Cara Quackenbush, Executive Vice President of Eduventures Research at Encoura

Cara Quackenbush

Back in May—amid the worst of the FAFSA debacle, stubborn enrollment declines, unnerving campus protests, and wavering public confidence in college degrees—we borrowed on speculation that it could possibly be “ the worst year ever for higher education.”  But, despite these frictions, the year also sparked conversations about reinvention. AI's disruptive promise, resurgent brand awareness, the exploration of new student markets, and experiments in delivery models and recruiting techniques—the Eduventures Wake-Up Call has followed many of these themes from week to week. Here we share five of the best posts from the past year, as judged by our readers. We thank you for your readership and wish you a very happy holiday season. We’ll be back in January to navigate the enrollment cliff, a new presidential administration, and to welcome Generation Alpha knocking at our doors! Sincerely, Cara Quackenbush Top 5 Wake-Up Calls What Students Want Now: Key Branding Elements to Attract Today’s College Applicants – Kim Where the AI Program Market Goes From Here – Clint The Politics of Out-of-State Recruitment – Johanna Which Online Programs Are You Competing Against? – Chris The Big Three Platforms Revisited - The Latest on Coursera, edX,  Udemy - Richard 


A Catalyst for Change: Higher Education’s Tumultuous 2024

Eduventures Research Staff

Each December we ask our analysts to reflect on the past year and share one topic that has grabbed their attention. From anticipating a generational shift in values among prospective parents to understanding successful strategies behind master’s-level enrollment growth, here are five ways they answered the question, “What have you learned this year?” Bachelor’s Earnings Expectations Soar Above Reality – Clint Raine Gen Alpha Brings Their Millennial Parents Into College Search – Johanna Trovato It’s Hard To Grow Both Domestic and International Master’s Enrollment – Richard Garrett Filling the Enrollment Data Gap – Chris Gardiner Smarter Choices: Today’s Students Are Understanding the Weight of Their College Decisions – Kim Reid 

What We Learned in 2024: The Top 5 Takeaways From Our Analysts

Eduventures Chief Research Officer at Encoura

Richard Garrett

Super AI tutors, expanded federal non-degree funding, and a paradigm shift in bachelor’s degree strategy … these were my three higher education predictions for 2024. How did I do?  1.)  A leading online school will launch a social teaching and learning model powered by AI.  PARTIALLY RIGHT.  I see no more than tentative signs of next-generation AI tutors at top online institutions, but these schools are AI-active in other ways.  2.)  “Short-Term Pell” will finally pass, fueling the non-degree market.  WRONG.  “Short-Term Pell,” the bid to expand federal student aid to non-degree programs shorter than sixteen weeks, did not make it to the statute book, but a second Trump administration may prove the missing impetus.  3.)  After decades of diversification, specialization will be the new bachelor’s strategy.  RIGHT.  The latest data supports my prediction that we are in a new era of program focus over program diversification. 
Prediction 1: A leading online school will launch an AI-powered social teaching and learning model.  The potential for game-changing AI tutors seems obvious: many students struggle, human tutors are effective but expensive and hard to scale, and recent technical advances suggest automated, low-cost, personalized solutions. An online university might pioneer such innovation.  So, have leading online schools jumped on board? Not really.  I reviewed the websites and announcements of 10 institutions (American Public University System, Arizona State University (ASU), Capella University, Georgia Tech’s online master’s programs, Grand Canyon University, University of Illinois (iMBA), University of Maryland Global Campus, Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), Strayer University, and Western Governors University). School and program positioning remains conventional. School homepages make no mention of AI. None of the ten schools make any prominent AI claims, let alone tout a next generation AI tutor. There are two (partial) exceptions: Grand Canyon University put out a  news story highlighting two AI teaching assistants (“Mira” in science and healthcare, and “Isaac” in math). Both are depicted as humans, but interactions appear to be text-only (i.e., not audio and video-enabled avatars). More ambitious is the  University of Illinois. The low-cost iMBA program is  building a “customized avatar to look and talk like a live professor.” Slow progress is not surprising: alignment of text, audio, and video is much more complex than text alone. Extensive testing is essential to clarify the avatar’s contributions and limitations, and when it supplements or replaces (human) faculty. Indeed, campus politics, not technology, may be the more formidable barrier. It’s still early days for next-generation avatars, but the 10 leading online schools show evidence of other AI activity. Figure 1 displays a variety of AI efforts by extent and maturity. 
  Figure 1.The most common types of AI activity across the 10 leading online schools are facilitated student access to consumer AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT)—beyond pervasive use by students on their own courses/concentrations/certificates about AI, AI use guidelines, AI committees, and text-only chatbots. Such activity is judged experimental at most schools.  Atypical activity, aside from tutor avatars, spans degree programs about AI, predictive admissions tools (Georgia Tech), and AI consortia (SNHU’s new  Global Data Consortium, co-hosted by the American Council on Education). ASU’s partnership with OpenAI, which is fueling a new  AI Innovation Challenge for faculty and staff, is also exceptional.  The only “Unusual” activities judged “Developed” rather than experimental are ASU’s  A.I. Teaching and Learning Resources page and Georgia Tech’s  Affordable Degrees at Scale event, now in its 10th year, where AI is central to the agenda.   Leading online schools are not ready to trumpet AI—and tutor avatars do not appear imminent—but there is plenty of work behind-the-scenes. The next few years will reveal what is realistic and useful. Prediction 2: Short-Term Pell will pass. Well, it did not pass.  The latest bills (H.R.6585 - Bipartisan Workforce Pell Act and H.R.793 - JOBS Act of 2023, as well as a similar Senate bill) did not make it out of committee. Tensions over program eligibility and the role of for-profit and online schools, plus questionable outcomes for many graduates, hampered negotiations.  Bills also got tangled in tangential battles. Language inserted that sought to bar the wealthiest universities from federal aid or force them to cover forgiven student loans—to help pay for expanded Pell—attracted concerted lobbying.  Attempts to tuck “Short-Term Pell” into the annual National Defense Authorization Act have stalled.  Other higher ed issues held congressional attention in 2024: FAFSA screw-ups, fights over loan forgiveness, and hearings on alleged antisemitism at elite universities crowded out Pell expansion. A second Trump presidency might favor non-degree programs: Expect to see the return of the  Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Program (IRAP), a first-term Trump effort to expand and diversify apprenticeships as a college alternative. The Biden administration nixed the change. Trump’s touted “ American Academy,” a free national online university (again, notionally paid for by taxing elite colleges), leads with access and affordability. Bachelor’s degrees are the focus, but adding non-degree programming would play well. Online is a poor fit for hands-on non-degree programs, but academy courses could be combined with offline training or work experience. Of course, the theoretical academy has many conceptual and logistical hurdles to clear.  If Trump made good on his (far-fetched) promise to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, returning education to the states (along with some federal dollars), non-degree efforts might receive a boost in states that have already made associated investments (e.g., Iowa, Maryland, and Virginia). A fan of for-profit higher education, Trump might push for short-term Pell expansion, while also (as he did in his first term) rolling back revived federal  Gainful Employment rules that target lower division (i.e., non-degree) for-profit schools and programs. But the Republican-backed College Cost Reduction Act (CCRA) doubles down on regulation of program-level outcomes, raising the stakes by proposing extra funding for high performers and student loan repayment liability for laggards. Many non-degree programs score below-average on the early career earnings the CCRA focuses on.  One thing is clear: there are a lot of unknowns. The next four years could produce a game-changing realignment of higher education in favor of non-degree programming. But recent non-degree momentum is not simply a matter of who is in the White House. Deeper forces (e.g., aging society, labor shortfalls, skills deficits) are at play. Institutions of all kinds should continue to think about their most strategic degree/non-degree mixes.  Prediction 3: In a new bachelor’s era, program strategy shifts from variety to focus. My final 2024 prediction concerned programmatic focus among master’s and baccalaureate institutions. I argued that the trend of ever-more bachelor’s programs enrolling ever-fewer students is unsustainable and non-strategic. These institutions—among the most challenged in today’s market—would be better off devoting limited resources to fewer programs.  I predicted three things: The total number of  bachelor’s programs offered by master’s and baccalaureate schools will fall for the first time since IPEDS began tracking program numbers in 2012. The average number of main  fields of study offered by these schools at the bachelor’s level will also fall for the first time. The share of  bachelor’s conferrals at these schools, held by their five largest bachelor’s programs, will grow for the second year in a row, reversing the long-term trend. Was I right? Yes, on all three counts.  For the first time since IPEDS began tracking program volume in 2012, the total number of bachelor’s programs reported by master’s and baccalaureate schools fell according to the latest data (for academic year 2023): down 0.6% after climbing 18% between 2012 and 2022.  This is not a big shift in absolute terms but is a striking change of direction. Similarly, as predicted, the average number of main fields of study offered by these institutions at the bachelor’s level declined for the first time in at least a decade, down 5% to 16.7.  Third, greater programmatic concentration is also visible in the proportion of bachelor’s conferrals held by the largest five programs: increasing for the second year in a row (after years of decline) to 48.9%.  Given different scales, Figure 2 displays the three trends as indices. (The chart inverts the third trend—to show the share of bachelor’s conferrals outside the top five programs—so the trajectories of all three trends are consistent).  
Figure 2.We are in a new era of program focus over diversification, visible across all institution types, not only those in the master’s and baccalaureate categories. This is strategic when prospect pools are shrinking, consumer and policy skepticism are high, and bachelor’s alternatives are growing. The irony is that total bachelor’s programs offered by master’s and baccalaureate institutions continued to rise through 2022 even though the number of such schools declined over the past decade. Remarkably, it took until 2023 for both the institutional and program totals to fall in the same year.  My forecast is that the three trend lines in Figure 2 will continue to fall until at least 2030, bringing supply and demand into better alignment.  Look out for my predictions for 2025 in early January.  

