By Lindsey Kundel, Editor in Chief, InGenius Prep
Image Credit: Unsplash+
I. Enrollment Isn’t National Anymore — It’s Regional
When people talk about “the enrollment cliff,” they usually picture one big national problem. But the data doesn’t look like a cliff so much as a fault line. Some regions are losing high school graduates; others are still growing. Some states can’t fit students into their flagships; others are struggling to fill seats.
WICHE’s latest Knocking at the College Door projections confirm what many enrollment managers feel intuitively: the total number of U.S. high school graduates peaks around the mid-2020s and then declines steadily through the 2030s and early 2040s, with sharper drops in the Northeast and Midwest and comparatively stronger numbers in the South and parts of the West. (WICHE)
At the same time, NCES and other national datasets show that overall undergraduate enrollment has fallen from its 2010 peak, even as Fall 2023 and 2024 brought modest rebounds. (National Center for Education Statistics)
Put those two stories together, and you don’t get a simple narrative of “decline.” You get a map:
- States with fewer young people are competing for more aggressive recruitment.
- States with growing high school populations face capacity constraints at public flagships.
- Students are more willing to move across regions or countries if they think the trade-offs are worth it.
In other words: the real story isn’t that the U.S. has run out of students. It’s that students are moving differently, both inside the country and beyond its borders.
Historic vs. Current Domestic Migration Patterns
A. Historic Domestic Migration (Pre-2020): The Old Map
For more than a decade, the U.S. domestic enrollment landscape followed a relatively stable pattern:
- Texas, Georgia, Florida, and Arizona were often described as magnet states — consistently attracting out-of-state students.
- Large “sender states” included California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, many of which experienced demographic decline or limited in-state capacity.
- Students tended to move from the Northeast and Midwest → to the South and Southwest, following housing affordability, merit aid, weather, and Sunbelt population growth.
These trends show up across:
- IPEDS migration analyses from 2010–2018
- WICHE and SHEEO state enrollment reports
- Pre-COVID strategy decks and policy conversations
- Higher Ed Data Stories’ early visualizations
- Press coverage of “Sunbelt migration” during the 2010s
From roughly 2005–2019, the domestic mobility map was predictable — and heavily weighted toward the South. It remains the mental model many enrollment teams still use.
Importantly, long-term NCES enrollment data (2010–2020) show that many states entering the post-COVID “exodus” category—Illinois, New Jersey, Minnesota, Maryland, Hawaii, and Washington—were already experiencing steep enrollment declines for more than a decade. This means the 2022–23 migration map is not emerging in a vacuum; it is unfolding on top of long-term demographic and enrollment contraction. At the same time, several high-growth states over the past decade (Texas, Georgia, Idaho, Utah, New Hampshire) now appear in new positions on the map, suggesting that post-pandemic mobility is layered on top of, and sometimes in tension with, pre-2020 trends.
B. Post-COVID Snapshot (2022–23): A Very Different Picture
The most recent IPEDS Residence & Migration dataset (Fall 2022) reveals patterns that diverge sharply from pre-2020 assumptions:
- Texas is now a net exporter, not a magnet.
- Georgia is also a net exporter, reversing its long-standing importer reputation.
- New York is a net importer, not an exporter — one of the biggest surprises in the data.
- Arizona is the largest importer in the country.
- Iowa, Indiana, Utah, New Hampshire, Alabama, and South Carolina show strong positive inflows — well above many historically cited magnet states.
- “Classic exporter states” such as California, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington, Connecticut, and Nevada remain exporters, though the scale has shifted.
This does not mean the old map was “wrong.”
It means the mobility landscape reset after COVID.
Population shifts, FAFSA disruption, political polarization, remote work, and changes in campus capacity have all influenced where students choose to enroll.
C. Important Caveat: This Is One Year’s Snapshot
IPEDS migration data for 2022–23 is the clearest recent picture we have, but:
- It reflects just one year of post-pandemic behavior.
- It may capture temporary effects (FAFSA issues, delayed applications, political climate, acute cost pressures).
- Multiple post-COVID cycles are needed before declaring any structural trend.
The correct framing is:
“The 2022–23 migration map suggests a major shift from historic patterns — but it is early. Enrollment leaders should treat this as a warning signal, not a final conclusion.”
This framing ensures:
- Credibility
- Caution
- Methodological integrity
- Protection from over-interpreting the data
II. Where U.S. Students Are Moving for College (Internal Migration)
Domestic student mobility is now one of the most powerful forces reshaping enrollment in the United States. Most U.S. undergraduates still attend college close to home. A 2022023 brief from TICAS estimates that roughly 1 in 5 first-time students enroll out-of-state; the vast majority stay in their home state’s ecosystem. This means that while roughly 80% of first-time undergraduates still enroll in their home state, the remaining 20% represent millions of students — and that proportion is growing as regional inequalities widen.
