Higher education leaders have been discussing the enrollment cliff for more than a decade.
The cliff has arrived.
The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education projects that the number of U.S. high school graduates peaked in 2025 and will decline steadily through 2041. By the end of that period, the annual number of graduates is expected to be 13 percent below the peak. The primary cause is straightforward: fewer children were born during and after the Great Recession, and that smaller generation is now reaching college age.
A 13 percent national decline is substantial, but the national figure does not describe what every college will experience. The impact will vary by state, region, institution type, student population, and academic program.
The term “enrollment cliff” can also create the impression that colleges will encounter a sudden, one-time drop. The more likely scenario is a prolonged period in which many institutions compete for a shrinking or slowly growing pool of traditional-age students.
For college leaders, the critical question is no longer whether demographic change is coming.
It is whether their institutions are prepared to operate in a market in which past enrollment strategies may no longer produce the same results.
The Cliff Will Not Affect Every College Equally
Demographic trends differ considerably across the country.
WICHE projects that 38 states will have fewer high school graduates in 2041 than they did in 2023. Only 10 states are expected to grow from the national peak in 2025.
The West is projected to experience an overall 20 percent decline in graduates between 2023 and 2041. California is projected to decline by 29 percent, while Hawaii is expected to decline by 33 percent. The Northeast is projected to decline by 17 percent, including a 27 percent decrease in New York. The Midwest is expected to experience a 16 percent decline, led by a projected 32 percent decrease in Illinois and a 20 percent decrease in Michigan.
The South presents a different picture. The region is projected to grow by approximately 3 percent between 2023 and 2041, although that growth will not be evenly distributed. West Virginia and Mississippi are expected to experience substantial declines even as other Southern states grow.
These regional differences matter because most colleges recruit a large portion of their students relatively close to home. A nationally recognized university may be able to expand its geographic reach. A regional public university or small private college may depend heavily on graduates from a limited number of counties.
Two colleges with similar enrollments and financial structures could therefore face very different demographic futures.
The appropriate starting point for institutional planning is not the national projection. It is a detailed analysis of the college’s actual recruiting markets.
Current Enrollment Growth Does Not Mean the Cliff Is a Myth
Recent enrollment reports add an important qualification to the enrollment-cliff discussion.
Postsecondary enrollment increased during the 2025–26 academic year. The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center reported more than 19.4 million postsecondary enrollments in fall 2025, an increase of 1 percent from the previous fall. Undergraduate enrollment grew by 1.2 percent.
Spring 2026 enrollment also increased by 1 percent. Community college enrollment grew by 3.1 percent, while public four-year enrollment increased by 1.5 percent. Undergraduate certificate programs continued to record particularly strong growth.
These figures do not invalidate the demographic projections. They illustrate why enrollment is more complicated than the number of high school graduates.
College enrollment is influenced by participation rates, economic conditions, transfer patterns, international enrollment, adult learners, online education, short-term credentials, and the number of students who return after stopping out. An institution can grow even when the traditional-age population declines if it serves a larger share of available students or reaches populations it previously did not serve.
The 2025 data also show that growth was uneven. Community colleges and public four-year institutions gained students, while undergraduate enrollment declined by 1.6 percent at private nonprofit four-year institutions and by 2 percent at private for-profit institutions. Freshman enrollment was nearly flat overall.
The enrollment cliff is therefore not a prediction that every college will suddenly lose students. It is a warning that competition for traditional freshmen will intensify and that institutional outcomes will increasingly diverge.
Recruitment Will Become More Competitive and Expensive
When the number of prospective students declines, colleges do not automatically reduce their enrollment goals.
Instead, many institutions attempt to maintain their classes by recruiting students who might otherwise have attended a competitor. They purchase more student names, expand digital advertising, increase travel, enter new geographic markets, and offer larger institutional grants.
Those actions may increase applications without improving net tuition revenue.
I recently wrote about The Signal Solution, a book whose authors recommend using AI tools to review the personal actions of a student to increase yield instead of increase applications. Their idea has merit, particularly in a competitive market.
An institution may appear to meet its enrollment target while collecting less revenue from each student. It may also become more dependent on students from distant markets where it has limited name recognition and weak alumni networks.
Recruitment remains important, but colleges should be careful about assuming that higher marketing expenditures will overcome structural demographic change.
Enrollment plans should distinguish between applications, admitted students, deposited students, enrolled students, and the net revenue generated by those students. Growth in one measure does not necessarily produce improvement in the others.
Retention Will Become an Enrollment Strategy
Colleges have traditionally separated recruitment and retention.
Admissions offices recruit the incoming class. Academic affairs, advising, and student services are expected to retain it.
That division makes less sense when new students are increasingly difficult and costly to recruit.
A student who leaves after one semester must be replaced. An institution that improves retention can stabilize enrollment without finding an equivalent number of additional first-year students every year.
Retention is also more than a financial strategy. Students who leave college may assume debt without earning the credential that motivated them to enroll. Improving persistence and completion is therefore aligned with both institutional sustainability and student interests.
College leaders should examine whether students encounter avoidable barriers involving course availability, advising, financial aid, registration, housing, transportation, childcare, or basic needs. They should also analyze retention by program, student population, enrollment intensity, and delivery format rather than relying solely on an institution-wide average.
The enrollment cliff increases the cost of institutional indifference to the students who have already chosen to attend.
Future Students Will Be More Diverse
The size of the high school graduating class is changing, but so is its composition.
WICHE projects that the number of Hispanic public high school graduates will increase from approximately 944,000, or 26 percent of the public graduating class, to about 1.1 million, or 36 percent, by 2041. The number of multiracial graduates is also expected to increase substantially.