Reviewing My 2024 Higher Education Predictions: PARTIALLY RIGHT, WRONG, RIGHT

Eduventures Principal Analyst at Encoura

Johanna Trovato

According to Eduventures’ 2024 Admitted Student Research™, 63% of community college transfer students cited affordability as a core enrollment driver compared to 55% of high school graduates who were admitted as first-time students. This aligns with the notion of the typical transfer student who starts at a community college to make their education more affordable.Yet, as the cost and value of higher education remain under public scrutiny, our research indicates that the primarily cost-driven community college transfer student is not the only—or even most common—type of transfer student enrolling in four-year institutions today.Understanding Transfer TypesTransfer students who start at community colleges are widely known for being practical decision makers with a strong focus on cost. In the aggregate, practical considerations like major availability (42%), cost (37%), and financial aid availability (31%) indeed outweigh academic factors like prestige (22%) or rigor (13%) in the transfer school selection among former community college students. But our research also shows that not all transfer students are created equally.The Eduventures 2024 Admitted Student Research includes about 1,200 students—just 7% of the total sample—who reported they are enrolling as transfer students. Of these transfer students, 70% were enrolling at a four-year institution this fall after starting off at a community college.Segmenting transfer students by their transfer reasons and decision-making motivations, Eduventures identifies the following six Transfer Types:Life Happens™: Personal circumstances have changed for these students, and now they are looking for a more flexible or affordable education option, often in a new location.Find My Passion™: These students want a school that offers a specific program or location, which they perceive to be a better choice than their current school.Help Wanted™: Looking for a change, these students are often driven by academic struggles. They seek better support services and, sometimes, more flexibility.Trading Up™: These students seek more prestige and rigor. Some also want to spread their wings and move farther from home.Follow the Plan™: Transferring to a more rigorous school was always part of the plan. These students seek a specific location, and a school that will likely accept them.Cost Saver™: These students always wanted to transfer to save money. Cost is the single most important factor in selecting a transfer school.These six Transfer Student Types™ highlight that transfer students are not monolithic. Like other prospective students, this segment is diverse and needs varied recruitment conversations and support levels.In previous research, we learned that the pandemic has increased the proportion of prospective transfer students who fall into less intentional and more circumstantial Transfer Types—Life Happens and Trading Up—and decreased the proportion who carefully plan their paths—Follow the Plan and Cost Saver.We also know that the proportion of each Transfer Type shifts between the prospect and admit stages, providing important insights into the kinds of community college students who successfully make it through the recruitment funnel. Figure 1 shows the proportion of each Transfer Type at the prospect stage and at the admit stage.
Figure 1.
Paradoxically, Figure 1 shows that the Transfer Types who carefully plan their transfer pathways from the beginning of their higher education journeys seem to be less likely to succeed through the funnel. Somewhere in their transfer journeys, these determined students seem to give up on their plans. The Cost Saver—already affected by pandemic tumult—can hardly be found among admitted transfer students. Instead, we see an increase in Life Happens and Trading Up students—those who didn’t think they would transfer when they first enrolled in college.What does this mean? While cost is a core enrollment driver for nearly two-thirds of admitted transfer students, the Cost Saver student who doubles down on an affordable pathway through college—the Transfer Type most institutions are addressing in their recruitment messaging—seems to get lost in the funnel. How can we make sense of this?Demographic comparisons between transfer prospects and transfer admits illuminate the underlying problem (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
Figure 2 shows which demographic segments are least likely to succeed through the transfer funnel. Notably, the largest differences between prospects and admits are among first-generation students and students from low-income households—the very students who are meant to benefit the most from the transfer pathway. We also see a drop in Latine students and an increase in White and male transfers.The transfer process, intended to create greater equity and access in higher education, seems to be unable to remove barriers for the students it intends to serve. Cost messaging won’t solve this problem.But cost messaging is important in transfer recruitment communications. Most transfer students consider cost. But messaging cost and affordability alone is too simplistic.Transfer students weigh many other considerations and decision drivers that institutions should also address in their messaging. The truly cost-focused student, however, needs more than just messaging. They need greater financial support to succeed in their goals. In fact, all transfer prospects need appropriate support in addition to compelling messaging. Transfer Types allow us to understand which type of support may be needed.The Bottom LineHigher education has an access problem. It can be found at all levels, including those specifically meant to help underserved student populations. In pursuit of greater equity, and to buffer against enrollment declines in first-year student populations, institutions must provide not only nuanced messaging but also more support to transfer students across all Transfer Types, including:Financial support. Clearly, the community college to four-year pathway is not as affordable as touted. Transfer prospects often find themselves with less financial aid and fewer accepted credits than expected at their destination schools.Recruitment support. The transfer process is complex. Community college students may be intimidated by the rules and documentation required to successfully apply and enter with as many credit hours as possible.Academic and social support. Even the students who succeed through the funnel require additional support once on campus. Less prepared for their journeys than the careful planners who drop out of the pipeline, these students can benefit from onboarding and coaching at their new institutions to make sure they can succeed academically and socially through graduation.

