WEBINAR @ 13th May, 2 PM (GMT+1)
What's Stopping Progress in Higher Education?
Register now
Most institutions feel the same pressure right now. Application volumes are up, but enrollment growth is uneven. Some sectors are gaining. Others are not. A few are growing in headcount yet losing margin per student. Behind the headlines, enrollment leaders are being asked to deliver more class, with better fit, in less time, and with operations that often span four or five disconnected systems.
The good news is that the data shows growth is still possible. Total postsecondary enrollment in the United States rose 1.0% in fall 2025, with undergraduate enrollment up 1.2% according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center's Final Fall Enrollment Trends report. Community colleges grew 3.0% and public four-year institutions grew 1.4%. Private four-year institutions, however, saw declines of 1.6% (non-profit) and 2.0% (for-profit). The story is no longer one universal trend. It is a story of sectors, segments, and operational quality.
This article is for enrollment leaders, admissions directors, recruitment teams, marketing teams, financial aid offices, CIOs, deans, and presidents who want a clear-eyed view of what actually moves enrollment in 2026. It covers eight evidence-informed strategies, the metrics that matter, the most common mistakes, and where modern admissions and enrollment software fits into the picture. It does not promise growth. No article and no platform can do that. What it offers is a practical framework for diagnosing where your institution can improve and aligning the people, processes, and data that determine whether students enroll.
Before discussing strategies, it helps to acknowledge the structural environment. Several forces are pressing on enrollment at the same time, and they do not affect every institution equally.
The most-cited pressure is demographic. WICHE's Knocking at the College Door projects that the number of US high school graduates will peak at roughly 3.9 million in 2025 before entering a sustained decline of about 13% through 2041. The decline is uneven. The South is projected to see small gains overall, while the Northeast, Midwest, and West see double-digit losses. Five large states, namely California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Pennsylvania, are projected to account for about three-quarters of the national decline. WICHE itself cautions against treating the trend as a sudden cliff, since the change unfolds gradually across more than a decade.
Affordability has also become a sharper concern. The 2024-25 FAFSA rollout produced widespread delays. According to a US Government Accountability Office analysis, the disruption contributed to a 9% decline in submitted FAFSA applications among first-time filers, with roughly 432,000 fewer total submissions by late August 2024. The 2026-27 FAFSA cycle showed a stronger operational start, with the U.S. Department of Education reporting that more than 5 million FAFSA forms had been submitted by December 2025, a nearly 150% increase compared with the same point the previous year. Even when FAFSA operations improve, financial aid offices still face complex regulatory, verification and communication workloads that can affect student decision-making.
International recruitment is volatile. The IIE Open Doors 2025 report shows that the United States hosted nearly 1.2 million international students in 2024-25, a 5% increase year over year. However, the IIE Fall 2025 Snapshot, based on responses from more than 825 institutions, reports a 17% decline in new international enrollments and a 12% decline in graduate-level international enrollment. Of the institutions that reported declines, 96% cited visa concerns and 68% cited travel restrictions.
Application behavior has shifted as well. Common App's end-of-season report for 2024-25 found that 1,498,199 distinct first-year applicants submitted over 10 million applications, an 8% year-over-year increase. The average applicant applied to 6.80 institutions. Applications grew faster among first-generation students (+14%) and students eligible for fee waivers (+10%). Most of that growth went to public institutions, which saw a 13% rise in applications, compared with 3% growth at private institutions. More applications does not automatically mean more enrolled students, and many institutions are now seeing higher application volume alongside lower or flat yield.
Behind all of this is a quieter pressure: students expect a digital experience that matches what they get from consumer technology. Student expectations for digital experience continue to rise, and institutions increasingly need to make essential information easier to find, especially around registration, financial aid, deadlines and next steps. None of this is new in spirit. Students have always had to navigate paperwork. What has changed is the comparison set.
"Increase college enrollment" is rarely one number on one report. It can mean any of the following:
Each goal has its own tactics, owners, and metrics. Treating "more enrollment" as a single objective often leads institutions to invest in lead generation when their real bottleneck is post-admit yield, or to invest in admitted-student events when their real loss happens at FAFSA verification.
A useful starting point is the enrollment funnel:
awareness → inquiry → application start → application completion → admission → offer → deposit → enrollment → persistence.
Each stage has different conversion dynamics, different competitors for the student's attention, and different operational owners. Increasing enrollment usually means improving conversion at the weakest stage, not adding more volume at the top.