Over the same period, the number of White public high school graduates is projected to decline by 26 percent, from approximately 1.63 million to 1.2 million. The number of Black public school graduates is projected to decline from approximately 480,000 in 2025 to 373,000 in 2041.
These changes should affect more than recruitment materials.
Institutions will need to examine affordability, financial aid, family communication, campus climate, student support, and the accessibility of institutional processes. Colleges seeking to enroll more first-generation students must recognize that many of those students will not have family members who can explain financial aid, registration, academic policies, or the differences among programs.
An institution cannot respond to demographic change by recruiting a more diverse class while maintaining systems designed around the students it served 30 years ago.
Colleges Need to Reconsider Whom They Serve
Traditional-age students will remain important. WICHE notes that students under 25 still account for approximately two-thirds of incoming college students.
They are not the only available population.
Forty million adults have some college experience but no credential. Others need new skills because their industries are changing. Some need a short-term credential rather than a degree. Still others want to complete programs online because employment and family obligations prevent them from attending during the day.
Serving adult learners requires more than advertising existing programs to an older audience.
Adult students may need evening and weekend services, shorter academic terms, predictable schedules, online options, credit for prior learning, simplified transfer policies, employer partnerships, and programs linked clearly to career advancement.
WICHE recommends that policymakers and institutions respond to demographic change by attracting and retaining adult learners, granting credit for prior learning, reducing college costs, simplifying admissions and financial aid, and expanding wraparound student support.
These strategies can expand the potential student population, but they require institutions to redesign the experience rather than merely fill empty seats.
Program Portfolios Must Reflect Student and Employer Demand
Demographic decline will increase scrutiny of academic programs.
Colleges frequently add programs when markets grow but find it much more difficult to close, combine, or redesign programs when demand declines. The result can be a large number of small programs supported by an enrollment and revenue base that no longer exists.
College leaders should evaluate programs using multiple measures, including:
- Student demand and enrollment trends
- Completion and retention
- Employment and graduate-school outcomes
- Regional workforce needs
- Instructional cost
- Contribution to the institution’s mission
- Opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration
Low enrollment should not be the only consideration. Some programs are essential to an institution’s mission or general education curriculum. Others may be strategically important despite modest enrollment.
The goal should not be to eliminate every small program. It should be to determine whether the institution’s total portfolio is academically coherent and financially sustainable.
The recent growth of certificate and associate degree enrollment suggests that many students are interested in shorter and more career-connected pathways. In fall 2025, associate degree enrollment grew by 2.2 percent and undergraduate certificate enrollment increased by 1.9 percent, compared with 0.9 percent growth in bachelor’s programs.
Four-year institutions should not automatically abandon bachelor’s degrees in response. They should consider whether certificates, accelerated programs, embedded credentials, and employer-recognized skills can complement their existing degrees.
Colleges Should Avoid Chasing Every Market
The enrollment cliff may tempt institutions to pursue every possible population.
A college might simultaneously decide to recruit internationally, launch graduate programs, expand online education, serve adult learners, add certificates, enter new states, and build employer partnerships.
Each strategy may be reasonable. Attempting all of them at once is not.
New markets require investment, expertise, and time. Online programs need instructional design, student support, marketing, technology, and regulatory compliance. International recruitment requires knowledge of visas, agents, pricing, housing, and student services. Employer partnerships require programs that can be adapted without sacrificing academic quality.
Institutions should identify opportunities that align with their mission, capabilities, reputation, and regional context.
Diversification is not the same as a lack of focus.
Financial Models Need Realistic Assumptions
The financial challenge created by demographic change is amplified by the structure of higher education.
Many institutional costs are fixed or difficult to reduce quickly. Campuses require maintenance. Academic programs need faculty. Libraries, laboratories, technology systems, and student services cannot always be reduced in direct proportion to enrollment.
A small enrollment decline can therefore create a larger operating problem, particularly at tuition-dependent institutions.
Boards and senior leaders should develop financial scenarios rather than rely on a single enrollment forecast. Those scenarios should test the effects of lower enrollment, higher discount rates, changes in student mix, weaker retention, salary increases, and unexpected capital expenses.
Leaders should also establish decision points in advance. At what enrollment level will the institution combine course sections, delay a capital project, reduce administrative expenses, revise financial aid, or reconsider an academic program?
Waiting until a financial crisis arrives generally limits the available options.
Collaboration May Become More Important Than Competition
Institutions facing declining enrollment may be able to preserve programs and services through collaboration.
Colleges can share courses, library resources, technology systems, procurement, career services, specialized faculty, and administrative functions. They can develop transfer agreements and joint programs rather than duplicate low-enrollment offerings.
Collaboration is not easy. It requires institutions to address governance, accreditation, revenue sharing, faculty roles, calendars, and technology.
It may nevertheless be preferable to maintaining inefficient duplication until a program or institution is no longer viable.
The enrollment cliff may encourage colleges to compete more intensely. In some markets, long-term sustainability may require them to cooperate more effectively.
A Few Final Thoughts
The enrollment cliff is real, but it is not one uniform national event.
The number of high school graduates peaked in 2025 and is projected to decline through 2041. The decrease will be much greater in some states than in others, and future graduating classes will differ from those that many colleges have historically served.
At the same time, postsecondary enrollment increased in both fall 2025 and spring 2026. Community colleges and public four-year institutions recorded gains, demonstrating that demographic pressure does not make enrollment growth impossible.
From my perspective, the institutions best positioned for the next 15 years will not be those that discover a single clever recruiting tactic.
They will be the institutions that understand their markets, retain more of the students they enroll, build programs connected to student and employer needs, serve adult and transfer students effectively, control costs, and make difficult decisions before financial conditions force them to act.
The enrollment cliff does not necessarily mean that fewer people need education.
It means colleges will have to work differently to reach them, serve them, and earn their trust.