 Beyond Affordability: Understanding the Changing Motivations of Today’s Transfer Students

Principal Research Analyst

Kim Reid

Every admissions cycle, national headlines underscore a critical problem for colleges: “College is unaffordable!” and “Students question the value of a college education!” These two concerns—affordability and value—are true to different degrees for different kinds of students.  But how do institutions make the distinction between the problem of value vs. the problem of affordability? They are certainly related, but as our data shows, also distinct. Understanding the underlying dynamic can help colleges identify and support students facing financial barriers. Affordability and value reflect two different perspectives of the value equation of higher education. When it comes to college choice, they are in constant tension.Figure 1 shows this tension. It compares the importance of the three most critical components of the value equation—affordability (price), value for the cost, and core academic experiences (benefit)—segmented by the single reason that students said they ultimately chose their schools.
Figure 1.
This shows that students who single out value believe that the benefit side of the equation—academic quality and career preparation—is nearly as important as the price side of the equation (75% academics and 43% career preparation, i.e., “benefit,” and 84% affordability, i.e.,  “price”). Students who single out affordability believe that the price side of the equation is far more important (94%) than the benefit side (60% academics and 38% career preparation).While institutions may be tempted to use the same strategies to reach both types of students, that would be a mistake. Students who single out value are price-conscious; students who single out affordability are price-bound.What else does our data tell us?1. Affordability is a bigger driver than value.Post-COVID, a quarter of admitted students surveyed by Eduventures explicitly listed affordability or value as the single most important reason they chose to attend their schools (leaving 75% to specify another reason). But this quarter contains many students for whom access is not guaranteed, like those from low-income families or those who would be the first in their families to attend college.In a fit of wishful thinking, some schools might like to believe that admitted students are more influenced by value than they are by affordability. Thus, if the institution could articulate its value more effectively through more relevant messaging about the benefits of its education, it would tip the balance to convince students it is worth the price.But Figure 2 shows that the reverse is true. It shows the percentage of non-enrolling students going elsewhere due to affordability or value for three types of admitting institutions.
Figure 2.
For every type of institution, more non-enrolling students chose another school due to affordability rather than value. In-state public institutions lost 14% of their students to pureaffordability (9%), while out-of-state public and private institutions lost only slightly more (16%-17% affordability vs. 10% value).Questions of value and affordability are consistent and universal. For students whose primary concern is affordability, messaging value will help, but it won’t solve an institution’s access problem.2. Both affordability and value drive students to lower net-price institutions.Student enrollment decisions often hinge on comparing the net price of the chosen institution with that of the one they declined. Their actions show their level of price sensitivity. Figure 3 shows the percentage of non-enrolling students who chose to attend a lower net price institution, segmented by the type of institution they are attending, and the top reason they chose it.
Figure 3.
This shows that almost all non-enrolling students who single out affordability as their reason for enrollment attend a lower net price institution, regardless of institution type. But students who single out value are also highly likely to choose a lower net price option.For example, 80% of non-enrolling affordability-driven students attending in-state public institutions chose a lower net price institution while nearly two-thirds (63%) of value-driven students also chose a lower net price institution. For students attending private institutions, this low net price choice is nearly equal between affordability-driven (87%) and value-driven students (80%).Can one strategy alone address the similar outcomes in these two decision segments?3. Those who decide based on affordability are fundamentally different than those who decide based on value.Value- and affordability-driven students are substantially different demographically. Figure 4 shows the average demographic profile as well as the profile within each decision segment by the type of admitting institution.
Figure 4.
Figure 4 shows that in every institutional context, non-enrolling students who single out affordability are much more likely to be a member of an access group compared to all non-enrolling students. Conversely, non-enrolling students who single out value are slightly less likely to be a member of an access group. The twin conversations of value and affordability hit students differently. And the affordability conversation is most critical for students in access populations.The Bottom LineThere are students out there who are seeking a great education at a great price, but more and more students primarily need the great price. Can an institution turn an affordability problem into a value solution? Maybe, but only by thinking creatively and expansively about affordability. Here are some strategies to start:Develop lower-priced options. Institutions don’t necessarily need a wholesale tuition reset. But lower-cost, shorter time-to-degree, try-before-you-buy, or non-degree options can expand opportunities for very cost-sensitive students.Strategic financial aid should reach the students who need it the most. Review your financial aid packages targeted to families in different income brackets to assess whether you are meeting the needs of lower- or middle-income families.Some students need ongoing financial support to thrive in college. Affordability sensitive students will not only struggle to enroll in school, but they will also struggle financially while enrolled in school. What more can your institution do to provide ongoing financial support and counseling for these students beyond the standard financial aid package?Manageable debt is okay, unmanageable debt is not. Students have anticipatory fears of student debt curtailing their futures. Commit to manageable debt loads for students, showing students how they will be able to manage debt. Make their debt manageable by guaranteeing outcomes or buying back debt. Explore what manageable debt means for students from loan averse lower-income families.Message value but recognize that it won’t tip the balance for the set of students who are strongly affected by affordability. Demonstrate that your institution is prepared to be a long-term partner in helping its students find success. This is the ultimate outcome of an education built on a strong scaffolding of affordability.

