas chose colleges that were about 168 miles from their homes. Given the size of Texas, this means that 78% of students stayed in their home state. And Florida students are slightly more grounded to their home state: the median distance to their enrollment institutions is a mere 53 miles, with 82% staying in-state. 
The Competition Is Getting Fierce  
The other increasing challenge with building recruitment pipelines in regions with favorable demography is that everybody is doing it. The popularity of these markets means that competition has become tight, not only for out-of-state institutions trying to recruit there but also in-state institutions trying to keep their students at home.  
Certainly, with the right investments and long-term strategies, many schools have built brand equity in geographically distant markets. Some institutions have made substantial investments, for instance, by placing local recruiters and establishing face-to-face relationships with local schools and students, many of which have paid off over time. 
But the harsh reality going forward is that there will be fewer high school graduates overall. Combined with the growing skepticism about the value of higher education, this means that institutions will compete for a shrinking pool of prospective students. And not all will meet their enrollment targets. To maintain—let alone grow—enrollment, institutions will have to take market share from their peers. 
More Colleges Will Close  
This means that college closures will accelerate in the next decade. Figure 3 shows that between 3-4% of not-for-profit institutions in the U.S. closed between 2010 and 2024, with some regional variation. 
The Northeast and Midwest, already in demographic decline, showed a higher rate of college closures compared to the West and South (Figure 3). 
,Figure 3.
The South, which saw a growth of 0.5% in its high school population, is not far behind the Northeast and Midwest in terms of the total number of closures (29 vs. 31). But if we consider closures as a percentage of the total number of institutions in the region, we see that the South experienced the smallest percentage of college closures between 2010 and 2024 (2.6% vs. 3.5-4.1%). And these closure figures may be optimistic, since they exclude college mergers for which national data is scarce.  The Bottom Line It’s not too late to prepare for weathering the storm. Self-aware institutions that invest wisely and stay the course have an opportunity to come out on the other side with a strong value proposition and brand. But the future is now, and preparation will require strategic work:  Understand and meet market expectations. Too often, institutions don’t spend enough time investigating how their offerings align with the expectations of their markets. Prospects are increasingly focused on value and outcomes and weigh college against other options. Gen Alpha and their Millennial parents are officially in the college pipeline. Savvy and self-aware institutions study their markets and adjust their offerings to their target audiences. Deliver on outcomes. Delivering solid outcomes for the students you currently serve can bolster your institution’s defense against the demographic decline by ensuring your current market continues to perceive your institution as a strong choice. Don’t underestimate the power of word-of-mouth reputation which, with alumni migration, has the potential to cross state borders.  Choose your out-of-state region wisely. Going after markets solely for their favorable demographics without considering other factors can lead to disappointment in the current environment. Consider carefully where to find students who are most likely to apply and enroll. Stay open to the possibility that this may be closer to home, even if demography suggests challenges. Carefully plan your entry into new markets—smart, informed investments and long-term thinking can lead to success. 

The class of 2025 was long been projected to be the largest in U.S. history. As we welcome the class of 2026 to our campuses, it is all downhill from here. But while institutions in some areas of the country are bracing for impact, others have been in free fall for a while. Many are looking to more demographically favorable out-of-state markets like Texas, Florida, and California, hoping to emulate the successes of other institutions in these markets. As we officially cross the demographic cliff this fall, where do we stand on regional demography? What does your institution need to know to develop the best out-of-state strategy? California Dreaming? High school demographics—past and future—vary by region. Figure 1 shows actual numbers of high school graduates from 2010 to 2024 followed by projected numbers in 2025. (Note: for ease of comparison, we will not get more granular than U.S. Census region, but it is worth noting that within these regions, graduation patterns vary.)

