Title: College Enrollment Patterns Are Changing. New Data Show Applicant and Admit Pools Are Too.
Authors: Jason Cohn, Bryan J. Cook, Victoria Nelson
Source: Urban Institute
Since 2020 the world of higher education has changed drastically. Higher education has seen the effects of COVID-19, the end of race-conscious admissions, significant delays in student awards from the new FAFSA, and changing federal and state policy towards DEI.
The Urban Institute, in collaboration with the Association of Undergraduate Education at Research Universities, University of Southern California’s Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice, and in partnership with 18 institutions of higher education aimed to fill data gaps seen in potential shifts in racial demographic profiles of students who applied for, were admitted to, and enrolled in four-year IHEs between 2018-2024.
The data analysis found that trends in applicant, admit, and enrollee profiles varied greatly by race and ethnicity. Despite differences in data trends, all IHEs found an increase in the number of students who chose not to disclose their race or ethnicity in 2024.
The analysis found substantial changes to Black applicant, admit, and enrollee data. Among Black students at selective institutions (defined by an acceptance rate of below 50 percent) there were differences between 2023 and 2024 of the share of applicants (8.3 percent to 8.7 percent) and admits (6.6 percent to 5.9 percent). This is contrasted further due to the differences between the share of Black applicants and admits between 2021 to 2023, which stayed relatively consistent.
The analysis took note of a change in trends for White students as well. White students represented the only student group that consistently made up a larger share of admits than applicants (six to nine percentage points larger); despite the fact that White students demonstrated a consistent decrease in applicant, admit, and enrollee groups since 2018.
The analysis concludes that ultimately more data is needed at every point in the college admissions process. Enrollment data gives limited insight into the very end of the process and if more data is gathered throughout a student’s journey to college, then we can better grasp how all different types of students are interacting with higher education.
President Donald Trump wants to collect more admissions data from colleges and universities to make sure they’re complying with a 2023 Supreme Court decision that ended race-conscious affirmative action. And he wants that data now.
But data experts and higher education scholars warn that any new admissions data is likely to be inaccurate, impossible to interpret and ultimately misused by policymakers. That’s because Trump’s own policies have left the statistics agency inside the Education Department with a skeleton staff and not enough money, expertise or time to create this new dataset.
The department already collects data on enrollment from every institution of higher education that participates in the federal student loan program. The results are reported through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). But in an Aug. 7 memorandum, Trump directed the Education Department, which he sought to close in March, to expand that task andprovide “transparency” into how some 1,700 colleges that do not admit everyone are making their admissions decisions. And he gave Education Secretary Linda McMahon just 120 days to get it done.
Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.
Expanding data collection on applicants is not a new idea. The Biden administration had already ordered colleges to start reporting race and ethnicity data to the department this fall in order to track changes in diversity in postsecondary education. But in a separate memorandum to the head of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), McMahon asked for even more information, including high school grades and college entrance exam scores, all broken down by race and gender.
Bryan Cook, director of higher education policy at the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C., called the 120-day timeline “preposterous” because of the enormous technical challenges. For example, IPEDS has never collected high school GPAs. Some schools use a weighted 5.0 scale, giving extra points for advanced classes, and others use an unweighted 4.0 scale, which makes comparisons messy. Other issues are equally thorny. Many schools no longer require applicants to report standardized test scores and some no longer ask them about race so the data that Trump wants doesn’t exist for those colleges.
“You’ve got this effort to add these elements without a mechanism with which to vet the new variables, as well as a system for ensuring their proper implementation,” said Cook. “You would almost think that whoever implemented this didn’t know what they were doing.”
Cook has helped advise the Education Department on the IPEDS data collection for 20 years and served on technical review panels, which are normally convened first to recommend changes to the data collection. Those panels were disbanded earlier this year, and there isn’t one set up to vet Trump’s new admissions data proposal.
Cook and other data experts can’t figure out how a decimated education statistics agency could take on this task. All six NCES employees who were involved in IPEDS data collection were fired in March, and there are only three employees left out of 100 at NCES, which is run by an acting commissioner who also has several other jobs.
An Education Department official, who did not want to be named, denied that no one left inside the Education Department has IPEDS experience. The official said that staff inside the office of the chief data officer, which is separate from the statistics agency, have a “deep familiarity with IPEDS data, its collection and use.” Former Education Department employees told me that some of these employees have experience in analyzing the data, but not in collecting it.