But that 20% is not evenly distributed. Some states are net exporters, while others are powerful magnets. And because the 2022–23 NCES migration data reflects a post-pandemic snapshot, not a decades-long trend, the domestic mobility map many enrollment teams still rely on (Texas and Georgia as importers; New York as an exporter; Florida as the dominant draw) no longer matches the current data.
To understand the shift, it helps to map where students are actually going today.
Top Domestic Exodus States (Negative Net Migration) in 2022–23
(Source: NCES IPEDS Residence & Migration, Fall 2022)
Exodus (Net Loss)
- Alaska (−1,717)
- California (−5,487)
- Connecticut (−2,661)
- Georgia (−3,978)
- Hawaii (−1,364)
- Illinois (−17,475)
- Maryland (−9,099)
- Minnesota (−7,634)
- Nevada (−3,399)
- New Jersey (−27,953)
- Texas (−18,744)
- Washington (−6,043)
Top Domestic Magnet States (Positive Net Migration) in 2022–23
(Source: NCES IPEDS Residence & Migration, Fall 2022)
Magnet (Net Gain)
- Alabama (+9,537)
- Arizona (+21,426)
- District of Columbia (+7,564)
- Florida (+9,744)
- Iowa (+8,156)
- Indiana (+12,602)
- New Hampshire (+13,135)
- New York (+7,096)
- Ohio (+7,784)
- Pennsylvania (+12,542)
- South Carolina (+6,980)
- Utah (+10,692)
Long-Term Enrollment Change vs. 2022–23 Migration Patterns
The following table illustrates the relationship between long-term enrollment change (2010–20) and the 2022–23 student mobility map — showing where the post-pandemic reset reinforces or diverges from decade-long structural patterns.
| State | 2010–20 Enrollment Change | 2022–23 Migration Status | Interpretation | Schools to Watch for Upward/Downward Enrollment Trends |
| Illinois | -25.3% | Exodus (-17,475) | Long-term decline aligned with continued outflow. | University of Illinois
Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) Northwestern University University of Chicago |
| New Jersey | -14.7% | Exodus (-27,953) | Structural exodus reinforced post-COVID. | Rutgers University–New Brunswick
Princeton University |
| Maryland | -12.9% | Exodus (-9,099) | Decline + current outflow match. | University of Maryland–College Park
Johns Hopkins University Towson University |
| Minnesota | -19.8% | Exodus (-7,634) | Long-term contraction + new export trend. | University of Minnesota–Twin Cities
Carleton College Macalester College |
| Hawaii | -24.6% | Exodus (-1,364) | Geographic isolation + high cost. | University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Hawai‘i Pacific University Brigham Young University–Hawaii |
| Washington | -19.9% | Exodus (-6,043) | Long-term decline amplified in post-COVID era. | University of Washington–Seattle
Washington State University Western Washington University |
| California | -8.4% | Exodus (-5,487) | Capacity limits, housing, and CS/business bottlenecks. | University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Los Angeles University of Southern California |
| Georgia | -4.8% | Exodus (-3,978) | NEW exporter despite stable long-term data. | University of Georgia
Georgia Tech Emory University |
| Texas | +2.0% | Exodus (-18,744) | Most surprising case: exporter despite prior growth. | University of Texas at Austin
Texas A&M University University of Houston |
| Nevada | -12.2% | Exodus (-3,399) | Decline contributes to moderate outflow. | University of Nevada, Reno
University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) |
| Arizona | -21.3% | Magnet (+21,426) | A key example of inverse trends: long-term decline but MASSIVE post-COVID inflow. | Arizona State University (ASU)
University of Arizona Northern Arizona University |
| Utah | +56.9% | Magnet (+10,692) | High growth pre-2020 + strong post-COVID draw. | University of Utah
Brigham Young University (BYU) Utah State University |
| New Hampshire | +184% | Magnet (+13,135) | Largest growth nationally; heavy private-college inflow. | Dartmouth College
University of New Hampshire Southern New Hampshire University (large online footprint) |
| Indiana | -5.1% | Magnet (+12,602) | Enrollment decline but strong regional draw. | Indiana University Bloomington
Purdue University University of Notre Dame |
| Iowa | -47.0% | Magnet (+8,156) | Declining total enrollment but new in-migration draw. | University of Iowa
Iowa State University Grinnell College |
| Pennsylvania | -21.2% | Magnet (+12,542) | Shrinking population but robust attraction. | University of Pennsylvania
Penn State University (UP) Carnegie Mellon University |
| Florida | -11.2% | Magnet (+9,744) | A value signal despite long-term decline. | University of Florida
Florida State University University of Miami |
| South Carolina | -5.6% | Magnet (+6,980) | Merit-driven and weather-driven appeal. | Clemson University
University of South Carolina (Columbia) College of Charleston |
| Ohio | -17.8% | Magnet (+7,784) | Long-term declines but current inflow. | Ohio State University
Case Western Reserve University University of Cincinnati |
| Alabama | -10.3% | Magnet (+9,537) | Honors-college + merit strategy success. | University of Alabama
Auburn University University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) |
A. Exodus States: Where Students Are Leaving
The states losing the most college-bound students in 2022–23 fall into a cluster of shared pressures: rising cost of living, uneven higher-education capacity, political polarization, and demographic decline. These “exodus” dynamics apply only to domestic undergraduates. Many of the same states (California, New York, Illinois, Washington) remain major destinations for international students, according to SEVIS and Open Doors.
