Enrollment cliff? What enrollment cliff?

US higher education enrollment has been declining slowly and consistently since 2011.  The downturn has been significant but small enough for the media and many people outside of higher education to miss this phenomenon. 

Enrollment is down about 5 million students a year from its peak.  

Source: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics

In 2017, the Higher Education Inquirer began reporting on enrollment declines and potential problems related to the US Department of Education's optimistic projections.  We reported on declining numbers of high school graduates and reduced higher education funding in a number of states, including New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.  And we were also particularly concerned about the plummet in community college enrollment. 

In 2022 we reported that at least 18 US states had experienced enrollment drops greater than 20 percent--and five more were close to that threshold.  Losses at regional public universities were also troubling. 

In 2026 and 2027 we expect a more precipitous drop: a result of declining fertility rates during the 2008-2009 recession.   

So where does US higher education enrollment go after 2026?  And will more people notice? 

Overall, it doesn't look good if we take a look at state-by-state projections for high school graduates from the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE).  Florida, Nevada, Idaho, DC, Maryland, Texas, South Dakota, South Carolina, and Utah may see few if any future declines. But 20 states are expected to have additional enrollment loses of 10 percent or more.  Here's a list of the states that may be hardest hit in coming years.  

Source: WICHE

These enrollment declines are in addition to the enrollment declines of 2011-2023 that all of those states experienced.  

Enrollment declines after 2038 may also appear, a ripple effect of the Covid pandemic.  Other future headwinds include climate change, internal and external conflicts, and economic disruption.  Skepticism about the value of higher education has been growing for years.  Crushing student loan debt has also fueled this skepticism. 

With a few notable exceptions, enrollment losses have been restricted to community colleges, for-profit colleges, small private universities and regional public universities.  At the moment, it appears that more elite schools will not be affected, and may actually profit from the decline of other schools.  And as competition for good jobs increases, graduating from elite universities may carry more prestige value--at almost any price.  

*The Higher Education Inquirer would like to thank Nathan Grawe for his assistance in this article. 

Related links:

Many US States Have Seen Enrollment Drops of More Than 20 Percent (Glen McGhee and Dahn Shaulis)

US Department of Education Projects Increasing Higher Ed Enrollment From 2024-2030. Really? (Dahn Shaulis and Glen McGhee)

Projections Data from the 10th Edition of Knocking at the College Door (WICHE)

State Universities and the College Meltdown

Alaska is Leading the College Meltdown. Who's Next? 

College Meltdown: NY, IL, MI, PA, VA hardest hit 

Community Colleges at the Heart of College Meltdown

US Department of Education Fails to Recognize College Meltdown 

 

Lies, Damn Lies, and Projections: Higher Ed Business and the Enrollment Cliff

While nothing is for sure, we at the Higher Education Inquirer believe higher education enrollment is going to continue on a slow downward slope for the foreseeable future, and that it could get worse. Looking at the numbers we see, it's difficult to imagine anyone arguing this. But today there is a debate between those who believe in the enrollment cliff and those who do not.

The Debate

Carleton College Professor Nathan Grawe has used the term "enrollment cliff" to describe the decline that is projected to come to a number of states within the next two years and with a trend that will last for a number of years. He uses information from a number of sources, including the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) to make these estimates. These projected declines are the result of a decline in births during and after the Great Recession. US fertility and birth rates have been declining for generations, but enrollment has been shored up by in-migration and higher rates of high school graduation. These rates could increase as abortions are criminalized.  

US Department of Education enrollment projections are fueling the debate for enrollment cliff deniers. But HEI has observed that ED has been wrong in its projections for years and has largely maintained its faulty formula. Presumably the enrollment cliff deniers also don't believe in the projections by WICHE which predicts modest declines in the number of high school graduates. For the record, these deniers are not uniform in their beliefs, values, or their intentions. 

University of Wisconsin-River Falls Professor Neil Kraus, author of the Fantasy Economy: Neoliberalism, Inequality, and the Education Reform Movement, believes that "in the aggregate, higher ed enrollments are fairly constant over time, and if you go back decades, have gradually gone up." Kraus has a point. Relatively stable birth rates would seemingly keep enrollments stable, but there are other social, economic, and political factors in the equation. 

It's a Racket on Both Sides 

Some enrollment deniers may not be so sincere. Many in the education business, including the Department of Education, have vested interests in believing everything is OK. But it's not OK. And while funding is important, it's not the entire answer, especially when the money goes into the wrong (greedy) hands, as it frequently does. 

Higher education has become a racket that has garnered increasing public skepticism about its value. That does not mean that parents won't continue to buy into the college mania and encourage all their children to go to a college regardless of the costs, and the potential debt.   

