By Bruno V. Manno,Contributor,Voting With Their

Copyright forbes

Students choosing majors with higher salaries.

College students are choosing classes based on quality, value, and outcomes.

College students are increasingly voting with their feet when choosing a degree program that will produce a return on their financial investment. They are moving away from institutions that offer poor economic returns and toward those with a more promising payoff.

In Learning with Their Feet, Preston Cooper, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, offers compelling evidence that students are not just responding to rising costs or demographic shifts. They are actively rejecting or choosing colleges based on quality, value, and outcomes.

Using over a decade of data, he documents a striking divergence in enrollment trends across the postsecondary landscape. Since its peak in 2010, undergraduate enrollment in the United States has declined overall. But that decline is far from uniform.

Colleges with poor student outcomes, such as low earnings after graduation, high student debt burdens, and weak return on investment, have seen enrollment plummet. On the other hand, colleges with better personal and financial outcomes have held steady or, in some cases, even grown.

He writes, “As students shun colleges with worse outcomes, they are alos increasing choosing fields of study with a stonger return on investment.” In short, students are “learning with their feet” and reshaping higher education in the process.

MORE FOR YOU

What Is Institutional Quality?

To make sense of these trends, Cooper begins by classifying institutions according to quality. But unlike conventional rankings that rely on prestige, selectivity, or faculty credentials, his approach emphasizes outcomes. The report uses data on post-graduation earnings, student debt levels, loan repayment rates, and other return-on-investment measures to sort colleges into quintiles, from highest- to lowest-quality.

This outcome-based framework, grounded primarily in the U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard data on student outcomes and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System data on student enrollment, allows Cooper to assess how students respond to the economic value of a degree, not just its name. By focusing on what happens to students after they graduate, rather than how elite their peers were at entry, the report captures the growing influence of the idea of return on investment in students’ decision-making.

The results are stark. Between fall 2010 and fall 2023, the bottom 20% of colleges in his quality rankings lost nearly half of their undergraduate enrollment. Meanwhile, those in the highest 20% saw far smaller declines, with some making modest gains. This pattern holds across the public, private, and for-profit sectors, regions, and institutional types. Quality, it seems, may become destiny.

Here are two examples from his analysis that are at opposite ends of the quality spectrum.

In 2010, Florida Career College, a for-profit institution focused on vocational training, enrolled over 8,000 students across its campuses. But with low earnings outcomes and high debt burdens among its graduates, the college landed in the bottom quintile for quality. By 2023, it had ceased enrolling new students entirely. Similarly, Everest College, another for-profit chain, had over 70,000 students nationwide in 2010 but closed by 2015 amid regulatory scrutiny and collapsing enrollment.

According to Cooper, for-profit colleges accounted for roughly 13% of undergraduate enrollment in 2010. By 2023, they represented just 5%. Much of this contraction occurred among colleges with poor student outcomes, many of which have now closed, merged, or restructured.

By contrast, institutions with strong economic returns have weathered the enrollment storm more successfully. Georgia Institute of Technology, a top-tier public university with strong STEM programs, has steadily grown its undergraduate enrollment, rising from 14,500 in 2010 to over 17,000 in 2023. Its graduates earn median salaries well above the national average, and student loan default rates are low.

Another example is Brigham Young University, a private nonprofit institution that consistently ranks among the highest in value-added metrics. With relatively low tuition, high graduation rates, and strong post-college earnings, it has retained robust student demand, despite broader national trends.

Even less-selective but outcome-strong public institutions have performed well. San Jose State University, for instance, sits in the top 20% of colleges due to its proximity to the tech sector and strong graduate earnings. Its enrollment has remained stable, and it continues to attract students from across California.

At the system level, flagship public universities, such as the University of Michigan, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the University of Florida, have either held steady or expanded their undergraduate enrollment, often capturing students who might otherwise have attended lower-quality regional institutions.

What about the bottom 20% of colleges? Cooper finds that these colleges, encompassing many under-resourced regional public universities, nonselective private colleges, and struggling for-profits, have experienced the steepest enrollment drops. And many non-selective private colleges in the Northeast and Midwest, often with small endowments and high tuition, have faced challenges. For example, Newbury College in Massachusetts and Marylhurst University in Oregon closed entirely in recent years after years of enrollment decline and financial stress.

In short, while demographic headwinds and rising costs have affected many colleges, the data show that students are especially unwilling to enroll in or stay at institutions that fail to deliver strong economic outcomes.

Why The Move To Quality?

Cooper points to several factors that explain why students are abandoning lower-quality colleges.

The focus on outcomes is growing. Tools like the College Scorecard and third-party rankings such as the Washington Monthly College Ranking Guide now make it easier for students and families to assess return on investment. If a degree from College A costs the same as one from College B but leads to much lower earnings, families increasingly take notice.

Sensitivity to student loan debt is rising. With national student loan debt exceeding $1.7 trillion and public discourse emphasizing “value,” many students are wary of borrowing tens of thousands of dollars for uncertain returns. This has made them more discerning, especially among low-income and first-generation students.

Alternatives to traditional degrees are expanding. From workforce-aligned community college programs to apprenticeships, apprenticeship degrees, and short-term credentials, students now have more nontraditional options. Many are choosing paths that deliver job skills without the four-year degrees from underperforming institutions.

COVID-19 accelerated reassessment. The switch to online learning, economic disruption, and pauses in student loan payments prompted millions to question the value proposition of higher education. That reassessment has lingered — especially for institutions that fail to demonstrate clear payoff.

Policy pressures and accountability reforms. These occurred during several different presidential administrations, which exposed and penalized colleges with poor outcomes. The closure of some low-performing for-profit chains, for example, sent a powerful signal to students about which institutions to avoid.

What Are Some Lessons Learned?

Here are three on which policymakers and other postsecondary stakeholders can build going forward.

1. The market is working, but more accountability and transparency are needed. Students are increasingly selecting colleges that deliver better outcomes. That’s good news. But it also means that low-quality institutions — many of which serve disadvantaged populations — face collapse unless they reform or receive targeted support. While outcome data have improved, information on outcomes remains uneven. Better information on topics such as earnings, debt, completion, and value-added performance that is broken down by program and student subgroup is essential for informed decision-making.

2. Federal and state policy should align funding with performance. Too often, student aid and institutional subsidies are provided without regard to how well institutions perform. Policymakers should link eligibility to minimum performance thresholds or offer bonuses for serving students well. This includes concerns that relate to students abandoning failing colleges but not gaining access to higher-quality ones due to cost, admissions barriers, or geography. Policies that provide incentives to support transferring to and expanding capacity at strong institutions to improve on-ramps to opportunity are essential to sound policymaking.

3. Institutional transformation is possible. Colleges can improve their outcomes and increase their capacity to serve more students by streamlining programs, investing in career services, and aligning degrees with labor market demand. For example, Southern New Hampshire University and Western Governors University have used online platforms and competency-based education to increase performance and access.

American higher education is undergoing a quiet but profound bottom-up realignment because of choices being made by millions of students. They are “learning with their feet,” shifting enrollment away from colleges that offer poor outcomes and toward those that provide a more substantial return on their investment.

The consequences of this shift are already visible in the closures, mergers, rebranding, and rethinking of institutional missions. As students reward high-performing colleges and avoid low-value ones, the result is a more accountable, transparent, and effective higher education system.

Students can only make good choices if they have good information. Policymakers must continue to shine a light on outcomes and support those students navigating a complex and evolving landscape. In the end, feet don’t just move. They also speak. And what families and students are saying is that quality matters.

Editorial StandardsReprints & Permissions