Affordability or Value? Three Things Higher Ed Needs to Know

From Fall Totals to Real Enrollment Demand: Uncovering Higher Ed's 'Invisible' Students

Eduventures Senior Analyst at Encoura

Clint Raine

Perhaps not quite at the fever pitch as it was in 2022, artificial intelligence (AI) remains omnipresent. Whether scanning the news, sparring with chat bots, googling a question, or following Eduventures’  Wake Up Calls, engaging with AI has become a daily occurrence for many.  AI’s sudden ubiquity in the public’s consciousness is one reason why we labeled it a “Program to Watch” at the 2023 Eduventures Summit – a label informed by increased market investment, in demand AI-aligned skills, and growing student interest.  Now that the dust has settled since that proclamation, let’s check in on the AI program market by previewing some insights from our recently published report:  Eduventures’ Artificial Intelligence Program Market Dive. Up, Up, and Away It may be hard to believe, but AI has long had a dedicated Classification of Instructional Program (CIP) code, well before fields like data science and data analytics—a reminder that AI, while a newer concept in the public mainstream, has been around since the early 1950’s. This CIP code allows us to track key metrics, like program market size and direction, more directly over a longer period. For example, we found 1,271 AI completions in 2023 across all degree and certificate levels tracked by IPEDS, up from just 151 in 2014—an increase of over 700%! While signaling explosive growth, however, these figures also reveal a very small market.  But these numbers only tell part of the story. We also closely follow three other CIP codes (described in  Eduventures’ Artificial Intelligence Market Dive Report) that also include AI concepts and themes in their program definitions. Grouping all four AI-related CIP codes together allows us to broaden the scope of our analysis—we call it our “AI proxy.”  As Figure 1 shows, at least from a growth perspective, AI has certainly lived up to our label as a “Program to Watch.”  
Figure 1.
Our AI proxy reveals a market that is almost five times larger than the AI CIP code alone. Over the last 10 years, all AI proxy completions grew by a 25% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) compared to 1% for the overall market, inclusive of all fields of study. Notably, AI proxy conferrals grew by an incredible 31% year-over-year in 2023—a period when overall conferrals declined by 3%.  Growth, however, is just one layer of market assessment. What else do we know about how this market has developed? Not So Fast While conferral growth shows a clear upward trajectory, AI market productivity (or conferrals per program) tells a different story. In 2023, there were just 14.8 average conferrals per program in the AI proxy market across all credentials. This is far below the overall market average of 20.6 conferrals per program.  Below average productivity as a market signal isn’t necessarily a bad thing if it can also be traced to productivity growth. In the AI proxy market, productivity has declined since 2014, from 16.8 conferrals per program, and has plateaued since 2020. These indicators are not congruent with a goal of ambitious enrollment growth. When broken out, as in Figure 2, only one AI proxy market segment—the master’s level—beats the overall productivity benchmark.  
Figure 2.
Since only master’s level AI productivity beats the overall market average, this means that all other credential segments, especially the associate, certificate, and doctoral segments, have dragged AI market productivity down. What other key signals can we observe in this market? Master’s significance. Master’s programs make up 30% of AI proxy programs, and this is almost twice the master’s program share in the market overall (16%). Additionally, these 30% of programs claim 50% of all AI proxy conferrals, which is almost three times more than the overall market (18%).  Research institutions dominate. Almost half (46%) of AI-aligned programs track to R1 and R2 institutions compared to the 26% overall market average. In the master’s market alone, the most significant AI program market, R1 and R2 schools combined account for 70% of AI proxy programs (compared to 50% of overall master’s programs). International student reach. There is considerable international student activity in the AI market. In 2023, about one-third of AI proxy conferrals were tracked to international students. This compares to just 6% in the overall market. Some of this may be pent-up demand lingering from the pandemic period, but even in 2022, the international conferral proportion in the AI market was 22% - much greater than average. The Bottom Line So, where does the AI market go from here? Will it resemble the ever-growing data analytics program market as the next sure thing? Or perhaps the E-commerce program market that saw momentum through the dot-com bubble but diminished with the dot-com crash and receded into broader programs? Eduventures thinks the answer lies somewhere in between.  The market potential for AI as an independent degree program is likely a specialized opportunity, suitable mainly for early adopters and institutions that have the research expertise and resources to offer high-quality programs in this rapidly evolving field.  For most schools, launching a standalone AI degree program will not be prudent. But it is likely imperative that all schools weave some AI-aligned content into their curricula. Most schools should think about AI as an opportunity across a range of existing programs thereby creating different AI coverage areas through individual courses, or even concentrations, that align to signals from the labor market.    

Where the AI Program Market Goes From Here

Redefining the Value of Liberal Arts Institutions

How International Students Are Saving Master’s Enrollment 

Chris Gardiner

Community Colleges Gaining Ground in Online Education: What It Means for Universities 