With that context in mind, here are eight strategies that institutional teams can adapt to their own situation.
Many institutions try to increase enrollment by buying more leads before they have diagnosed where students drop off. This approach can mask the real problem and inflate cost per enrolled student.
Before changing tactics, it is worth examining the full funnel:
The work involves both leading indicators (response times, document completion, engagement signals) and lagging indicators (yield, deposit conversion, persistence). Both matter. Lagging indicators tell you what happened. Leading indicators tell you what to do this week.
Doing this analysis well usually requires three things: a single source of truth across recruitment, admissions, payments, and student records; consistent definitions across teams; and dashboards that reflect real operations rather than slide-deck approximations. Where institutions still rely on monthly CSV exports stitched together in spreadsheets, the diagnostic question often takes longer to answer than the cycle gives you time for. This is one of the reasons enrollment teams increasingly invest in connected systems such as a higher education CRM platform and admissions dashboards and reporting that span the full lifecycle.
Software does not fix a weak strategy. It does, however, make the difference between knowing your funnel in real time and finding out three weeks after the cycle has moved on.
Enrollment growth often starts upstream of marketing, in positioning. A generic "excellent education and supportive community" message is rarely what makes a student choose one institution over another.
A stronger value proposition is concrete, segment-specific, and grounded in evidence. It speaks differently to traditional undergraduates and to adult learners. It speaks differently to first-generation students and to executive education participants. It is honest about cost, outcomes, and fit.
Useful inputs include:
Different segments require different messages. Common App's most recent data shows particularly strong application growth among first-generation students and students eligible for fee waivers, so institutions serving those students benefit from explicit positioning around access, support, and clear cost information. Business schools and executive education providers, by contrast, often need to communicate career outcomes, network strength, and return on investment with specificity that traditional undergraduate marketing does not require.
A practical test: if you removed your name and logo from your top program page, would a prospective student be able to identify which institution it represents? If not, the positioning may need work before any further investment in advertising.
The moment after a student submits an inquiry is a high-intent window. Sector research and admissions practice consistently point to the same operational lesson: students who enquire should receive timely, relevant and useful follow-up. The exact response-time benchmark varies by institution, programme and channel, but waiting several days to respond to a high-intent enquiry creates avoidable risk, particularly when students are comparing multiple institutions at the same time.
What does seem to matter is the combination of:
A modern admissions CRM supports this by routing inquiries automatically, segmenting prospects, and pairing automated triggers with the option of human follow-up. The aim is not to mechanize communication but to make sure that no high-intent student waits in a queue, while counselors spend their time on conversations that benefit from human judgement.
International segments add complexity. Time zones, languages, document requirements, and visa processes all shape what a "good" response looks like. Institutions recruiting from multiple regions usually need a higher education CRM that handles multilingual templates, regional teams, and agent relationships natively rather than as add-ons.
Many institutions lose students after interest is already established. The cause is usually friction rather than indifference.
Common sources of friction include:
The remedies are usually mundane:
These improvements often live in admissions and enrollment software that combines the online application portal, workflow automation, and decision management on one record. Removing manual handoffs is not just a service improvement. It is an operational one. Admissions teams that previously spent hours per week chasing documents and reconciling spreadsheets gain capacity that can be redirected to high-touch yield work.
Reducing friction should never mean lowering academic standards. The goal is to make sure that the application a student submits accurately reflects who they are, and that the process does not push otherwise qualified students out of the funnel before review.
Affordability is one of the most decisive factors in college choice for many students and families. It is also one of the most poorly communicated.
The 2024-25 FAFSA rollout demonstrated how fragile this part of the system can be. The US Government Accountability Office reported a 9% decline in first-time FAFSA applications during that cycle, with roughly 432,000 fewer applications by late August 2024. The 2026-27 cycle has had a stronger operational start, with the Department of Education reporting more than 5 million FAFSA forms submitted by December 2025. Even with that recovery, financial aid offices continue to operate under heavy verification, communication and compliance loads that influence how students experience the financial aid stage of the funnel.
For institutions, the practical implications are clear. Students and families need:
For US-based institutions, the National College Attainment Network and the Department of Education's Federal Student Aid resources are useful references for current FAFSA completion patterns and aid trends. Internationally, the Office for Students in the UK and equivalent national bodies provide guidance specific to local funding regimes.