In the past, there were as many as a dozen employees who worked closely with RTI International, a scientific research institute, which handles most of the IPEDS data collection work.
Technical review eliminated
Of particular concern is that RTI’s $10 million annual contract to conduct the data collection had been slashed approximately in half by the Department of Government Efficiency, also known as DOGE, according to two former employees, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation. Those severe budget cuts eliminated the technical review panels that vet proposed changes to IPEDS, and ended training for colleges and universities to submit data properly, which helped with data quality. RTI did not respond to my request to confirm the cuts or answer questions about the challenges it will face in expanding its work on a reduced budget and staffing.
The Education Department did not deny that the IPEDS budget had been cut in half. “The RTI contract is focused on the most mission-critical IPEDS activities,” the Education Department official said. “The contract continues to include at least one task under which a technical review panel can be convened.”
Additional elements of the IPEDS data collection have also been reduced, including a contract to check data quality.
Last week, the scope of the new task became more apparent. On Aug. 13, the administration released more details about the new admissions data it wants, describing how the Education Department is attempting to add a whole new survey to IPEDS, called the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS), which will disaggregate all admissions data and most student outcome and financial aid data by race and gender. College will have to report on both undergraduate and graduate school admissions. The public has 60 days to comment, and the administration wants colleges to start reporting this data this fall.
Complex collection
Christine Keller, executive director of theAssociation for Institutional Research, a trade group of higher education officials who collect and analyze data, called the new survey “one of the most complex IPEDS collections ever attempted.”
Traditionally, it has taken years to make much smaller changes to IPEDS, and universities are given a year to start collecting the new data before they are required to submit it. (Roughly 6,000 colleges, universities and vocational schools are required to submit data to IPEDS as a condition for their students to take out federal student loans or receive federal Pell Grants. Failure to comply results in fines and the threat of losing access to federal student aid.)
Normally, the Education Department would reveal screenshots of data fields, showing what colleges would need to enter into the IPEDS computer system. But the department has not done that, and several of the data descriptions are ambiguous. For example, colleges will have to report test scores and GPA by quintile, broken down by race and ethnicity and gender. One interpretation is that a college would have to say how many Black male applicants, for example, scored above the 80th percentile on the SAT or the ACT. Another interpretation is that colleges would need to report the average SAT or ACT score of the top 20 percent of Black male applicants.
The Association for Institutional Research used to train college administrators on how to collect and submit data correctly and sort through confusing details — until DOGE eliminated that training. “The absence of comprehensive, federally funded training will only increase institutional burden and risk to data quality,” Keller said. Keller’s organization is now dipping into its own budget to offer a small amount of free IPEDS training to universities.
The Education Department is also requiring colleges to report five years of historical admissions data, broken down into numerous subcategories. Institutions have never been asked to keep data on applicants who didn’t enroll.
“It’s incredible they’re asking for five years of prior data,” said Jordan Matsudaira, an economist at American University who worked on education policy in the Biden and Obama administrations. “That will be square in the pandemic years when no one was reporting test scores.”
‘Misleading results’
Matsudaira explained that IPEDS had considered asking colleges for more academic data by race and ethnicity in the past and the Education Department ultimately rejected the proposal. One concern is that slicing and dicing the data into smaller and smaller buckets would mean that there would be too few students and the data would have to be suppressed to protect student privacy. For example, if there were two Native American men in the top 20 percent of SAT scores at one college, many people might be able to guess who they were. And a large amount of suppressed data would make the whole collection less useful.
Also, small numbers can lead to wacky results. For example, a small college could have only two Hispanic male applicants with very high SAT scores. If both were accepted, that’s a 100 percent admittance rate. If only 200 white women out of 400 with the same test scores were accepted, that would be only a 50 percent admittance rate. On the surface, that can look like both racial and gender discrimination. But it could have been a fluke. Perhaps both of those Hispanic men were athletes and musicians. The following year, the school might reject two different Hispanic male applicants with high test scores but without such impressive extracurriculars. The admissions rate for Hispanic males with high test scores would drop to zero. “You end up with misleading results,” said Matsudaira.