What’s new is the presence of states that were not traditionally understood as exporters — especially Texas, Georgia, Maryland, and Minnesota.
1. California, Illinois, and New Jersey — The Heavyweight Exporters
These three states continue to lose large numbers of students to institutions in the South and Mountain West. The reasons remain consistent:
- Capacity constraints (UCs, Rutgers, UIUC unable to absorb demand)
- Housing shortages that raise cost-of-attendance beyond in-state affordability
- Major bottlenecks in engineering, business, nursing, and CS
- Out-of-state merit packages that can be cheaper than staying home
What has changed is the scale.
Illinois and New Jersey now show some of the largest net losses in the country, while California’s net loss—though sizable—is proportionally smaller because of its enormous student population.
2. Texas — The Biggest Surprise in the 2022–23 Data
Texas appears as a major net exporter in this dataset, diverging sharply from 15 years of pre-pandemic research in which Texas consistently attracted significant out-of-state students.
Contributing factors may include:
- Major caps at UT Austin and Texas A&M
- High-achieving students seeking more predictable admissions pathways elsewhere
- Political or cultural shifts influencing student decision-making
- Housing and cost-of-living increases in Austin, Dallas, and Houston
Texas’s position on the “exodus” list is one of the clearest signs that the domestic mobility landscape is in flux.
It is worth noting that Texas did not experience significant enrollment decline from 2010 to 2020—its overall college enrollment actually increased slightly during that decade. Its appearance as a 2022–23 net exporter, therefore, is unlikely to be demographic in origin. Instead, it reflects post-pandemic dynamics: capacity strain at flagships, unpredictable major admission pathways, sharply rising housing costs in metro areas, and cultural or political factors shaping student decision-making.
3. Washington, Georgia, Maryland, and Minnesota — Regional Churn
These states show moderate but meaningful outflows shaped by:
- High cost of living in metro centers
- Limited seats in popular majors
- Cross-border draws (e.g., Washington → Idaho; Georgia → Alabama or South Carolina)
- Families seeking affordability, predictability, or a cultural climate that feels like a better fit
Together, they represent a newly visible set of domestic exporters.
Georgia also did not experience major long-term enrollment decline between 2010 and 2020, which makes its 2022–23 exporter status notable. The shift likely reflects competitive draw from neighboring states (Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee), perceived political instability, and limited capacity in high-demand pathways such as engineering and health sciences.
Why Students Leave: Four Structural Drivers
Across all exodus states, four factors consistently shape out-migration:
1. Cost Mismatch
Even strong public systems can feel unaffordable when local housing costs dominate overall budgets. Out-of-state merit aid often beats in-state cost.
2. Major Bottlenecks
High-demand majors have become the chokepoints of American higher education. When students cannot access engineering, business, computing, or nursing at home, they go elsewhere.
3. Demographic Decline
Shrinking high school cohorts in the Northeast and Midwest intensify competition among institutions — and students respond by widening their radius.
4. Perceived Instability
Safety, politics, DEI policies, tuition legislation, and campus culture all play into the decision to stay or leave. When the local option feels unpredictable, the home state becomes optional.
Taken together, the EducationData.org and NCES migration datasets suggest that today’s mobility landscape is a hybrid of long-term enrollment contraction (2010–20) and short-term post-COVID redistribution (2022–23). States that lost enrollment for a decade are often now major exporters; states that grew or held steady pre-2020 are not guaranteed to remain magnets.
B. Magnet States: Where Students Are Going
While historical narratives framed Texas, Georgia, and Florida as the dominant magnets, the 2022–23 NCES data shows a new cluster of importers:
- Arizona (the largest importer in the entire country)
- New Hampshire
- Indiana
- Pennsylvania
- Utah
- Iowa, Alabama, South Carolina, Florida, Ohio
This mix includes both large public systems with national pull and smaller states with dense private-college ecosystems.
1. Arizona — The Dominant National Magnet
Arizona’s net gain (+21,426) exceeds all other states. ASU, University of Arizona, and NAU have crafted a model built on:
- Large, predictable merit aid
- Significant campus expansion
- Extensive national marketing
- Honors colleges that mimic private-college selectivity
- Strong recruitment pipelines from California, Illinois, and Washington
Arizona is the clearest example of a post-2020 domestic powerhouse.
2. New Hampshire — The Quiet Giant
New Hampshire’s sizable inflow reflects:
- A dense network of private institutions
- Cross-border enrollment from Massachusetts and Maine
- Strong merit incentives
- Increased appeal to families seeking smaller environments
Its net gain rivals Utah, Indiana, and Pennsylvania.