Regional Impacts of the Demographic Decline on Higher Education

State legislators have always cared about higher education—proudly cutting ribbons at new campus buildings and burnishing state aid programs—but have deferred to institutions on academic programming. A higher education coordinating board might oversee new program approvals, but senators were above the fray. No more.  In recent months, legislators in Indiana and Ohio have passed bills requiring state colleges and universities to eliminate low-enrollment programs. Utah cut college budgets by 10%, promising reinvestment in high-performing programs. Politics is a driver, but after years of program growth running ahead of enrollment, lawmakers may have a point.  Which state systems are vulnerable to the charge of “too many programs?” How are higher education leaders responding to these new directives, and is there opportunity amid the cuts? IOUIn March, the Utah Legislature cut $60 million or 10% of instructional funding at public colleges and universities. The money will be reinvested in programs that boost the regional economy and demonstrate good student outcomes. In response, University of Utah, the flagship, eliminated 94 programs across 10 schools and colleges. The list included humanities and arts programs but also some STEM and business offerings.  The same month, Ohio passed legislation requiring state colleges and universities to eliminate any undergraduate degree programs that conferred an average of fewer than five degrees annually over a three-year period. In April, Indiana enacted termination thresholds of 10 students a year over three years for Associate degree programs, 15 for bachelor’s programs, and seven for master’s degrees. In response, the Indiana University System is cutting or merging 400 programs. In all three states, faculty complain that they were not consulted and worry that promising programs might be cut before their prime. Critics contend that the new laws ignore how general education courses and minors can boost the productivity of low-enrollment majors. But lawmakers are unmovedUSA All three states cite falling student demand, funding constraints, and skepticism that programs lacking a clear career outcome are a good value for taxpayers as their rationales. As senators in other states watch with interest, it is worth asking how valid these concerns are in each state. Figure 1 compares total undergraduate degree-seeking students, total associate and bachelor’s programs, and students per program for academic year 2022/23 across states. While enrollment scale aids program productivity, there are obvious outliers.  ,Figure 1.

Small states with fewer students have less productive programs and vice versa. But the lawmakers of Ohio are understandably concerned: the state’s four-year public institutions report only 94 students per program compared to a national average of 179. The state’s system is less productive than neighboring West Virginia, despite having six times as many students.  
The other two public systems subject to lawmaker scrutiny—Indiana and Utah—look average on Figure 1. Republican skepticism of higher education (Indiana, Ohio, and Utah are all GOP-run) no doubt plays a role. Indiana’s latest budget slashes taxes and spending across the board, in tune with the Trump administration’s  One Big Beautiful Bill.  
Some public higher education systems look genuinely bloated, but in today’s climate (demographic, funding, political) any system is vulnerable to intervention. That’s the lesson of Figure 1. 
Small Programs 
What about the accusation that colleges sustain numerous low enrollment programs? Figure 2 ranks states from highest to lowest share of bachelor’s degree programs that conferred fewer than 10 degrees in 2023.  
,Figure 2.


In North Dakota, almost four-in-five bachelor’s programs conferred fewer than 10 degrees in 2023 compared to close to one-in-five in Virginia. Lower population states cluster to the left of Figure 2, but New York and Washington also feature. The largest states show on the right side of Figure 2, but Hawaii and Louisiana buck the trend. Some mid-sized states (e.g., North Carolina, Tennessee) appear more consolidated than others (e.g., Michigan, Minnesota). 
Again, Ohio lawmakers seem to be onto something: almost three-quarters of bachelor’s programs at the state’s public four-year schools report low conferrals. Indiana and Utah look average. (Florida—which excels on both Figures—has regulated program rationalization since the 1970s).  
By major field of study, 85% of Area/Ethnic/Gender studies programs (a popular target of lawmaker ire) conferred less than 10 bachelor’s degrees nationally in 2023 compared to only 28% in Business. Ratios diverge by state: Ohio reports the third highest number of “Area” programs nationally and 97% confer few degrees. There are only eight such programs in Utah, but only a quarter are “too small.” South Dakota might be judged to have too many Business programs—69% are “too small.”  
Notionally “in-demand” fields such as Healthcare and Computing also encompass significant proportions of small programs: 35% and 37% respectively, with wide variations by state. 
The Bottom Line 
Over the past decade, total bachelor’s conferrals at public four-year institutions grew 12% (2023 vs. 2014), while total bachelor's programs offered grew 18% (50% faster). New programs can boost enrollment but risk cluttering an untended portfolio. Expect more state lawmakers to pay attention. Politics may cloud thinking, but the data suggests that some systems have questions to answer on productivity.  
Institutional leaders would be wise to see opportunity. External pressure can help cut through thickets of internal decision-making. Adjacent programs accumulated (often in different departments) over time might benefit from a merger. The same may be true for some programs “duplicated” across systems.  
The major-centric concept of programming might be judged out-of-step with employer interest in student adaptability and core skills. Not more “General Studies” degrees, but perhaps a cross-disciplinary synthesis that leverages the assets of a comprehensive university without the programmatic fragmentation. Faculty interest can be accommodated at the course and program levels. A “comprehensive” university might take different forms. 
It is ironic that just as AI gives schools the ability to speed up program creation, a rush of new programs is the last thing most schools need. But AI can help refine, rationalize, and innovate, too.  
Of course, the data may be misleading. Program definitions and reporting may be inconsistent between states, and the role of two-year and private schools may explain patterns in some jurisdictions. An online program may be thriving, while the campus version lags. Tallying programs and conferrals may overlook the contribution of “too small” programs to minors, non-degree programs, and General Education. 
But do not expect lawmakers to appreciate such nuances. Enrollment and funding pressure are real and growing—never mind the politics. 
Public or private, bachelor’s or master’s, simply adding programs is no longer a smart strategy for colleges and universities. Rethinking what a “program” is and how programs can make better use of resources are key to crafting a compelling student experience and brand. Involving enrollment management and marketing departments in program discussions can help balance faculty interest and financial viability.  
Bottom line: Higher education has too many programs. The opportunity is to figure out how fewer programs can mean better programs. 
Looking to launch or refine an academic program? Whether you’re deciding on the right modality, identifying your program’s audience, or expanding into new markets, our experts deliver  research-driven insights to guide your strategy. With our in-depth studies, you’ll uncover opportunities to grow your reach and meet your institutional goals with confidence. 