Reporting average test scores by race is another big worry. “It feels like a trap to me,” said Matsudaira. “That is mechanically going to give the administration the pretense of claiming that there’s lower standards of admission for Black students relative to white students when you know that’s not at all a correct inference.”
The statistical issue is that there are more Asian and white students at the very high end of the SAT score distribution, and all those perfect 1600s will pull the average up for these racial groups. (Just like a very tall person will skew the average height of a group.) Even if a college has a high test score threshold that it applies to all racial groups and no one below a 1400 is admitted, the average SAT score for Black students will still be lower than that of white students. (See graphic below.) The only way to avoid this is to purely admit by test score and take only the students with the highest scores. At some highly selective universities, there are enough applicants with a 1600 SAT to fill the entire class. But no institution fills its student body by test scores alone. That could mean overlooking applicants with the potential to be concert pianists, star soccer players or great writers.
The Average Score Trap
This graphic by Kirabo Jackson, an economist at Northwestern University, depicts the problem of measuring racial discrimination though average test scores. Even for a university that admits all students above a certain cut score, the average score of one racial group (red) will be higher than the average score of the other group (blue). Source: graphic posted on Bluesky Social by Josh Goodman
Admissions data is a highly charged political issue. The Biden administration originally spearheaded the collection of college admissions data by race and ethnicity. Democrats wanted to collect this data to show how the nation’s colleges and universities were becoming less diverse with the end of affirmative action. This data is slated to start this fall, following a full technical and procedural review.
Now the Trump administration is demanding what was already in the works, and adding a host of new data requirements — without following normal processes. And instead of tracking the declining diversity in higher education, Trump wants to use admissions data to threaten colleges and universities. If the new directive produces bad data that is easy to misinterpret, he may get his wish.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
Nearly three dozen selective colleges are facing an antitrust lawsuit alleging they used the early decision admissions process to reduce competition and inflate prices. Also named as defendants are application platforms Common App and Scoir, as well as the Consortium on Financing Higher Education, an information-sharing coalition of selective liberal arts colleges.
By the numbers
740,000
That’s the estimated number of work hours the higher education sector can expect to add as a result of the U.S. Department of Education’s plan to cull new data from colleges on their applicants’ race and sex. Behind the push is the Trump administration’s hostility toward diversity initiatives and its aggressive approach to enforcing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ban on race-based admissions.
Anti-DEI push in courts, board rooms and classrooms:
A federal judge declined to block Alabama’s governor from enforcing a new law that eliminates diversity, equity and inclusion offices and forbids colleges from requiring students to adopt a long list of “divisive concepts.” The professors and students who sued over the law expressed concerns that it is overly vague and restricts their free speech rights.
The Iowa Board of Regents adopted a new policy requiring public university faculty to present controversial subjects “in a way that reflects the range of scholarly views and ongoing debate in the field.” Before last week’s vote, the board stripped the proposal’s original language around DEI and critical race theory after public pushback. But one regent noted the policy does not define “controversial” and raised questions about who would.
Students for Fair Admissions dropped its lawsuits against the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and the U.S. Air Force Academy over race-conscious admissions. Both academies dropped their diversity efforts in admissions earlier this year under a directive from the Trump administration.
Quote of the week:
“Our actions clearly demonstrate our commitment to addressing antisemitic actions and promoting an inclusive campus environment by upholding a safe, respectful, and accountable environment.”
George Washington University
The private institution became one of the latest targets of the Trump administration, which claimed the university was indifferent to harassment of Jewish and Israeli students on its Washington, D.C., campus. As with its accusations against a handful of other colleges, the administration cited a pro-Palestinian protest encampment at GWU in spring 2024. The university asked the local police to clear the encampment shortly after it was formed.
The University of Chicago’s Arts and Humanities Division is reducing how many new Ph.D. students it admits for the 2026–27 academic year across about half of its departments and completely halting Ph.D. admissions elsewhere. Multiple language programs are among those affected.
In a Tuesday email that Inside Higher Ed obtained, Arts and Humanities dean Deborah Nelson told faculty, staff and Ph.D. students, “We will accept a smaller overall Ph.D. cohort across seven departments: Art History, Cinema and Media Studies, East Asian Languages and Civilizations, English Language and Literature, Linguistics, Music (composition), and Philosophy.” The university didn’t tell Inside Higher Ed how many fewer Ph.D. students would be accepted across those departments.