A few principles are worth stating clearly. Institutions should not give financial advice. They should not invent grant or scholarship statistics. They should not imply that affordability can be solved through communication alone when the underlying cost structure is what students and families are responding to. Connecting financial aid status to admissions communication earlier in the cycle, however, can prevent silent drop-off at the most expensive point in the funnel.
Enrollment is not secured when an offer is made. The gap between admission and matriculation is where many institutions lose right-fit students.
NACAC's State of College Admission research has documented long-term pressure on yield at many four-year institutions as application volume per student has risen. As students send applications to more schools and receive more offers, individual institutions find it harder to predict and protect yield.
For US-based students, especially low-income and first-generation students, "summer melt" is a well-documented phenomenon. Research summarized by Harvard's Strategic Data Project and the Center for Education Policy Research estimates that 10% to 20% of college-intending students nationally fail to enroll in the fall, with rates often higher among low-income, first-generation, and community-college-bound students. A widely cited study by Castleman and Page found that two to three hours of summer coaching increased fall enrollment by 3-4 percentage points overall, and by 8 percentage points among low-income students, at a per-student cost of $100 to $200. A US General Services Administration evaluation of a text-message intervention found a 3.1 percentage point overall increase in enrollment, rising to 5.7 percentage points among students with an expected family contribution of zero.
A stronger yield strategy is usually segmented. Different programs, regions, financial aid statuses, and engagement levels need different post-admit experiences. A flat "send more emails to everyone admitted" approach is rarely effective.
Useful components include:
This is one of the areas where enrollment management software earns its keep. The same applicant record that captured the inquiry should follow the student through to enrollment, so admissions, financial aid, and yield teams are working from the same context. Splitting that context across systems is a common source of post-admit drop-off.
For many institutions, growth depends on broadening the kinds of students they serve. This is not a license to chase every segment. It is a question of which non-traditional pools align with institutional mission, academic capacity, and support infrastructure.
Common segments worth considering include:
Different segments have different motivations, application friction, financial dynamics, and scheduling expectations. Adult learners often prioritize credit transfer and time-to-completion. International students prioritize visa support and post-graduation work options. Executive learners often need flexible scheduling and employer billing. Designing recruitment, application, and yield processes around these differences is what makes diversification work in practice.
Full Fabric's solutions for business schools and public universities reflect this segmentation, supporting institutions running mixed portfolios across degrees, executive education, and short courses on the same platform.
New enrollment growth is weakened if students do not persist. Retention is enrollment's quieter twin.
The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center's recent persistence and retention reporting indicates that nearly 86% of students who started college in fall 2024 returned for their second semester, with more than 77% returning in fall 2025. These rates were higher than the prior decade for several groups, including Black, Hispanic, Native American, and part-time students. The gains are encouraging, but they should be read with care. National averages mask substantial variation by institution, sector, and student population, and many institutions still face first-year persistence rates well below the national figure.
Retention sits at the intersection of academic experience, financial stability, belonging, and continuity of student context. Institutions that treat retention as a separate downstream function from admissions tend to lose the context they had on a student at admission, including academic preparedness flags, financial aid risk, and prior interactions.
Practical levers include:
A unified student information system helps by making sure that admissions context, financial aid status, and academic data are visible to the teams working on retention. This is not a claim that software solves retention. Retention is fundamentally a human and academic challenge. It is, however, easier to support when student context is not fragmented across four different systems.
Strategy is not the same as software. However, the operating model that supports enrollment growth is increasingly difficult to run on disconnected tools.
The components that matter most are:
The architectural question worth asking is whether the institution is running one platform that follows the student lifecycle, or several systems stitched together through integrations. Both can work. The integrated approach tends to lower operational overhead, particularly when application volumes rise or programs are added. Full Fabric is built around the unified-platform model, with CRM, admissions, payments, and student records on a single underlying record. It is not, however, positioned as a replacement for enterprise finance, HCM, payroll, or learning management systems. Institutions with mature ERPs or LMSs typically use Full Fabric as the connected higher education layer alongside them.
Technology alone does not increase enrollment. Strategy without execution does not either. The combination is what counts.
A practical metrics set, organized by funnel stage:
Metrics should support diagnosis, not pressure. The fastest way to corrupt an enrollment funnel is to reward teams on metrics that incentivize short-term behaviour at the expense of fit, quality, or student wellbeing.
Patterns to watch for:
Most of these mistakes are visible in the data. The harder problem is acting on them in time.