The reporting deadline for the new federal Financial Value Transparency (FVT) and Gainful Employment (GE) metrics —recently pushed backed to January 15, 2025—is not far away. This is the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) most ambitious attempt yet to shine a light on program outcomes across higher education. The new rules cover all types and levels of programs, but the Department has made clear that online programs need closer oversight. Various new online-skeptical regulations—like challenging interstate reciprocity norms for distance programs, or requiring separate distance student reporting—underscore the point. The latest  College Scorecard data on graduate wages and student loan debt—the basis for these metrics—was published in June. Do the numbers justify federal anxiety about distance learning?  Yes, it affects you, too! The U.S. Department of Education’s latest effort to weed out poor-return programs and improve student decision-making goes far beyond similar regulations from the 2010s. The new rules encompass all degree and non-degree programs—undergraduate and graduate—that use federal student aid at public, private, and for-profit colleges and universities.  Programs will be judged on: Debt-to-Earnings Ratio – no more than 20% of disposable income or 8% of total income.  Earnings Premium – median graduate earnings must exceed the median for Americans aged 25-34 with no more than a high school diploma. Only programs that fall under “Gainful Employment” (for-profit programs and non-degree programs at nonprofits) risk loss of federal aid, but FVT rules oblige the Department to disclose subpar outcomes data to prospective students. Prospective students wishing to enroll in failing FVT graduate and non-degree programs must acknowledge having seen the outcomes data before the Department will furnish aid. Programs with fewer than 30 completions over the previous four years are excluded.  (Of course, a Trump win in November could be the death knell for FVT/GE but let us proceed with the status quo). Online programs are of particular interest, as this  quote from the Department ahead of the 2024 negotiated rulemaking on “Program Integrity and Institutional Quality” shows: Currently, the Department has very limited data on students enrolled in distance education, which limits the Department’s ability to answer important questions about student pathways and outcomes through in-person, distance, and hybrid education. What does the  College Scorecard data tell us about online program outcomes? The  Scorecard distinguishes students enrolled in three types of programming: 1) fully online programs, 2) programs offered both online and on campus, and 3) campus-only programs.  Eduventures’ latest  Online Higher Education Market Update report included analysis of some of this data but appeared before the latest release. For the first time, the new  College Scorecard data includes wages and debt five-years post-graduation. Let us start at the bachelor’s level. Figure 1 shows median wages for bachelor’s graduates by modality one, four, and five years after completion (for cohorts completing in 2015 and 2016). 
Figure 1.
Counterintuitively, online-only graduates outearn others one-year post-completion, reporting 12% higher average earnings than campus-only peers. Graduates of online-only programs are typically older than average, perhaps conferring an early salary advantage. But five years out, campus-only graduates take the lead. The results are similar regardless of sector. Regardless of modality, median wages climb strongly over time (up 41% between year one and year five), suggesting solid return-on-investment. The campus-only versus online-only gap widens over time but is modest (3.7% in year five).  The Low-Income Conundrum Online-only bachelor’s graduates are more likely to be low income: 52% of campus-only graduates received a Pell Grant, but the ratio was 72% for online-only graduates.  Does this help explain the online-only wage deficit? It does not. Pell students from campus-only programs outearned Pell students from online-only programs by 6.2% in year five. A gap remains even when isolating fields of study commonplace online, such as business, computing, and nursing. But the picture is different for online-only non-Pell graduates, who sustain a lead (if a narrowing one) over non-Pell graduates from campus-only or multiple modality programs, outearning campus-only graduates by 3.4% in year five. How to explain this? One thought is that low-income students are more likely to struggle with online learning. Restricted computer and Internet access may negatively impact online study, undermining learning and earning. Pell graduates who attended campus-only programs might be assumed to have faced comparable resource challenges, hinting that the online learning experience may itself often be a negative for less-prepared students with limited financial means.  Are there often “too many” low-income students in online programs? Greater background diversity on campus may make for a more stimulating setting for learning.  Non-Pell online-only graduates may benefit not only from better technology but from a loftier start on the career ladder than that enjoyed by the typical Pell students studying online. The convenience of online programs is universally valuable, but some students are better positioned to thrive in this environment.  Online-only bachelor’s graduates borrow 12% more on average (from federal sources) than their campus-only peers and are more likely to have debt from a prior institution. This is consistent with the lower income and older profile of online-only students.  Figure 2 shows the Department’s “estimated” average monthly loan repayment for bachelor’s graduates by modality. 
Figure 2.
The typical monthly payment for online-only programs is estimated to be 29% higher than that for campus-only programs. Most online-only bachelor’s graduates earn less but owe more.  Is higher average online graduate debt offset by lower online program prices? According to the  Scorecard, the average net price for online-only institutions—public or private—is lower than the net price for campus-based schools, suggesting that online delivery has a positive impact on student debt.  Online-only graduates are somewhat more likely than average to have reduced their loan balances four years after college, reinforcing the case for decent earnings ROI. But the combination of more low-income students, lower earnings post-graduation, and higher average student debt makes more expensive online-only bachelor’s programs vulnerable to exceeding the new GE/FVT debt/earning thresholds.  Eduventures’ initial analysis suggests that a third of institutions with data fail the total income debt-to-earnings measure (an average across all online-only bachelor’s programs). The Bottom Line In many ways, the latest  College Scorecard data is good news for online learning. Graduates of online-only programs exhibit strong median wage growth in the years following graduation. Even when they trail their campus-only counterparts, the gap is modest. But—because online holds disproportionate appeal to low-income students—it is problematic that Pell graduates from online-only bachelor’s programs earn less than not only their non-Pell peers, but less than Pell graduates from campus-only programs, even when controlling for fields of study common online. Not much less, but enough to fuel federal disquiet about online students. Online-only graduates owe more than average and have higher estimated monthly student loan payments. This is consistent with higher Pell ratios. But if Pell students earn more post-graduation after attending a campus-only program, should low-income students be less enthusiastic about online? Remember that it was as recently as 2008 that online-only programs became eligible for federal student aid. Rather than be surprised that the Department is now asking questions about modality, higher education should be surprised that it took this long. Most institutions and programs will do fine on the new  Financial Value Transparency metrics, regardless of modality, but more expensive programs attracting low-income students face some challenging conversations.  To discuss what the College Scorecard says about online or other programs at your institution, please contact your Client Research Analyst.  

The Big Reveal: New Financial Value Transparency Rules & Online Programs

Rising Stars in College Communication: The Power of Social Media in Student Search