State legislators have always cared about higher education—proudly cutting ribbons at new campus buildings and burnishing state aid programs—but have deferred to institutions on academic programming. A higher education coordinating board might oversee new program approvals, but senators were above the fray. No more.  In recent months, legislators in Indiana and Ohio have passed bills requiring state colleges and universities to eliminate low-enrollment programs. Utah cut college budgets by 10%, promising reinvestment in high-performing programs. Politics is a driver, but after years of program growth running ahead of enrollment, lawmakers may have a point.  Which state systems are vulnerable to the charge of “too many programs?” How are higher education leaders responding to these new directives, and is there opportunity amid the cuts? IOUIn March, the Utah Legislature cut $60 million or 10% of instructional funding at public colleges and universities. The money will be reinvested in programs that boost the regional economy and demonstrate good student outcomes. In response, University of Utah, the flagship, eliminated 94 programs across 10 schools and colleges. The list included humanities and arts programs but also some STEM and business offerings.  The same month, Ohio passed legislation requiring state colleges and universities to eliminate any undergraduate degree programs that conferred an average of fewer than five degrees annually over a three-year period. In April, Indiana enacted termination thresholds of 10 students a year over three years for Associate degree programs, 15 for bachelor’s programs, and seven for master’s degrees. In response, the Indiana University System is cutting or merging 400 programs. In all three states, faculty complain that they were not consulted and worry that promising programs might be cut before their prime. Critics contend that the new laws ignore how general education courses and minors can boost the productivity of low-enrollment majors. But lawmakers are unmovedUSA All three states cite falling student demand, funding constraints, and skepticism that programs lacking a clear career outcome are a good value for taxpayers as their rationales. As senators in other states watch with interest, it is worth asking how valid these concerns are in each state. Figure 1 compares total undergraduate degree-seeking students, total associate and bachelor’s programs, and students per program for academic year 2022/23 across states. While enrollment scale aids program productivity, there are obvious outliers.  