“Other departments will pause admissions,” Nelson wrote.
Andrew Ollett, an associate professor of South Asian languages and civilizations, said that means no new Ph.D. students for these departments: classics, comparative literature, Germanic studies, Middle Eastern studies, Romance languages and literatures, Slavic languages and literatures, and South Asian languages and civilizations, plus the ethnomusicology and history and theory of music programs in the music department.
While the university didn’t provide an interview or respond to multiple written questions, a spokesperson did point out that the UChicago Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy and Practice is also pausing Ph.D. admissions, while the Harris School of Public Policy is pausing admissions for the Harris Ph.D., the political economy Ph.D. and the master of arts in public policy with certificate in research methods.
“A small number of PhD and master’s programs at the University of Chicago will pause admissions for the 2026–2027 academic year while divisions and schools undertake comprehensive reviews of the programs’ missions and structures,” UChicago said in a statement. It said the aim is “ensuring the highest-quality training for the next generation of scholars” and the pauses “will not affect currently enrolled students.”
UChicago, which faces debt issues, has become yet another example of well-known universities freezing or scaling back Ph.D. admissions and programs amid financial pressures and other factors. In November, before Trump retook the presidency, Boston University said it was pausing accepting new Ph.D. students in a dozen humanities and social sciences programs, including philosophy, English and history. In February, the Universities of Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh announced pauses, following other institutions.
But UChicago’s reductions for language programs also reflect a broader trend of universities scaling back foreign language education offerings. In 2023, West Virginia University became infamous in academe for its leaders’ decision to eliminate all foreign language degrees.
“It’s sad and pathetic,” Ollett said of the pause at UChicago, “because it represents the domination of one set of values, which is money, over the values that we say that we are pursuing in our lives as faculty members, as educators and as researchers.”
He argued that the university can’t say it’s committed to the humanities as a field for producing knowledge while turning away from Ph.D. programs.
Nelson’s email said, “This one-time decision applies only to the 2026–2027 academic year.” But Clifford Ando, the Robert O. Anderson Distinguished Service Professor of Classics, History and the College, questioned whether this is just a pause.
“I see no reason to think that we would resume doctoral education if we are simultaneously dismantling the curricula that sustain undergraduate training in these fields,” Ando wrote in an email sent to a classical studies Listserv. “Why would one have a doctoral program in a discipline that undergraduates can’t even study?”
Ollett also said this comes as Nelson has pushed to consolidate smaller departments. He said a big question for the coming academic year was “Do we do Ph.D. admissions if we’re not sure that our department is going to exist?”
Not Rule by Committee
Ando provided Inside Higher Ed the “charge” UChicago gave to the Arts and Humanities Languages Working Group on June 17.
“UChicago is known as a global leader in the instruction of ancient and modern languages,” the charge begins. “Language instruction and expertise is not simply a valuable object in its own right; it is an important foundation for the larger UChicago College education, for graduate education, and for the research and scholarship of our faculty.”
But it then says, “language instruction at this extraordinary scope is also expensive.” It listed several questions for the committee to explore, including:
“Should there be a universal or suggested minimum number of students?
“Do we need to teach every class every year?
“Are there languages we no longer need to teach?
“Are there opportunities for partnerships with peer institutions (with similar standards and schedules) to share language instruction?
“How can we use technology more effectively to support and enhance language instruction?”
Ollett said, “We teach more than 50 languages in the division, which seems to be too much because the committee was asked to find ways of getting that number down.”
Tyler Williams, another associate professor in the South Asian languages and civilizations department and a member of the committee, said the committee members “unanimously declined to endorse any of the suggestions about cutting languages or outsourcing language teaching.” He said Nelson “did not wait for the committee to submit its report,” nor did she “consult with that committee before she made this decision.”
Ando also provided the charge for a separate Ph.D. Working Group, which outlined a number of “existential challenges” for Ph.D. programs. Those include significantly reduced demand for entry-level faculty, increasing costs for the university and long times to degree, which can deter students.
Additionally, the document notes that the programs are facing “heightened public skepticism about the value of what is taught in Arts & Humanities PhD programs, and how it is taught. Yet Ph.D. programs remain a critical part of the research university model, necessary to teaching, research, scholarship, and creativity.”
Among other questions, that committee was asked to explore whether there should be a minimum size for Ph.D. cohorts in order to offer a program.