3. Indiana, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Ohio — Regional Anchors
These states attract students seeking:
- Clear admission pathways
- Large, traditional campus environments
- Well-branded business, engineering, and health programs
- Honors colleges that offer “small school inside big school” experiences
Their gains reflect regional repositioning rather than long-distance national flows.
4. Utah and South Carolina — High-Growth Systems
Utah’s inflow aligns with rapid population growth and a booming tech corridor.
South Carolina’s pull comes from:
- Strong merit
- Accessible flagships
- Competitive lifestyle branding
5. Florida — Still a Magnet, But in a Shifting Landscape
Florida remains a net importer, but not at the scale of Arizona:
- It no longer dominates the list
- Political polarization shapes some decisions
- Bright Futures retains top in-state talent, freeing seats for OOS students
Florida is still a national value signal — just not the sole anchor it once was.
Case Study: Iowa & the Midwest Magnets
As a native Iowan, I’ve always associated the state with educational strength. Iowa’s K–12 system has long been known for quality, stability, and rigor—something people across the Midwest still talk about. Yet Iowa’s postsecondary landscape tells a more complicated story. Between 2010 and 2020, Iowa saw one of the steepest higher-education enrollment declines in the nation (–47%). And with K–12 enrollment projected to hit its deepest “trough” around 2029, the state’s public universities can no longer rely on a steady in-state pipeline. But here’s the twist: in 2022–23, Iowa posted positive net student migration, officially becoming a magnet state for its universities—despite long-term decline. Why does this matter? Keep reading.
Iowa’s three public universities operate at meaningful scale:
- University of Iowa (UIowa) — ~30,800 total enrollment (Fall 2024)
- Iowa State University (ISU) — ~30,400 total enrollment
- University of Northern Iowa (UNI) — ~9,300 total enrollment
- Grinnell College — ~1,700 (a small but nationally significant private institution)
For institutions of this size, enrollment stability isn’t optional. It shapes program breadth, research investment, faculty hiring, facilities planning, and—especially for Iowa—workforce supply.
UNI’s Neighboring-State Rate — a strategic pivot
In July 2025, UNI approved a major policy change: beginning Fall 2025, students from all six states bordering Iowa—Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wisconsin—will pay Iowa in-state tuition ($10,201 for 2025–26).
The rationale is unusually clear for higher education:
- Offset the shrinking in-state pipeline
- Recruit regionally rather than locally
- Address Iowa’s workforce shortages by attracting students statistically likely to stay
- Compete with neighboring publics that already use reciprocity as a competitive tool
One analysis even projected UNI could see a sevenfold increase in bordering-state enrollment under this model—modest in absolute numbers, but highly strategic.
A broader Midwest pattern: Ohio and Indiana are doing this too
UNI is not alone. Across the Midwest, public universities are turning tuition policy into regional strategy.
Indiana ↔ Ohio
- In 2025, Indiana and Ohio expanded a county-level tuition reciprocity agreement, allowing students in 15 Ohio border counties to attend certain Indiana campuses at in-state rates, and vice versa.
- This model uses geographic proximity to stabilize enrollments without resorting to steep discounting.
Ohio
- Ohio’s regional publics increasingly recruit across state lines—particularly into Michigan, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia—using merit scholarships and structured reciprocity to boost yield.
These moves echo Iowa’s playbook: widen the funnel, reduce price friction, and convert regional mobility into enrollment stability.
So why is Minnesota missing the memo?
Minnesota is the intriguing counterexample. Demographically and culturally, it looks similar to Iowa—but institutionally, it is not keeping pace.
Three likely reasons:
- Legacy reciprocity reduces pressure to innovate
Minnesota already has the Midwest’s oldest reciprocity network (Wisconsin, North Dakota, Manitoba). The infrastructure that once benefited the state has become… complacent. - The flagship is insulated
The University of Minnesota–Twin Cities remains selective and full, which masks deeper struggles at regional campuses. A strong flagship often slows statewide innovation. - Earlier plateau, slower urgency
Minnesota’s demographic plateau arrived earlier than Iowa’s. States that decline earlier often adapt slower—until the pain becomes undeniable.
In short: Minnesota’s system is stable, but stagnant. Meanwhile, Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio—states often dismissed as “flyover” in national higher-ed narratives—are now the ones modernizing enrollment strategy.
Why Iowa stands out
Iowa’s pivot is compelling because it perfectly captures the 2020s enrollment landscape:
- High K–12 quality + sharp demographic decline
- Large public universities needing volume
- Active regional recruitment replacing passive in-state expectation
- Tuition policy used as strategy, not bureaucracy
- Workforce needs woven directly into enrollment decisions
UNI’s Neighboring-State Rate isn’t just a pricing change. It is a signal about where higher education is headed. For a state like Iowa to become a magnet state—despite long-term enrollment decline—illustrates how much student mobility has changed and how effectively public universities can adapt when the incentives are aligned.