Full Fabric is a unified higher education platform that brings CRM, admissions, payments, reporting, and student records together on a single connected record. It is purpose-built for higher education rather than adapted from a generic CRM, which means the operational primitives (programs, intakes, cohorts, application rounds, decision workflows, document checklists, payment schedules) are first-class concepts.
Where it tends to be especially relevant:
Where it is not positioned:
Institutions evaluating it usually want to remove integration overhead, give admissions teams more time on students rather than coordination, and produce credible enrollment numbers in real time.
Increasing college enrollment is not a single-channel marketing problem. It is an institutional operating challenge that requires improvements across positioning, recruitment, admissions experience, financial aid communication, yield management, applicant diversification, and continuity into student success.
The strongest enrollment strategies in 2026 will combine better data with clearer positioning, faster and more relevant communication, simpler admissions processes, clearer affordability information, stronger yield management, broader right-fit audiences, and better continuity from admitted student into enrolled learner.
For institutions evaluating how CRM, admissions, payments, reporting, and student records can work together more coherently, Full Fabric provides a unified enrollment management platform designed around one connected learner record. It is one option among several. The right choice depends on the institution's existing systems, programs, and operational model.
By improving the whole enrollment system rather than only generating more leads. This typically means diagnosing where students drop off in the funnel, sharpening segment-specific value propositions, responding faster and more personally to inquiries, removing friction in the application, communicating affordability earlier, running a deliberate yield strategy after admission, expanding into right-fit non-traditional segments, and connecting recruitment with retention.
The strategies that consistently show up in research and practice are: data-led funnel diagnosis, segment-specific positioning, fast and personalized inquiry response, low-friction applications, early and clear financial aid communication, post-admit yield engagement, diversification of applicant pools, and retention as part of enrollment management. No single strategy works in isolation.
By treating yield as its own work stream with a clear owner. Useful tactics include segmented admitted-student communications, counselor outreach prioritized by risk signals, faculty and current-student contact, admitted-student events with structured follow-up, family communication where appropriate, deposit nudges, and pre-arrival support on housing, visas, and orientation. Research on summer melt also shows that low-cost interventions such as personalized text messages and brief summer coaching can produce measurable lifts, especially for low-income students.
By broadening reach to right-fit audiences rather than lowering academic standards. This usually means clearer positioning, more inclusive recruitment, better content for under-served regions and segments, removing unnecessary application barriers, and improving fee waiver access where appropriate. Common App data shows that growth in recent years has come disproportionately from first-generation students, fee-waiver-eligible students, and applicants to public institutions, which suggests that access-focused recruitment is yielding results.
It is one of the most decisive factors in college choice for many students and families. FAFSA disruption in the 2024-25 cycle had a measurable effect on enrollment, and financial aid operations will remain operationally complex even as the form itself improves. Institutions that communicate net price clearly, coordinate admissions and financial aid messaging, and track aid-related drop-off generally do better than those that treat aid as a back-office function.
A higher education CRM helps capture, segment, and follow up with inquiries consistently, route work to the right counselors, and connect the recruitment story to the eventual enrolled student. It is most useful when it sits on the same data model as the application, payment, and student record systems, so context is preserved at every handoff. It is least useful when it is treated as a marketing automation tool disconnected from admissions operations.
A combined set of leading and lagging indicators, including source-to-inquiry conversion, inquiry-to-application conversion, application completion rate, time to decision, admit-to-deposit conversion, deposit-to-enrollment conversion, program-level yield, regional yield, financial aid impact, and first-year retention. Metrics should be used to diagnose and learn, not to apply pressure that distorts behaviour.
Through a combination of timely, personalized communication, easy completion of remaining tasks, clear affordability information, and proactive outreach to students showing risk signals. Research on summer melt indicates that even small interventions, such as two to three hours of summer coaching or carefully designed text-message campaigns, can produce meaningful enrollment lifts among at-risk students.
Both. Recruitment without retention produces a leaky bucket. Retention without recruitment shrinks the cohort. The institutions that consistently grow tend to treat enrollment and student success as one continuous lifecycle rather than two separate functions.
Full Fabric is a unified higher education platform that brings CRM, admissions, payments, reporting, and student records together on one connected record. It supports inquiry capture and nurture, application and admissions workflows, document and decision management, payments, dashboards and reporting, and continuity into the student information system. It is designed for universities, business schools, executive education providers, and specialist institutions that want one platform across the student lifecycle, rather than a stitched-together stack.