Williams said that this committee indicated it wasn’t going to endorse an admissions pause, but said it should be divisionwide if it occurred.
Nelson’s email announcing the changes stressed that “this decision is not the recommendation of any committee.”
Williams said the Ph.D. admissions cuts are part of “a crisis manufactured by the university administration itself.” Ollett said he worries for the future of their field.
“We are quite unique in that there’s not a lot of South Asia area studies departments in the United States, and especially ones that train the next generation of scholars,” he said. He said he’s “already turned away prospective Ph.D. students because of this, and that’s just going to keep happening.”
He said he worries that “if we’re not doing it, no one will do it, and the field will wither and die.”
United States Military Academy at West Point Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) announced this week that it has reached a settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice that will permanently end the consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions at the United States Military Academy at West Point and the United States Air Force Academy.
The agreement, approved at the highest levels of the Department of Defense, establishes four key requirements for both academies: applying no consideration of race or ethnicity in admissions decisions, maintaining no race-based goals or quotas, shielding race and ethnicity information from admissions personnel, and training staff to adhere to merit-only standards.
The policies will take effect immediately and apply to all future admissions cycles, according to the settlement terms.
The settlement represents a significant policy reversal from the Biden administration’s previous position defending race-conscious admissions at military service academies. Earlier this year, under President Trump’s Executive Order 14185, the Department of Defense determined that race-based admissions at military academies are not justified by military necessity and do not advance national security, cohesion, or readiness.
The Department formally abandoned its earlier position that a “compelling national security interest in a diverse officer corps” justified race-based policies, marking a sharp departure from decades of military diversity initiatives.
The agreement follows SFFA’s earlier litigation against the U.S. Naval Academy, where the organization successfully challenged similar race-conscious admissions practices.
Under the settlement terms, litigation against West Point and the Air Force Academy will be dismissed with prejudice, with each side bearing its own legal costs. The agreement preserves SFFA’s right to challenge any future changes to these policies.
“This is an historic day for the principle of equal treatment under the law at our nation’s military academies,” said Edward Blum, president of SFFA. “Together with the Naval Academy case earlier this year, this agreement ensures that America’s critically important military service academies will admit future officers based solely on merit, not skin color or ancestry.”
The settlement comes amid ongoing national debates over affirmative action policies following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which effectively ended race-conscious admissions at civilian colleges and universities.
Military service academies had previously been considered potentially exempt from that ruling due to national security considerations and the unique mission of training military officers. However, the Trump administration’s policy shift has eliminated that distinction.
The agreement affects two of the nation’s most prestigious military institutions. West Point, founded in 1802, and the Air Force Academy, established in 1954, collectively graduate approximately 2,000 new military officers annually.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Stanford University will continue to consider applicants’ connections to alumni and donors when accepting its incoming fall 2026 undergraduate class, despite a new California law meant to curb the practice.
Last year,Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law banning private nonprofit colleges that receive state-funded student aid from practicing legacy and donor admissions.Those who violate the rule, effective Sept. 1, must provide extensive demographic data on their newly enrolled students and the admissions rates of those with legacy or donor ties compared to those without.
Stanford will no longer accept funding from state student aid programs “in order to comply with recent California legislation,” it said last month.Instead, the university will use its own scholarship funding to make up the difference.
Dive Insight:
Like many highly selective colleges that offer legacy and donor admissions, Stanford accepts a disproportionate share of its undergraduates from that population. In fall 2023, 13.6% of the university’s admitted undergraduate class had ties to alumni or donors, according to institutional data. Stanford’s overall acceptance rate that year was just under 4%.
Former California Assemblymember Phil Ting introduced the legislation banning legacy and donor admissions in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling striking down race-conscious admissions.
But several amendments to the bill significantly defanged it. Ting’s initial language would have cut colleges that violated the ban off from access to the Cal Grant, a program providing financial aid to students from low- and middle-income families.
Instead, the version that passed the state house lacked monetary penalties for such institutions, opting for a name-and-shame approach. To that end, the California Department of Justice would publicly list such colleges on its website.
While lawmakers framed the legislation as a ban, Stanford’s decision to continue using legacy and donor admissions demonstrates the limits of the law’s influence. By turning down state funding, the university can avoid the data reporting penalty and being listed on the state justice department’s website.