Why Students Choose Magnet States
Across magnet states, five themes consistently emerge:
1. Transparent Merit Scholarships
Predictable pricing is a competitive advantage.
2. Strong Honors Colleges
Public-honors models increasingly rival private liberal arts colleges.
3. Climate and Lifestyle Branding
Sunbelt and Mountain West institutions market the full student experience.
4. Capacity + Program Clarity
Direct admission into competitive majors reduces anxiety and accelerates yield.
5. Institutional Stability
Reliability in tuition, advising, and graduation pathways builds trust.
The FAFSA Meltdown: A Shock That Accelerated Movement
The 2024 FAFSA crisis amplified mobility in real time:
- Students in high-cost states were more likely to look out-of-state
- Southern and Mountain West universities communicated earlier and more clearly
- Students gravitated toward institutions that felt organized
FAFSA didn’t create mobility — it heightened the urgency of it.
Internal Mobility Is Now Strategy-Defining
The implications for institutions are profound:
- State budget models depend on whether a state gains or loses residents
- Public flagship competitiveness shifts when home-state students opt out
- Housing and capital planning must reflect actual demand
- Marketing strategies need to match where students actually move
- Yield protection changes when domestic alternatives widen
A New Jersey or California student choosing Arizona, Alabama, Utah, or Indiana isn’t simply “leaving home.” They are signaling that the U.S. college map has been redrawn — and institutions that don’t adapt risk misreading their pipeline.
III. Where Americans Go Internationally (Outbound U.S. Students)
The second piece of the map is outbound mobility. Even as U.S. enrollments soften, more American students are looking abroad—not just for a semester, but for full degrees.
Short-term and credit-bearing study abroad
Open Doors data show that U.S. study abroad has rebounded sharply since the pandemic, with traditional destinations like the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, and France still leading the list and an increasing share of students exploring non-European options. (IIE Open Doors Study Abroad Data; IIE Open Doors Study Abroad Fast Facts)
Full degree seekers
The more strategically important trend for enrollment planning is the rise of U.S. students enrolling abroad for full undergraduate or graduate degrees, particularly in:
- The UK.
UCAS and press coverage suggest record numbers of American applicants to British universities for 2025 entry. Reports highlight three-year degrees, comparatively lower tuition, and post-study work options as major draws.
(Inside Higher Ed, Business Insider, Financial Times) - Canada.
Canadian universities report increased applications and inquiries from U.S. students, especially at research-intensive institutions like UBC, Toronto, and Waterloo, helped by relatively straightforward immigration pathways and clear cost structures.
(Reuters, Statistics Canada) - The Netherlands and other EU destinations.
English-taught programs, transparent tuition, and three-year degrees — especially in psychology, business, and international relations — are a growing part of counselor–family conversations. - Ireland and Australia.
Smaller in absolute numbers but often perceived as “English-language alternatives” with strong reputations in specific fields.
When you ask families why they’re open to full degrees abroad, the same themes surface:
Cost and speed
Three-year degree structures can cut a year of tuition and opportunity cost. For some majors, international options are cheaper even after travel. (Education Data Initiative)
Perceived stability
In a U.S. policy environment where federal funding, campus speech, and visa rules feel volatile, many see the UK, Canada, or EU countries as more predictable. (Reuters)
Global positioning
Some students and parents frame an overseas degree as a strategic move for careers in international business, diplomacy, or multinational tech.
Outbound Mobility as an Enrollment Variable
For U.S. colleges, outbound mobility isn’t just a “good for them” story. It is directly related to who doesn’t show up in the domestic admit pool.
- A student who goes to the University of Toronto instead of Penn State
- A student who chooses King’s or St Andrews instead of an American private
- A student who follows a sibling to Maastricht or Leiden
These choices redistribute enrollment volume across countries — not just campuses — and affect the total demand for U.S. seats.
IV. The Dual-Passport Trend: Small Numbers, Outsized Strategic Impact
Here’s where the data gets fuzzy—and the strategy gets interesting. Open Doors, SEVIS, and NCES don’t break out dual citizens in ways that neatly answer the question: “How many U.S. students are using a second passport to study abroad?” But admissions officers, school counselors, and university recruiters are now describing remarkably consistent anecdotes.
Across multiple regions, a new profile is emerging:
U.S.–Canadian dual nationals
Students with dual citizenship often choose Canadian degrees for clearer immigration pathways, lower net cost, and predictable public-university tuition structures. These students can return to the United States for work or graduate school with minimal friction. (Statistics Canada)
Latin American dual nationals (especially U.S.–Mexico and U.S.–Brazil)
These students frequently toggle between systems:
- attending high school in one country,
- enrolling in college in another,
- and pursuing graduate school in a third.
Their choices often follow tuition advantages, visa ease, or career incentives in each country.