Too Many Programs: How Higher Ed Leaders Can Turn Lawmaker Scrutiny to Their Advantage

Last fall, the Common Application reported a 14% year-over-year increase in first-year applications among first-generation college students—a substantial increase that outpaced the overall average. And when these students step on campus soon, they will find themselves in good company: 54% of all undergraduates now identify as first-generation college students (according to FirstGen Forward).  This means that understanding first-generation students and supporting them through the student lifecycle has never been more essential. Eduventures Research finds that while core interests of this group stay consistent across the enrollment funnel, notable changes arise between the inquiry and decision stages—offering insights that can sharpen your recruitment efforts. 
Nearly all high school students engaged in college search experience evolving perspectives as they integrate new information, experiences, and feedback along the way. Let’s follow the class of 2024 to understand how first-generation student perspectives changed throughout the enrollment funnel. The  Eduventures Student Mindsets™ (Mindsets) provide a good shorthand, allowing us to go beyond demographics, illuminating the motivations and considerations behind student decision-making. Figure 1 shows the Mindsets distribution for the class of 2024 at three poignant moments: junior year, senior year, and final enrollment. ,Figure 1.
Starting at Search 
Figure 1 indicates that Student Mindsets remain relatively stable from junior to senior year among first-generation students. This stability offers admissions and marketing teams an opportunity to deepen engagement and maintain a consistent messaging strategy. 
Notably, at this phase, first-generation students have a greater proportion of the Career Pragmatist Mindset—known for sensitivity to affordability and focus on immediate return on investment. Another strong proportion is the Career through Academics Mindset—students who see academics as the path to long-term career goals. Student stories highlighting recent alumni success, practical career pathways, and transparent cost navigation resonate at this stage. 
Moving Toward the Enrollment Finish Line 
Figure 1 also shows that the Mindsets begin to shift as students make their college choices. The transition from senior inquiry to final college choice shows a pronounced drop in Career Pragmatist students and a rise in Experiential Interest students. 
Experiential Interest students are closely related to Career Pragmatist students with a focus on career outcomes and affordability. Where they are distinct is in their motivations for hands-on learning and immersive experiences that will prepare them for life after college. 
So, why such a dramatic shift in Mindsets from inquiry to enrollment? Below are some clues: 

  There is a steep increase in students wanting to make  lasting friendships (nine percentage points). 
  We also see increases in students interested in  learning experiences centered around interactions with faculty and participation in student clubs.  
  At the exploration phase, first-generation students want to understand the diversity of academics and career preparation. While these items are still important at the decision phase,  academic strength and the  campus environment play a larger role.  

What explains these shifts? As first-generation college students settle into their college choices, they explore more about the college experience—and they become excited about it.  
Mindset shifts can also be attributed to cumulative college search efforts—exploring websites, engaging with social channels, and connecting with admissions teams. While still sensitive to price and career opportunities, they now see the college experience itself as a key to their goals. 
Another thought to bear in mind is that these changes could also signal shifts in the make-up of the college pipeline itself. Career Pragmatist students are cost-sensitive and looking for more immediate results—their sharp decline at the point of enrollment commitment could reflect an exit from the college pipeline. This possibility encourages strengthened yield messaging to admitted first-generation college students.  
Areas of Consistency Across the Funnel 
While we have focused on areas where Mindsets shift among first-generation prospective students thus far, Figure 1 also shows which areas remain remarkably consistent across the funnel. What holds true for these students throughout the enrollment journey? 

  Career preparation. Nearly half of first-generation students, regardless of funnel status, are eager to engage with work-study. Over two-thirds of students want internships. Highlighting pathways to skill-building and resume development meets these interests head on.  
  Affordability. As the leading decision driver, it is hard to overstate the importance of affordability for first-generation students across the entire enrollment funnel. Clear, student-centered messaging is key, from first contact through enrollment.  
  Belonging. Many first-generation college students also identify as low-income students and/or from underserved populations. Helping first-generation students find community and belonging is key during the enrollment journey. 

The Bottom Line 
The rise in first-generation applicants calls for reflection on their needs as they move through the enrollment funnel. Admissions teams will be wise to adapt messaging to reflect both the stable priorities and evolving aspirations of first-generation college students. As the first in their families to choose college, higher touch connections can make a real impact on their persistence through the pipeline. 
But support can’t stop at enrollment. Mindsets can also be a powerful tool as students discover emerging needs once on campus. Colleges have room to grow in retaining and graduating first-generation college students—and the time from commitment to enrollment is a prime opportunity to share student success resources. 
Enrollment teams that tailor their messaging not only for the purpose of recruitment, but also to prepare and empower students, strategically position themselves to effectively engage with first-generation college students before and after they step onto campus.  