Stanford students who previously received state aid won’t see a difference in the amount of financial aid they receive, and no action by them is required, the university said in a July 29 press release.
Admitted students whose family income is below $100,000 don’t pay tuition, room or board at Stanford. For households making less than $150,000 annually, students do not pay tuition.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Students for Fair Admissionshas dropped its lawsuits against the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and the U.S. Air Force Academy over race-conscious admissions — practices that are no longer in effect at either institution under the Trump administration.
Both academies axed admissions goals based on race, ethnicity and gendershortly after President Donald Trump’s defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, took office.
SFFA had filed the lawsuits after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 sided with the anti-affirmative action group in its landmark ruling banning race-conscious admissions at colleges but allowed the practice to continue at military academies.
Dive Insight:
In a footnote to Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard — the case that ultimately ended decades of race-conscious admissions — the court said the decision did not address the practice at the nation’s military academies.
While no military academy had been party to the case, the court effectively created a carve-out for race-conscious admissions at the institutions “in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.”
In a friend-of-the-court brief to that case, the Biden administration wrote that “the Nation’s military strength and readiness depend on a pipeline of officers who are both highly qualified and racially diverse — and who have been educated in diverse environments that prepare them to lead increasingly diverse forces.”
After the ruling came down, SFFA soon filed legal challenges against military academies and their race-conscious admissions policies.
In its 2023 complaint against West Point, SFFA alleged, “Instead of admitting future cadets based on objective metrics and leadership potential, West Point focuses on race.”
The lawsuit further argued: “West Point has no justification for using race-based admissions.”
SFFA’s cases against West Point and the Air Force Academy, along with another one against the U.S. Naval Academy, were in progress when Trump retook the presidency in January.
The group quickly found it had an ideological ally in the new administration, whose policies reflect SFFA’s goals.
Hegseth banned race-based admissions at the nation’s military academies in January, days after being sworn in.In doing so, Trump’s defense secretary described diversity initiatives as “incompatible with the values of DoD,” adding that “the DoD will strive to provide merit-based, color-blind, equal opportunities to Service members but will not guarantee or strive for equal outcomes.”
Hegseth has gone much further than just rejecting race-conscious admissions at the academies. Under his leadership, the Pentagon ordered the military academies to purge hundreds of books from their libraries that deal with racism and gender issues, a move that has sparked outcry as well as lawsuits and at least one reversal.
In June, the Justice Department and SFFA asked that the group’s lawsuit against the Naval Academy be declared moot, after that institution dropped race-conscious admissions under Hegseth’s directive. The case was under appeal at the time, after a federal judge upheld the institution’s policies in December. In July, an appeals court dismissed the case in response to the request from SFFA and the Justice Department.
SFFA President Edward Blum said in a June statement, “We applaud this extraordinary accomplishment by the President and the Department of Defense which restores the colorblind legal covenant that binds together our military institutions.”
In an era when learners move fluidly across institutions, credentials, work-based learning and military education, the path to a degree is rarely linear. One area of the transfer process where improvement is both possible and measurable is the time it takes to render an admissions decision.
Timely decisions support learners’ ability to register, engage in advising and complete financial aid processes. Faster admissions decisions can help institutions better align with the needs and expectations of today’s mobile learners.
While institutions have made significant progress in modernizing admissions operations and technology over the past decade, continued refinement is needed to align those improvements with learner-centered goals.
AACRAO’s recent report, “A Blueprint Toward a Learner-Centered Credit Mobility Ecosystem,” notes that “the core challenges for credit mobility are not primarily a lack of technology but rather structural and operational issues.” Manual processes persist even when electronic systems are available. Institutional fragmentation, policy complexity and data gaps create barriers that disproportionately affect mobile learners.
One improvement institutions can pursue today is tracking and improving the time it takes to render an admissions decision for transfer applicants. The assumption that they’ll wait belies the urgent, real-world demands faced by transfer students, many of whom are older, working, supporting families or juggling multiple institutions and life transitions. Delays in admission cut off timely access to advising, registration and financial aid packaging.
These are not administrative delays; they are missed opportunities for learner-centered service delivery.