Families engineering second passports deliberately
Some families pursue second citizenship through:
- ancestry laws,
- marriage,
- investment pathways, or
- residency programs (Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Italy).
For these families, a second passport isn’t just a lifestyle benefit — it’s an educational strategy. EU citizenship, for instance, can turn a €20,000–30,000 international degree into a low-cost domestic one.
Why Dual-Passport Students Matter — Even if the Numbers Look Small
Dual-national families may not dominate the dataset, but they exert outsized influence on enrollment strategy in three key ways:
1. They are structurally mobile.
A second passport lowers friction, creating multiple “good enough” options. If the U.S. pathway becomes too expensive, competitive, or politically unpredictable, these students have immediate alternatives.
2. They change competitive sets.
For an EU citizen, the choice isn’t:
“U.S. flagship vs. full-fare UK/Netherlands degree.”
It can be:
“U.S. flagship vs. almost-free Dutch university with English-taught programs.”
This shifts how institutions must think about their actual competition.
3. They model alternatives for peers.
When one dual-national student in a school community chooses a degree abroad, younger siblings and classmates often follow — even without dual citizenship themselves.
In this sense, dual-passport students act as pathfinders, demonstrating the viability of non-U.S. pathways and accelerating awareness of international options.
A Critical Note on Data Limitations
No major dataset currently isolates “U.S. dual nationals studying abroad.”
That means:
- The trend is qualitative, not quantitative
- It is nonetheless strategically important
- Ignoring it would misrepresent how families are actually thinking
For a growing share of U.S. and international households, the question is no longer:
“U.S. or not?”
It’s becoming:
“Which system gives us the best combination of cost, speed, stability, and mobility?”
This mindset — even among a minority of families — reshapes the competitive landscape for U.S. institutions.
V. What This Means for Colleges, Students, and Families: Reading the Map, Not Just the Headcount
For enrollment leaders, the through-line is simple: a flat or declining local headcount doesn’t mean the pipeline has disappeared. It means the pipeline is rerouting. Students aren’t vanishing — they’re reallocating across states, regions, and increasingly, countries.
But this isn’t just a lesson for colleges.
It’s also a new reality for families—domestic and international—who are now navigating a landscape with more options, more mobility, and more transparent alternatives than at any point in the last 30 years.
Here’s what the new North American map means for each audience.
1. For U.S. Colleges (Domestic & International Strategy Teams)
Know whether your state is an exporter or importer.
If your state is losing large cohorts of residents or exporting significant portions of its college-bound population, your recruitment, pricing, and pipeline work must adapt. National averages will mislead you.
Tools built on NCES/IPEDS, state-level projections, and reports like TICAS’s Geography of Opportunity are essential. (TICAS)
Rebuild trust in “exodus” states.
If your public system is perceived as too crowded, too opaque, too expensive, or too unpredictable, students will keep leaving.
Clear major guarantees
Transparent four-year pathways
True total-cost messaging
Proactive housing planning
These aren’t marketing features anymore. They are retention tools.
Target domestically mobile students with intention.
Magnet states didn’t get lucky — they built systems that made mobility feel safe and predictable.
If you want students from California, New York, Illinois, or Texas:
- Start in Grades 9–10
- Articulate value simply and honestly
- Provide direct-entry pathways for high-demand majors
- Communicate consistently with families and counselors
International teams must treat outbound U.S. students as part of their strategic landscape.
When more Americans enroll in the UK, Canada, or the Netherlands, those systems adjust their international enrollment. That, in turn, affects the availability of seats and competitiveness for U.S.-bound students. (IIE, Inside Higher Ed, Reuters)
Partnerships beat competition.
2+2 pathways, dual degrees, articulation agreements, and joint research programs transform “lost applicants” into shared pipelines.
Domestic and international teams need a shared map.
If your strongest feeder state is exporting students to Canada or the UK, this is not two separate conversations. It is one ecosystem.
2. For Domestic U.S. Families Making College Decisions
The new map directly affects how families should approach applications.
Understand your home state’s position. Are you in an exporter or importer state?
The competitiveness, cost, and seat availability of your local public system depends heavily on whether your state is losing or attracting students.
- Exporter states (CA, NJ, IL, MD, MN, WA, TX, GA):
Your student may face more competition for fewer seats at home — and stronger offers from out-of-state public flagships. - Importer states (AZ, NH, IN, PA, UT, AL, SC, FL, IA):
Your student may encounter more generous merit aid and clearer major guarantees.
Knowing this changes everything: list-building, major selection, affordability planning, and admissibility.
Follow the money (and the major).
Families increasingly make decisions based on:
- Direct-entry to engineering, business, nursing, CS
- Four-year graduation guarantees
- Real cost-of-attendance clarity
- Merit structures that are published, predictable, and generous
This is why Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah are drawing New Jersey, Illinois, California, and Texas students in record numbers.
Don’t assume “in-state” is the cheapest option.
For many families in exporter states, out-of-state merit packages yield a lower four-year total cost.