Last fall, the Common Application reported a 14% year-over-year increase in first-year applications among first-generation college students—a substantial increase that outpaced the overall average. And when these students step on campus soon, they will find themselves in good company: 54% of all undergraduates now identify as first-generation college students (according to FirstGen Forward).  This means that understanding first-generation students and supporting them through the student lifecycle has never been more essential. Eduventures Research finds that while core interests of this group stay consistent across the enrollment funnel, notable changes arise between the inquiry and decision stages—offering insights that can sharpen your recruitment efforts. 
Nearly all high school students engaged in college search experience evolving perspectives as they integrate new information, experiences, and feedback along the way. Let’s follow the class of 2024 to understand how first-generation student perspectives changed throughout the enrollment funnel. The  Eduventures Student Mindsets™ (Mindsets) provide a good shorthand, allowing us to go beyond demographics, illuminating the motivations and considerations behind student decision-making. Figure 1 shows the Mindsets distribution for the class of 2024 at three poignant moments: junior year, senior year, and final enrollment. 

First Things First: Supporting First-Generation College Students Through Enrollment

The tenth  Changing Landscape of Online Education (CHLOE) survey report—produced by Eduventures, Quality Matters™, and EDUCAUSE— offers fresh insights into non-degree investment, student orientation, online revenue, and AI. This Wake-Up call highlights what the findings reveal—and predict—about the student experience (for undergraduates).  In one key section, we asked Chief Online Learning Officers (COLOs) to choose five keywords to describe the  typical student experience—today and five years out—for traditional-aged and adult undergraduates, as well as graduate students. The results offer a reality check—capturing the everyday experience rather than outliers— but also suggest that significant change may be closer than we think. Traditional-Aged Undergraduates: Physical Classroom in Retreat According to 70% of COLOs (representing a wide range of public and private and two- and four-year institutions), the “physical classroom” remains central to the experience of traditional undergraduates today for these students. No other keyword comes close. Three other “traditional” keywords feature in the top seven: “full-time faculty” (56%), “residential” (50%), and “lecture” (43%).  But three less-traditional keywords are also prominent: “mix of online and campus” (51%), “digital course materials” (48%), and “online asynchronous” (45%). A blend of physical and digital is the norm at many institutions.  Figure 1 contrasts contemporary and predicted “Top 5” ratios for all 20 keywords for traditional-aged undergraduates.