The Challenge is not a competition. Instead, it is a national call for action, experimentation and transparency. Participants commit to measuring their own time to decision, identifying internal or systemic friction points and piloting solutions to reduce them. AACRAO will provide visibility, collaborate with NASH for technical support and showcase progress at the Assembly, its newly reimagined national convening on learning mobility.
Why Admissions Decision Speed Matters
In many cases, transfer students apply with urgency. They may be returning after a stop-out, seeking a more affordable or supportive environment, or adapting to major life changes. These students are often older, working, supporting families or managing housing and food insecurity. For them, extended decision timelines may limit access to advising, course registration and timely financial planning. Without an offer of admission, students cannot register, access advising, complete financial aid steps or make informed decisions about their futures.
Measuring and improving time-to-decision is one way institutions can demonstrate responsiveness. Institutions that prioritize transparency and timeliness in their transfer admissions process send a clear signal to the transfer community: you are welcome and we are ready.
Building on the Work of Learning Mobility
This Challenge builds on years of work by AACRAO to advance learning mobility—a learner-centered framework that recognizes the full range of educational experiences.
In a previous “Beyond Transfer” article, we emphasized that many failures of reform are failures of implementation. Too often, institutions adopt promising ideas—articulation agreements, credit frameworks, technology platforms—without addressing the operational bottlenecks that slow them down or dilute their impact. The admissions decision for transfer learners is one area where aligning process improvement with institutional values can yield measurable progress.
As the stewards of institutional systems, AACRAO members sit at the intersection of policy, technology, compliance and student support. They know how long decisions take. They know where the bottlenecks are. And they are well positioned to lead the change.
A Challenge Worth Taking Up
Addressing transfer admissions timelines is not a silver bullet. But it is a concrete, measurable starting point—one that institutions can act on today. And it may be one of the fastest ways to demonstrate that higher education is not only listening to learners but responding with urgency and care.
Learn more and express interest in joining the Challenge here.
Colleges will now be required to report additional admissions data to the National Center for Education Statistics, including data on the race and sex of their applicants, their admitted students and those who chose to enroll, per a memo from Trump to the U.S. Department of Education.Previously, institutions were only required to provide racial data for enrolled students.
Institutions must provide the data for undergraduate students and for certain graduate and professional programs, the Education Department said.
Separately, Trump signed an executive order directing his political appointees to review both grant awards and funding opportunity announcements. These appointees, along with subject matter experts, will evaluate grant decisions to align with the Trump administration’s policy priorities, according to a White House fact sheet.
Together, the two orders take aim at areas the Trump administration is attempting to tightly control — who colleges and universities enroll, and which research projects get federal funding.
In an announcement Thursday, theEducation Departmentsaid the additional admissions data is needed “to ensure race-based preferences are not used in university admissions processes.”
Along with data on applicants’ race and gender, colleges must also include the prospective students’ standardized test scores, GPAs and other academic qualifications. This data will also be collected about admitted and enrolled students.
At the same time, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon is ordering the National Center for Education Statisticsto develop a process to audit the data to ensure its accuracy.
“We will not allow institutions to blight the dreams of students by presuming that their skin color matters more than their hard work and accomplishments,” McMahon said. “The Trump Administration will ensure that meritocracy and excellence once again characterize American higher education.”
The order comes two years after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down race-conscious college admissions in a landmark case involving Harvard Universityand the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Since then, colleges have overhauled their admissions practices, and many selective institutions enrolled lower shares of Black and Hispanic students in the aftermath, according to an analysis from The New York Times.
A new landscape for grants
Trump’s executive order on grant funding castigated much of the current research landscape, decrying awards that went to projects such as developing transgender sexual education programs and training graduate students in critical race theory.
The directive accused other grants of promoting “Marxism, class warfare propaganda, and other anti-American ideologies in the classroom, masked as rigorous and thoughtful investigation.”
Researchers and other groups have sued over past Trump administration attempts to control grant funding,including the cancellation of vast swaths of National Institutes of Health awards to comply with the president’s orders against diversity, equity and inclusion.A federal judge has ruled against the NIH’s grant cancellations, and the U.S. Government Accountability Office has likewise determined they were illegal.
Still, Thursday’s order directs agency heads to revise the terms of existing discretionary grants, “to the maximum extent permitted by law,”to allow them to be immediately terminated, including if an award “no longer advances agency priorities or the national interest.”
When assessing grant applications, senior appointees should weigh if they advance Trump’s policy priorities, according to the directive.