Consider international degrees as part of the real option set.
Three-year degrees in the UK, Ireland, or the Netherlands — or lower tuition in Canada — may be closer in price to U.S. options than you think.
Some families save $40,000–$80,000 by considering international pathways while still securing strong academic outcomes.
Your competitive set is bigger than you think.
Families are now comparing:
- Alabama Honors vs. UC Riverside
- Arizona State Barrett Honors vs. Northeastern
- St Andrews vs. Boston University
- University of Toronto vs. Big Ten flagships
- Delft vs. U.S. engineering schools
This is the real marketplace your student is stepping into.
3. For International Families Considering a U.S. Institution
The new domestic mobility map matters for you, too — because it shapes capacity, competition, affordability, and institutional focus.
Recognize that U.S. colleges now depend more on international enrollment.
In exporter states, domestic students are leaving — and international students are stabilizing enrollments.
In importer states, booming populations and out-of-state demand may make some public flagships more selective for international applicants.
Some states have more room for international students than others.
Importer states (AZ, PA, IN, UT, NH, AL, SC) often have:
- More capacity
- More predictable admission pathways
- Less competition in high-demand majors
- More flexible merit incentives
Exporter states may have:
- Constrained housing
- Limited major access
- Higher demand from domestic students
- More volatile admissions cycles
Understand the impact of outbound U.S. students.
When American students go to the UK, Canada, or the Netherlands:
- U.S. capacity opens up
- International competition may shift
- Twin-degree and 2+2 pathways become more attractive
- Schools may recalibrate their messaging to global families
Where you apply in the U.S. matters more than ever.
A business or engineering applicant will experience very different realities at:
- UT Austin (capacity constrained)
- Purdue (major bottlenecks)
- ASU or Arizona (high capacity)
- Northeastern (global campus strategy)
- Alabama or South Carolina (merit-focused value proposition)
Families must build lists strategically, not just reputationally.
Watch indicators of stability.
International families increasingly prioritize:
- Safety and cultural climate
- Four-year graduation data
- Financial predictability
- Visa clarity
- Campus housing
- Transparent advising systems
These non-academic factors now drive enrollment as much as rankings.
The Strategic Bottom Line Across All Three Audiences
The U.S. enrollment marketplace is being reshaped by:
- Declining high school graduates in key regions
- New domestic migration patterns
- Rising outbound U.S. degree-seekers
- Dual-passport dynamics
- A more globally aware applicant pool
- Families who are increasingly cost-conscious, mobile, and strategic
Institutions, domestic families, and international families must all update their mental maps.
Otherwise, they will misread the pipeline.
Those who adapt — with transparency, clarity, mobility, and real value — will thrive in the new landscape.
VI. Conclusion: The U.S. Doesn’t Have a Pipeline Problem — It Has a Map Problem
Taken together with Canada and Mexico’s steady pipelines, the picture that emerges is not of a system “running out of students.” It’s a system in which students — domestic and international — have more options, more mobility, and more strategic pathways than at any point in recent history.
Across the U.S., three realities are shaping the new map:
1. High school graduates are declining in some regions and steady or growing in others.
WICHE’s geographic projections show steep drops in the Northeast and Midwest, while the South and parts of the West remain relatively stable. (WICHE)
2. A fifth of first-time undergraduates already cross state lines — and a growing subset cross national borders.
Domestic migration is reshaping the U.S. higher education landscape, while more Americans than ever are enrolling abroad when value, cost, major access, and predictability align. (Institute for College Access)
3. Families with dual citizenship, flexible careers, or international ties are weaving together multi-country educational paths.
A student’s trajectory might move from Houston to Toronto to London; from São Paulo to Boston to Barcelona; or from New Jersey to Arizona to Amsterdam.Mobility has become a feature, not a deviation.
Why “Pipeline Thinking” Misleads Institutions
When colleges diagnose their challenges as a “pipeline problem,” they often respond with:
- more marketing,
- more travel,
- more application volume,
- more short-term fixes.
But the data suggests something different: this is a map problem.
Students haven’t vanished. They’ve redistributed — across states, regions, and increasingly, countries.
A More Accurate Way to See the Landscape
If you update your map of where students come from and where they go, several patterns become clear:
- Some of your “lost” in-state students aren’t disappearing; they’re going to Arizona, Utah, Alabama, Indiana, or New Hampshire.
- Some of your “missing” American applicants are sitting in UCAS, OUAC, or Dutch application portals.
- Some of your future international students are currently in high school in Houston, Toronto, Monterrey, Vancouver, or São Paulo — and they may choose you or your competitors abroad depending on who gives the clearer story.
This reframing isn’t just semantic. It forces institutions to address:
- capacity constraints,
- clarity in high-demand majors,
- cost transparency,
- cross-border competition,
- domestic volatility,
- global mobility,
- and the expectations of families who compare options across systems, not just campuses.