Some who believe in the enrollment cliff, and pitch it to others, may also be insincere. The President of the University of Idaho, for example, has used the enrollment cliff to rationalize their purchase of the University of Phoenix to shore up their revenues, even though Idaho is not likely to feel dramtic looses in enrollment. There are undoubtedly many others who are using this phenomenon to scare people into buying and selling their products and services.

Coming to a Consensus?

Perhaps the term "enrollment cliff" needs to be defined or the term to define the enrollment decline needs to be renamed. No one can deny that US higher education has seen an enrollment peak and a slow steady decline since 2011. There are also estimates that population declines will occur in many states, as a result of out-migration patterns that have been ongoing. There are other states that will continue to see enrollment gains, especially in the South and West. Maybe enrollment cliff is too harsh a term, but reduced enrollment cannot be ignored. 

Related links: 

Department of Education Fails (Again) to Modify Enrollment Projections

State Budgets Are Downsizing (Pew)

College Meltdown 3.0 Could Start Earlier (And End Worse) Than Planned

Baby Boomers Turning 80: The Flip Side of the 2026 Enrollment Cliff

State Universities and the College Meltdown

"20-20": Many US States Have Seen Enrollment Drops of More Than 20 Percent

US Department of Education Fails to Recognize College Meltdown

Forecasting the US College Meltdown

College Mania!, College Meltdown, and the other "C" Words

What are we seeing in US higher education and American society today?  Lower college enrollments (for some colleges), high student loan debt (for some consumers) and upward mobility and increasing wealth for others. Many of us hope to be the fortunate ones, through hard work and persistence.

Culture and society (including myths, marketing and advertising, and media) tell folks that higher education is essential and elite education is necessary for upward social mobility. Others see higher education, especially borrowing money to go to school, as a road to nowhere: of untold debt and unhappiness. What people are seeing would seem to be confusing, but it shouldn't be if we understand our system and how it works.  

 

Capitalism (also known as neoliberalism) is the underlying program or structure that guides behavior in the US. We are immersed in it. It also guides other values that we may hold about family, religion, government, and the economy. Under this system, the differences between the rich and poor have been increasing for more than a half century and life expectancy and fertility rates are stagnant.

Consumers are bombarded with stories that reflect how we should perceive higher education. The stories that we see and hear may vary and may appear contradictory if we are willing to look at all sides. Some of the stories are myths, others are downright lies. Targeted marketing means that we may not get the same messages as others. 

Class is how the program of capitalism works, with elites at the top, small business owners and managers in the middle, and workers who do the labor necessary to keep society running.  These distinctions may be small in some places and enormous in others, and there may even be overlap in wealth and income.  Social mobility is possible, but in the US social mobility is stagnant for many non-immigrants. Workers are sometimes appreciated but often unappreciated and even scapegoated. 

Communities are diverse and cut across class boundaries and even geography. Groups seen as homogeneous are rarely that. And stereotypes are used (and misused) as a short hand for understanding other people or even ourselves. 

Civics is a formal understanding how the program/system works and typically how to be a good citizen. The idea of what makes a good citizen varies. Civics can be used as a tool of social control or a tool of reform and innovation. 

Conflict consists of opposing thoughts and actions. It can exist inside of us as well as outside, causing cognitive dissonance for those who are mindful. Some degree of conflict is necessary for society to be healthy. Too much conflict can destroy the fabric of society. 

Austerity and Disruption

With a concerted effort now to reduce government spending, higher education leaders should expect reduced state and federal support in 2025 and beyond, with demographic and climate trends also darkening the clouds. Workers and consumers should also see it all coming. 

Austerity has already begun. In July 2024, the Pew Foundation reported that state budgets were facing cuts as Covid-era funds ended.  The most notable cuts are coming to the California State University System, which is expected to reduce its budget by hundred of millions of dollars. But several other states are feeling the pinch. 

Austerity for higher education is also likely to increase at the state level as baby boomers reach advanced age and require more medical attention and nursing home care. How this demographic cliff of old age, reduced fertility, and fluctuating populations plays out will vary greatly across the United States. 

Some Southern states, like Florida, Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina, have improved financially despite threats from climate change. Anti-tax, anti-regulation, and anti-union laws make them friendly to corporations in search of relocation and a better deal. States in the West, like Utah, Arizona, and Nevada, are are also likely to continue thriving. Besides climate change, which is profoundly disruptive but takes generations to notice, mass deportations could affect their economies quickly--if the Trump Administration's threats can be carried out. 

Alaska, New Mexico, Oregon, and several states in the Midwest and Atlantic regions will face more austerity as their populations remain stagnant or decline and folks move to states with lower housing costs and less taxes, leaving others to die. Deaths of despair among youth will continue to ravage them. What happens with these failing states in the future is anyone's guess. One would hope higher education leaders would have solutions and be courageous enough to act, or at the very least allow those with solutions to talk.