CHLOE 10: Online Leaders Place Bets on the Future of the Student Experience

Academic interests rise and fall, but Health Professions has stood the test of time, landing it a spot among the “Big Five” academic programs. These five program areas—also including Business, Biology, Computer Science, and Engineering—have dominated the academic interests of admitted students for years.  But even academic giants can experience rocky roads. While the Big Five Fields as a whole have grown in popularity, Health Professions has stumbled. The pandemic shook its footing, resulting in a 24% decrease in its share of admitted student interest since 2020.  After years of uncertainty and  discouraging trends, how do students perceive the pursuit of Health Professions today?,Figure 1.
Figure 1 suggests that following three years of steady decline, Health Professions is no longer slumping—increasing its share of interested students by 21% in the most recent year for which data is available. While it’s too soon to say with confidence that Health Professions has made a triumphant return, certainly a year with good news is welcome.  And there are other positive signals. The Eduventures 2025 Prospective Student Brand Research™ also reveals a 16% increase in interest among prospective students when compared to the previous year.  The National Student Clearinghouse’s fall 2024 Current Term Enrollment Estimates reveals that 2024 was the first time the broad field experienced an increase in undergraduate enrollment since the pandemic (8% increase, including four-year undergraduate pathways only).  When we consider what’s on the other side of a degree for students in Health Professions, there is promise too. Lightcast data for both Healthcare Support Occupations and Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations projects job growth from 2024 to 2033 that outpaces the average for all broad fields. It appears that the Health Professions enrollment pandemic fallout was two-fold: Health Professions took center stage as the world faced COVID-19. College students who enrolled in health professions during the pandemic also faced barriers in completing clinical hours or practicum experiences needed to graduate. It’s understandable why young adults would pursue other paths given the heightened media attention and stress health professionals and the industry experienced.  The pandemic resulted in a disproportionate enrollment dip among students from low-income households, which have historically gravitated to certain Health Professions. And so, while students might have lost interest in Health Professions, the academic area also lost some students who exited the college pipeline. Emerging data, however, from both  National Student Clearinghouse and Common Application’s  “First-year Application Trends though March 1” shows growth in low-income students—an encouraging sign for Health Professions and for access.  Meeting Student Motivations Given these encouraging signs, how can colleges adapt their enrollment strategies to meet the needs of this academic giant? Student Mindsets™ shed light on the motivations and interests of Health Professions students as they make their college choices.  Figure 2 shows the Admitted Student Mindsets of students interested in Health Professions overall, followed by its most popular subfields.  ,Figure 2.
Figure 2 shows how unique students are within the Health Professions. While other Big Five areas like Business and Biology show more similar Mindset distributions across subfields, Health Professions students are distinct.  Nursing, which makes up 36% of Health Professions students in Figure 2, has a strong proportion of both Experiential Interest and Social Focus students. This shows how Nursing students focus on their careers by seeking clear pathways through college to career and on a vibrant campus community where they can engage socially.   Pre-Med or  Veterinary Science students, on the other hand, are quite different. These students are predominantly Grad School Bound and Career through Academics, demonstrating their view of college as an important academic steppingstone to graduate school or career. These students may be more focused on academic accolades and opportunities as they approach their college choices. The Bottom Line While Health Professions has not matched the stability or growth of the other Big Five Fields since the pandemic, recent data from prospective and current students offers optimism for this academic area—and for the college pipeline overall. And with the demographic cliff at our doorsteps, this slight rebound comes just in time.  The Mindsets highlight the distinct approaches that students pursuing Health Professions take when selecting a college. While it may be tempting to think of Health Professions as a monolith, Student Mindsets provide colleges with a framework to understand and address the varied motivations and preferences of these students during the college search process. This approach enables colleges to engage with prospective students on a deeper level that extends beyond specific academic majors.  For more on this topic… The Eduventures new Admitted Student Trend Report dives into the latest data of the Big Five Fields sharing insights on how institutions can approach the academic giants dominating enrollment.  

Academic interests rise and fall, but Health Professions has stood the test of time, landing it a spot among the “Big Five” academic programs. These five program areas—also including Business, Biology, Computer Science, and Engineering—have dominated the academic interests of admitted students for years.  But even academic giants can experience rocky roads. While the Big Five Fields as a whole have grown in popularity, Health Professions has stumbled. The pandemic shook its footing, resulting in a 24% decrease in its share of admitted student interest since 2020.  After years of uncertainty and  discouraging trends, how do students perceive the pursuit of Health Professions today?

The Diagnosis on Health Professions in Higher Ed

Last week, we wrote about how recent computer science graduates are seeing unemployment rates closer to that of fine arts graduates (6.1% vs. 7.0%) — and that recent computer engineering graduates are seeing unemployment rates closer to that of anthropology majors (7.5% vs. 9.4%) rather than the overall average of 3.6%.  That post pointed out that, despite rising unemployment rates among recent college graduates, this group is still seeing lower rates of unemployment than their non-college peers. Today’s Wake-Up Call provides a deeper view of the labor market for recent college graduates. What are the key dynamics at play? Layering in More Data Certainly, current unemployment rate levels provide some pause for fields of study that, just a few years ago, seemed destined for continuous and sustained growth. But the  unemployment rate alone, especially by major, doesn’t provide enough data to make long-term programmatic decisions. By no means should colleges or universities rush to sunset their computer science programs ( please don’t do this!).  More data is needed to wrap our arms around the labor market for recent college graduates.  For this, let’s also add  underemployment rates and  early career earnings for a more informed view of major-aligned labor market strength. Behind the scenes, we mapped these three metrics to 70 major fields of study. Then, we scored each metric and produced a summative final labor market score (e.g., the top score possible is 30).  Figure 1 shows the results for the top 15 highest-scoring majors. 
The Most Favorable Majors for Recent Graduates in Today’s Labor Market Top 15 Fields of Study for Recent College Graduates Based on Unemployment, Underemployment, and Early Career Earnings

The Labor Market for Recent College Graduates — Part 2: Labor Market Tradeoffs

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.

Solutions

Products & Services

Resources

About

Login

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

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 Calls Home Header

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.