The order says grants should not be used to deny that sex is binary — a view at odds with scientific understanding — or promote “anti-American values.”They also should not be used to promote racial discrimination by awardees, including by using race or proxies to select employees or program participants, the order stated.
In addition, the order says preference for discretionary grants should be given to institutions “with lower indirect cost rates” — all things being equal.
Under the Trump administration, several major agencies have attempted to impose a flat 15% reimbursement rate for colleges’ indirect research costs — which cover expenses like laboratory maintenance and information technology —though courts have either permanently or temporarily blocked those moves.
The White House’s fact sheet suggests the Trump administration may look beyond the research heavyweights in the higher education sector when awarding new grants.
The executive order “directs agencies to award grants to a wide array of meritorious grantees, not just the universities and nonprofits that have received awards year after year,” it said.
President Donald Trump issued an executive action Thursday directing colleges to prove they are not considering race in admissions.
Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
President Donald Trump issued an executive action Thursday afternoon mandating colleges and universities submit data to verify that they are not unlawfully considering race in admissions decisions.
The order also requires the Department of Education to update the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System to make its data more legible to students and parents and to “increase accuracy checks for data submitted by institutions through IPEDS,” penalizing them for late, incomplete or inaccurate data.
Opponents of race-conscious admissions have hailed the mandate as a victory for transparency in college admissions, but others in the sector have criticized its vague language and question who at the department is left to collect and analyze the data.
“American students and taxpayers deserve confidence in the fairness and integrity of our Nation’s institutions of higher education, including confidence that they are recruiting and training capable future doctors, engineers, scientists, and other critical workers vital to the next generations of American prosperity,” the order reads. “Race-based admissions practices are not only unfair, but also threaten our national security and well-being.”
It’s now up to the secretary of education, Linda McMahon, to determine what new admissions data institutions will be required to report. The administration’s demands of Columbia and Brown Universities in their negotiations to reinstate federal funding could indicate what the requirements will be. In its agreement with Brown, the government ordered the university to submit annual data “showing applicants, admitted students, and enrolled students broken down by race, color, grade point average, and performance on standardized tests.” Colleges will be expected to submit their admissions data for the 2025–26 academic year, according to the order.
What resources are in place to enforce the new requirements remains to be seen. Earlier this year the administration razed the staff at the Department of Education who historically collected and analyzed institutional data. Only three staff members remain in the National Center for Education Statistics, which operates IPEDS.
‘It’s Not Just as Easy as Collecting Data’
Since taking office, the Trump administration has launched a crusade against diversity, equity and inclusion in higher education, often using the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against race-conscious admissions as a weapon in the attacks.
Students for Fair Admissions, the anti–affirmative action advocacy group that was the plaintiff in the 2023 cases, called the action a “landmark step” toward transparency and accountability for students, parents and taxpayers.
“For too long, American colleges and universities have hidden behind opaque admissions practices that often rely on racial preferences to shape their incoming classes,” Edward Blum, SFFA president and longtime opponent of race-conscious admissions, said in a press release.
But college-equity advocates sounded the alarm, arguing that the order—which also claims that colleges have been using diversity and other “overt and hidden racial proxies” to continue race-conscious admissions post-SFFA—aims to intimidate colleges into recruiting fewer students of color.
“I will say something that my members in the higher education community cannot say. What the Trump administration is really saying is that you will be punished if you do not admit enough white students to your institution,” Angel B. Pérez, CEO of the National Association for College Admission Counseling, told Inside Higher Ed.
Like many of Trump’s other orders targeting DEI, that mandate relies on unclear terms and instructions. It does not define “racial proxies”—although a memo by the Department of Justice released last week provides examples—nor does it outline what data would prove an institution is or is not considering race in its admissions process.
In an interview with Inside Higher Ed, Paul Schroeder, the executive director of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, questioned the government’s capacity to carry out the president’s order.
“Without NCES, who’s going to actually look at this data? Who’s going to understand this data? Are we going to have uniform reporting or is it going to be just a mess coming in from all these different colleges?” Schroeder said.
“It’s not just as easy as collecting data. It’s not just asking a couple questions about the race and ethnicity of those who were admitted versus those who applied. It’s a lot of work. It’s a lot of hours. It’s not going to be fast.”