As is my annual tradition to start the new year, I am unveiling my predictions for the year ahead in higher education. Let us dive into the first two today, with the third to follow next week.  For 2025, I predict: For the first time, the number of fully online undergraduates will surpass those enrolled in no online classes. The U.S. Department of Education will become collateral damage amid the second Trump administration’s quest for government efficiencies. Am I right? Am I crazy? Read on to see what you think. Prediction 1: The number of fully online undergraduates will surpass the “campus-only” cohort for the first time. Online enrollment is more significant than you think. The modality continues to show strong momentum post-pandemic and is helping many types of institutions manage a rocky recruitment and operational environment.  The most recent “official” enrollment data (from IPEDS) is for fall 2022, barely out of the pandemic during which most students were forced to study at a distance. A better gauge is the new 12-month unduplicated headcount data for 2022/23, also from IPEDS. Not only is this data more recent, but it also captures year-round enrollment (which reveals the true scale of online).  Figure 1 charts undergraduate enrollment growth by modality between 2019/20 (the pre-pandemic baseline) and 2022/23. 
Figure 1.
Total undergraduate enrollment slipped 6% but fully online leapt by more than a third. The number of students enrolled in no online courses slumped by 37%.  Fully online undergraduates made up 27% of all undergraduates in 2022/23, nearly a fifth higher than the fall ratio (23%). The gap is bigger still for undergraduates who take some courses online: 33% of undergraduates fell into this category as of fall 2022, but the ratio was 42% over the 12-month period of 2022/23.  I predict—Figure 2—that a milestone will be reached in 2025, when the enrollment data for 2023/24 is published: for the first time the number of fully online undergraduates will exceed the number of undergraduates enrolled in no online classes.  
Figure 2.
This trend is not confined to large online universities. Even medium and small master’s-level institutions and baccalaureate colleges outside the elite show the same pattern. Together these schools posted a 10% growth in fully online undergraduates, constituting over a fifth of all undergraduates in 2022/23. Some 45% of undergraduates took at least one online class, a 10-percentage point increase in four years. The “no online” cohort shrank by 38%. It will take a few more years for fully online enrollment to surpass “no online” at these schools, but the underlying trend is there.  Online courses and programs enable schools of all types to diversify enrollment, increase capacity, and rethink instructional and organizational norms. Such innovation is critical: the smaller master’s and non-elite baccalaureate cohort saw total undergraduate enrollment drop by 11% between 2019/20 and 2022/23. But online momentum also means risk and uncertainty. A growing “distance” between students and institutions may undermine loyalty and foster a transactional mindset. Schools must invest in instructional design and faculty development to transcend experientially-limited online courses. Next generation AI-enabled online learning may undermine student agency and shrink traditional faculty roles, or that is the risk if higher education leaders do not think things through.   Online learning is changing undergraduate education at scale, and we are only beginning to understand the implications.  Prediction 2: U.S. Department of Education will become collateral damage in the first year of Trump’s presidency.  Promising to abolish the U.S. Department of Education has been an on-off feature of Republican manifestos since the first Reagan administration. Established as a federal agency after the Civil War and later as a component of the Health  Human Services Department, “Education” became a dedicated department and cabinet-level position in 1980 under President Carter.  Critics charged federal overreach, citing the absence of a constitutional mandate for a federal role in education. On the campaign trail, President-elect Trump vowed to eliminate the department, alleging ideological capture, frivolous spending, and powers that should be returned to the states.  Project 2025, a Heritage foundation-coordinated policy blueprint for a second Trump term is unapologetic that the Department must be wound up and its functions redistributed. A new Trump-backed agency, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) headed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, billionaires eager to scythe through the federal bureaucracy, is looking for targets.  I predict that the U.S. Department of Education will be a casualty of reform and cost-cutting efforts in 2025.  Not because it is especially large: the Department’s budget ranks in the middle of the pack, and its headcount is the smallest of the fifteen executive departments.  Not because much of the department’s budget will actually be cut: most funds flow to states, school districts, institutions, and students, and support routine, non-controversial things (e.g., Pell Grants, pre-school expansion, special education, data collection).  The U.S. Department of Education is vulnerable for other reasons. First, because it is tangled in the culture wars, notably DEI battles (e.g., allegations of use of “Critical Race Theory” in K-12 classrooms, required “equity” plans tied to special education funds during the pandemic, and controversies over Title IX and transgender athletes). The General Counsel of the Department signed the Biden Administration’s amicus brief favoring affirmative action in college admissions that the Supreme Court then banned.  Colleges are at the epicenter of heated debates over free speech and “cancel culture.” Congress grilled Ivy League presidents over alleged antisemitism on campus and mishandling of campus protests amid the Gaza conflict. These hot-button issues may not involve the Department directly but are portrayed as liberal ideology gone awry on the Department’s watch.  Second, recent events undermined perceptions of departmental competence. The FAFSA debacle invites accusations of mismanagement, giving ammunition to the cost-cutters. The Department is associated with President Biden’s politically-charged (and very expensive) efforts to accelerate student debt forgiveness, which were mired in legal challenges until the Department formally ended forgiveness efforts on January 3, 2025.Third, the Department lacks an ambitious raison d’être. Officials have retreated from big centralizing efforts like Common Core and No Child Left Behind, the sort of thing that helps justify a federal department. Most of the Department’s Biden-era program integrity reforms, spanning state authorization, accreditation, third-party servicers and online program management, ran into the sand, and have now been withdrawn, along with high-profile policies on transgender athletes and student loan forgiveness. It is easy for critics to blame the Department for flagging K-12 student performance and low college graduation rates. Paradoxically, the Department can be criticized for federal overreach and the absence of big policy wins. Axing the Department could be a symbolic win for the new administration, and within the realms of possibility now that both houses have Republican majorities. Other departments will yield more savings but might face stiffer resistance and be harder to caricature. Merging “Education” with the Department of Labor, say, could be presented as both cost rationalization and sensible integration of education and employment policy. A significant portion of federal student loans might be reprivatized, in tune with caps on student borrowing and rolling back debt relief programs (see Prediction 1), all of which would shrink the federal education remit.  The nominated Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, favors expansion of K-12 voucher programs, another way to decentralize federal funding.  Once unthinkable, the unravelling of the U.S. Department of Education has never been more likely, and I predict it will advance significantly in 2025. It's not really about cost savings; for proponents, this will be a symbolic victory emblematic of an ideological turn.  Of course, while almost no one working in higher education today lived it, the two most important pieces of post-war higher education legislation (the GI Bill and the Higher Education Act) were enacted without a stand-alone Education Department, as were the original Pell Grants.What are the implications for colleges? Flagship programs like Pell Grants and federal student loans are not going anywhere, so day-to-day operations are unlikely to be disrupted. The deeper implication—which will take years to fully appreciate—is the prospect of diminished standing and influence for education at the federal level.  Stay tuned next week for my third higher ed prediction for 2025! 

Higher Ed Predictions for 2025, Part 1: An Online Milestone and Trouble Ahead for the U.S. Department of Education