Looking Ahead: The Institutions That Thrive Will Be the Ones That Adapt
The opportunity is not to mourn a shrinking national pipeline, but to understand and act on a changing geography of opportunity:
- Remap your domestic and global feeder regions.
- Recognize domestic and international mobility as one interconnected ecosystem.
- Build partnerships rather than assume competition.
- Offer clarity (in cost, major access, timelines, and graduation).
- Speak directly to what families — U.S. and international — now prioritize.
If institutions can adapt to the new North American map, the 2020s will not be remembered as the decade when the cliff arrived, but the decade when higher education finally learned how to read the map.
References
U.S. Domestic Enrollment, Migration, and Demographics
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2024). Digest of Education Statistics: Table 309.10 — Residence and Migration of All First-Time Degree/Certificate-Seeking Undergraduates (Fall 2022).
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d23/tables/dt23_309.10.asp
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2023). Digest of Education Statistics: Table 219.10 — Public High School Graduates, by State (2020–21).
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d21/tables/dt21_219.10.asp
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2024–2025). Fast Facts: Enrollment (98) and Postsecondary Enrollment Data Releases.
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98
https://nces.ed.gov/whatsnew/press_releases/1_7_2025.asp
The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS). (2023). Geography of Opportunity Brief 1: How Many Students Go Out-of-State for College?
https://ticas.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Hillman-Geography-of-Opportunity-Brief-1_2023.pdf
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). (2024). New Data on Student Demographics! 11th Edition of Knocking at the College Door: Projections of High School Graduates
https://www.wiche.edu/events/new-data-on-student-demographics-11th-edition-of-knocking-at-the-college-door-high-school-graduate-projections/
EducationData.org. (2025). College Enrollment & Student Demographic Statistics.
https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics
U.S. Students Studying Abroad (Outbound Mobility)
Institute of International Education (IIE). (2024). Open Doors: U.S. Study Abroad Data.
https://opendoorsdata.org/data/us-study-abroad/
Institute of International Education (IIE). (2024). Open Doors Fast Facts: U.S. Study Abroad, 2010–2023.
https://opendoorsdata.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Fast-Facts_2010-2023.pdf
Inside Higher Ed. (2025). Record Number of U.S. Students Apply for U.K. Undergraduate Degrees.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/global/study-abroad/2025/03/14/record-number-us-students-apply-uk-undergraduate-degrees
Business Insider. (2025). American Students Apply for UK Colleges in Record Numbers.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-students-apply-for-uk-colleges-record-numbers-trump-crackdown-2025-7
Financial Times. (2025). American Students Turn to UK as U.S. Universities Face Political Pressure.
https://www.ft.com/content/ebb2b7e7-5dea-47a2-8386-f12eda692c0f
U.S. Students Studying in Canada and Europe
Reuters. (2025). Canadian Universities Report Jump in U.S. Applicants as Trump Cuts Funding.
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canadian-universities-report-jump-us-applicants-trump-cuts-funding-2025-04-15/
Statistics Canada. (2025). Changing Patterns in Postsecondary Student Flows Between Canada and the United States.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/36-28-0001/2025010/article/00002-eng.htm
The Economic Times. (2025). Average Cost of a Four-Year Degree in Canada Crosses $177,000 for International Students.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/study/average-cost-of-a-four-year-degree-in-canada-crosses-177000-for-international-students/articleshow/124891190.cms
Iowa Case Study
Board of Regents, State of Iowa. (2025). UNI Neighboring State Rate Approved for Fall 2025. InsideUNI – University of Northern Iowa.
KCRG News. (2025). Board of Regents Approves Neighboring State Rate at University of Northern Iowa.
https://www.kcrg.com/2025/07/30/board-regents-approves-neighboring-state-rate-univ-northern-iowa/
Inside UNI. (2024). UNI’s Enrollment Increases for Second Straight Year: 9,283 Students.
Radio Iowa. (2025). Students in Neighboring States Can Get the Iowa Tuition Rate at UNI This Fall.
Inside Iowa State University. (2025). State Data Suggests Another Year of Enrollment Growth.
https://www.inside.iastate.edu/article/2025/11/12/state-data-suggests-another-year-enrollment-growth
KCCI Des Moines. (2024). Iowa’s Public Universities Release Fall 2024 Enrollment Numbers.
Des Moines Register. (2024). Iowa Regents Universities Fall 2024 Enrollment Report.
EducationData.org. (2023). College Enrollment Statistics — State-Level 2010–2020 Trends.
https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics
State of Indiana Commission for Higher Education. (2025). Interstate Tuition Reciprocity Agreements (Indiana–Ohio).
https://www.in.gov/che/academic-affairs/interstate-reciprocity/
Spectrum News 1 Ohio. (2025). Miami University Promotes In-State Tuition Options through Indiana Reciprocity.
https://spectrumnews1.com/oh/cincinnati/news/2025/07/29/miami-university-in-state-tuition-indiana
Midwest Student Exchange Program (MSEP). (2024). About MSEP & Participating States.