Core:Section

The most difficult aspect of yield is differentiating your institution at the finish line, especially among out-of-state students. These students overwhelmingly tell us that the quality of core academics, like the availability of their majors of interest, drives their final enrollment decisions. But our statistical analysis clearly shows that factors like the physical and social environment seem to make a bigger—and perhaps subconscious—impact. So, who is right, the student or the science? If a student has done their homework and applied to schools that would be a good fit, the final choices often look quite similar on the surface: same majors, costs, and reputations. Helping students understand the nuances of the final decision will tip the decision in favor of your institution.
To do this, the first question we must ask is: what is the decision endgame for the typical out-of-state student? The Eduventures Admitted Student Research™ indicates that the final enrollment decision among these students is often apples-to-apples, at least apples-to-pears, and rarely apples-to-oranges.  Figure 1 shows the second-choice institutions for students who decided to enroll in an out-of-state public or private institution.   	Figure 1. For students who enroll in out-of-state public institutions, the final choice is overwhelmingly apples-to-apples. Three quarters of students who enrolled in an out-of-state public institution had a second choice that was also an out-of-state public institution.  For students who enroll in out-of-state private institutions, the final choice is more apples-to-pears. Almost all students (96%) enrolling in an out-of-state private institution had another out-of-state institution as a second choice. But that competition is nearly evenly split between out-of-state publics (48%) and out-of-state privates (46%).Students attending out-of-state public institutions said that core academics (64%), affordability (50%), and the social environment (40%) were the top three enrollment drivers influencing their enrollment decisions. Out-of-state private institution students said their top drivers were core academics (69%), academic environment (48%), and affordability (45%).  These, however, are stated importance values—how the students answer our survey questions. In other words, they represent the student’s’ conscious thoughts about their decisions.  But we also know the derived importance of these enrollment drivers on student enrollment decisions. Using regression analysis, we can understand what may unconsciously drive final decisions between the enrollment school and the next best alternative.   Analyzing stated vs. derived importance helps us understand how to differentiate similar institutions to yield out-of-state students. Figure 2 plots both the stated value associated with each enrollment driver (x axis) against the derived value (y axis) of each enrollment driver among students attending out-of-state public institutions.  	Figure 2. Notably, core academics—the top stated enrollment driver for out-of-state public students (top, left quadrant)—was not nearly as important in the derived analysis. In fact, it wasn’t important at all. According to our derived analysis, the physical environment, in close competition with several others, comes out on top (bottom right quadrant). Why is that? That’s because students’ second choice institutions probably offered very similar core academic experiences and affordability as their enrollment schools. So, these are not differentiators. These are, however, required attributes for your institution. Without core academic quality and, to a lesser extent, affordability, you wouldn’t be in a position to enroll the student at all.  So, what is driving the final decision? No single driver stands out. Social environment and physical environment come the closest, but these are hidden drivers. Students said these drivers weren’t very important, but they turned out to have an outside influence on their decisions. This means that when all else is equal, perceived quality in the social, physical, and academic environments will push students to choose you as an out-of-state destination. The opportunity to differentiate lies in these hidden drivers. Career outcomes falls into the nebulous area of the marginal driver; it was moderately important in both stated and derived analysis. It’s worth mentioning, but it won’t make much of a difference in the end. It is something the students considered in developing a major interest and finding institutions that could serve that interest. This is a conversation that must happen early in the enrollment funnel.  Applying this analysis to students who choose private institutions yields similar, but not quite the same, results (Figure 3).  	Figure 3. For private out-of-state schools, core academics is still a required price of entry as is affordability (albeit to a much lesser extent). But in the final decision, the academic environment is the prime driver of student decision-making.  The social environment and physical environment are the most critical hidden drivers, and career outcomes still occupies that marginal space of modest importance. Yield strategy for out-of-state private institutions must follow this structure:  Remind students of the academic strength that drew them to your institution in the first place. Confront the challenge of affordability. Elevate the narrative on academic environment. Build the contextual understanding of your social and physical environments. Confirm the development of career outcomes. The Bottom LineTo yield out-of-state students, you must go beyond the central message of core academic strength that brought you to this point in the decision cycle. If you don’t build depth and differentiation, you won’t win the head-to-head comparison with that institution that looks a lot like yours. 

Decision Drivers For Out-Of-State Students

Transfer students are notoriously pragmatic. Eduventures’ research has continuously shown that transfer prospects weigh practical factors when considering a transfer destination: availability of financial aid, cost of tuition, and availability of their chosen majors are consistently the top criteria.On paper, these students resemble homo economicus, those who make decisions solely based on rationality and self-interest. But the concept of homo economicus has been debunked. Humans are inherently irrational beings. Therefore, perhaps there is more to the decision making of transfer students than these students are willing to admit?Figure 1, based on Eduventures’ Transfer Student Research™, shows that three of the top five factors influencing transfer school selection involve cost either directly or indirectly, such as financial aid availability and the “number of credits I can transfer.”Figure 1.Figure 1 also reveals that, early in the enrollment funnel, academic strength—rankings, reputation, or perceived rigor—does not seem to matter nearly as much as cost and other practical considerations like availability of desired major and location. At face value, transfer prospects agree that they are indeed pragmatic customers.But once these students apply and are accepted to transfer schools that meet their criteria, do their enrollment choices really come down to which schools will be the cheapest to attend?According to our Admitted Student Research™, this might not be the case. Table 1 shows the percentage of transfer students who rated their enrollment choices and their next closest alternative choices as either “very good” or “excellent” on seven enrollment drivers.
Admitted Transfer Students: Quality Ratings of Enrolling Transfer School and Alternative Choice 

Are Transfer Students Really That Pragmatic?

More programs continue to move online, especially at the graduate level. According to IPEDS, more than 6,800 new online graduate programs were added between 2019 and 2022, and online graduate enrollment grew by 250,000.  This continuing growth is good news for online programming, but it also poses a challenge for institutions looking to enter or expand their online footprints. The more online programs there are, the harder it is to stand out. To help institutions gain valuable competitive intelligence, Eduventures is turning to a new data source—one that can help institutions benchmark online programs and reveal how to differentiate in mature markets. A Crowded Online MarketThe pandemic prompted more institutions to make online learning a priority—to increase access, broaden reach, and, of course, grow enrollment.  According to our CHLOE 8 Report, chief online officers (COOs) estimated that interest in online program options has not yet peaked. In fact, 50% of COOs reported either moderate growth (4% to 9%) or strong growth (more than or equal to 10%) in graduate online enrollment between 2021 and 2022.  Figure 1 shows that graduate online enrollment (exclusively distance) grew by 47% between fall 2017 and fall 2022, and hybrid graduate enrollment (some distance) grew by 75%. On the other hand, campus graduate enrollment declined by 19%.    Figure 1. During the reporting years of 2020 and 2021, there was considerable ‘noise’ in enrollment numbers as many institutions grappled with the pandemic disruption and return-to-campus in fall 2021. Therefore, fall 2022, in our estimation, resembles ‘back to normal’ reporting. Because of this, it is best to compare 2019 and prior years to 2022. Online (exclusively distance) graduate student enrollment increased by more than 250,000 in fall 2022 compared to 2019, while campus-based student enrollment dropped by more than 290,000. This trend toward online programs has reinforced the idea that online graduate programming could be a crucial source of income, prompting many institutions to assess both new and existing programs that could be offered online. But launching an online program can be risky. How to Compete in a Crowded MarketOf the more than 6,800 new online graduate programs launched between 2019 and 2022, 51% were online master’s degrees. This rapid online program growth has exacerbated the pre-pandemic challenge of rising costs related to marketing and recruiting online students. This makes it imperative for institutions to understand their competitors and truly see which programs students are choosing. While online programs fundamentally have national reach, there is evidence that most students enroll with an institution located within 50 miles of where they live. Therefore, institutions need to understand national online market trends, but should tailor programs to stand out in the regional market. But it can be overwhelming to identify, catalog, and analyze online program competitors. Enter the Online Degree Database® which has compiled 30+ distinct online program characteristics for over 6,500 distinct online programs. What does this database allow us to understand? Let’s take a look at the Master of Business Administration, the single largest master’s program and a stalwart online program. Looking at the national landscape, here are some key program data and characteristics for the online MBA market. There are 565 institutions that offer online MBA programs nationally. Forty-four of the top 100 nationally ranked institutions in the U.S. News  World Report ranking offer online MBAs. AACSB is the most common accreditation among all online MBA programs. Programs range from only 30 total credits up to 72. The national average total program tuition cost (not including fees) is $30,627. Health Care Administration/Management is the most commonly offered concentration.  By using these program features, institutions assessing their online programs can see how they compare to other online market options and be more prepared to change and improve their program offerings and positioning. The Bottom LineInstitutions face mounting pressure to increase enrollment and online programs are widely regarded as a viable option. The online competitive landscape has become increasingly crowded, making it harder and harder to successfully launch new programs. This may continue for a while.  Eduventures can provide valuable insight into how best to position online programs and attract more of the right prospective students. Below are some scenarios that the Online Degree Database allows insight into. We think our online programs might be too expensive. Where does my institution stand on total program cost? We want to add a new concentration to our online master’s degree. Which concentrations are most offered already? Applicants are balking at taking an entrance exam (GRE, GMAT, etc.). Which of our competitors require an admissions test and do some have waivers? Our new online program wants to include an on-campus requirement. Are there competitor programs that require just a single campus intensive/immersion? The answers to these questions depend on the specific online program and region of the institution. 

Which Online Programs Are You Competing Against?

Among adult prospects, master’s degree interest has fallen alongside the rise of the non-degree market. Indeed, the National Student Clearinghouse reported a 1.2% enrollment decline in fall 2022—the first in many years. Fall 2023 data reveals that the market is holding steady but remains below 2021 levels.  Some schools have turned to combined degree programs (bachelor’s + master’s) as a strategic gambit to ignite interest among a younger student cohort and keep them enrolled for an additional year or two. But a recurring narrative has emerged from schools expressing disappointment that these programs often fall short of expectations.  This suggests that institutions have not been as strategic as necessary to launch such programs, begging the question: who exactly are combined degree prospects? Growing InterestCombined or accelerated degree programs (e.g., 4+1 or 3+2 bachelor’s-to-master’s degree programs) can be a win-win proposition. Students benefit from fast-tracked programming that saves time and money and equips them with advanced skills to enter the labor market in a specialized field. Institutions benefit from creating more reliable master’s program pipelines and cultivating brand loyalty.  But sizing the combined degree market is challenging. There is no data source that reports on these programs specifically, and NCES IPEDS data requires triangulation and will only get you so far. Where program market data is lacking, however, Eduventures has robust information about who combined degree prospects are and what expectations and preferences they have for their higher education journeys. Eduventures’ Prospective Student Research™ reveals that the proportion of combined degree-interest prospects has grown in the post-pandemic college pipeline. When asked which path prospects were most likely to pursue for their first degree, 11% of high school sophomores, juniors, and seniors surveyed in 2019 responded “complete a five-year bachelor’s-to-master’s program.” In 2023, this prospect group rose to 14%—a statistically significant increase.   In an increasingly competitive market, tapping into this interest earlier may become more critical for schools looking to boost differentiation or maintain master’s market share. Who are these combined degree prospects?First and foremost, combined degree prospects have a higher level of confidence and maturity than their peers. For example, combined degree prospects are more likely than their peers to view college as a means of learning professional conduct and gaining knowledge. On the flip side, their peers more often cite expectations for learning responsibility and developing self-esteem.  Eduventures’ Prospective Student Mindsets™ (Mindsets) shed further light on these prospects’ core motivations. Figure 1 compares Mindset distribution between combined degree prospects and their peers.Figure 1. This indicates that 62% of combined degree prospects fall into either the Grad School Bound, Career Pragmatist, or Experiential Interest Mindsets, compared to 50% of their peers (with statistically higher incidence in the Grad School Bound and Experiential Interest Mindsets). This reveals that combined degree prospects are mostly driven by academics and career rather than other kinds of college experiences.  While it’s not surprising that the highest proportion of these prospects are Grad School Bound (24%), additional details offer more insight. Let’s consider some of the underlying responses that inform the Mindset analysis:  Top Expectations: Like all other prospective students, getting a good job after graduation is the top expectation for combined degree prospects, but there is some daylight between these two groups. For example, combined degree prospects report higher expectations around “master an academic subject,” “learn to be a leader,” “gain scientific, math, or tech skills,” and “learn how to conduct research” compared to their peers.  Top Learning Experiences: While all other prospects report higher emphasis around “interactions with other students,” “cultural events on campus,” and “participation in clubs,” combined degree prospects report higher expectations around learning from “internships,” “research opportunities with faculty,” and “work study employment.” Application Drivers: While all prospects report “academic strength” as the top application driver, combined degree prospects placed even higher importance on this characteristic (57% vs. 65%) which includes things like program quality and faculty expertise. A school’s social environment, on the other hand, is less important for this group. Another key piece of information is what they want to study. Figure 2 compares field of study interest between combined degree prospects and all others.   Figure 2. Health is the top broad field of interest for both prospect groups. Engineering, however, is the second top field of interest for combined degree prospects, while business enters the second spot for all other prospects. Aside from those two fields, combined degree prospects also report statistically higher interest in psychology and architecture.  The Bottom LineThrough our Prospective Student Brand Data, a profile of combined degree prospects emerges. These prospects are driven by academics as a pathway to graduate school, which is viewed as a springboard to a career. They want to master an academic subject and learn critical skills – and do so through hands-on experiences like internships and research. A school’s academic quality, which impacts individual program quality, is their top interest driver.  Insights like these can help institutions craft more effective messaging for combined degree programs and, more critically, craft the desired student experience within these degree programs to ensure prospects find what they are looking for.  

The Combined Bachelor’s-to-Master’s Student Prospect

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.

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Latest

‌

Latest

The Latest Bachelor’s Field of Study Trends

Featured

Featured Webinars

Recent posts

Like, Follow, Share.

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.