Recruiting Intelligence

Chaos is costly. Clarity is half off.

This truth brought to you by The Economist’s latest flash sale. Sometimes an ad sums up a vibe so neatly. Maybe the ad just caught us at the right moment. (Um, thanks Meta?)

Whether it was the morning coffee or the marketing kitsch, The Economist's attempt to get us to subscribe (we already do) served as a good reminder of the cost of chaos.

Pick your tumult: visa whack-a-mole, Duration of Status policy threats, internal budget cuts, NSF decimation, demographic cliff, you name it. The disruptions of the past 18+ months have cost our industry its equilibrium, individuals their sanity, and certainly some enrollment.

The numbers speak loudly: 97,000 fewer student US visas were awarded last summer, driven largely by a near-monthlong freeze on visa interviews. (Canada, UK, and Australia have similar downbeats). Now, DHS may adjust the “Duration of Status” for F-1 and J-1 visa holders, replacing it with a fixed admission period of up to four years and dimming the luster on some students’ dreams of a US degree. And, if history tells us anything, it won’t be the last disruption our international student hopefuls and enrollment leaders will endure.

Meet Intead! 

We're presenting at NACUBO in July along side College of the Canyons, University of Memphis and UC San Diego. Be in touch to share a cup of coffee in person.

Fight for your Internationalization Program Funding with Data

Benchmark your internationalization strategy and outcomes against 100+ U.S. peer institutions. Join AIEA’s groundbreaking study on what drives internationalization success.

Despite the continued chaos, we have actual work to do. Handwringing be damned! Students still want to enroll at your institution. Time to busy your team securing the fall cohort by shoring up those leads. This is ground you know well.

Read on for insights from our team, including our latest addition to Intead, Lindsey Lopez, on what to prioritize now to bring your 2026/27 leads into focus and produce your target yield.

Read on…

Unlike most of his peers, my son (it’s Carrie talking here) applied to just two higher ed institutions. He got into both. Accepted both. Put down a deposit on both. Will attend just one. And so, he’s part of the admissions problem.

Our colleague (and contributor to today’s post) Jon Boeckenstedt, retiring vice provost of enrollment management at Oregon State University, explains it like this: A lot of people think yield is like planting saplings in greenhouses, where your success is highly dependent on things you control, like spacing, soil quality, temperature, water, etc. In fact, yield is more like scattering seeds, where you are hopeful, and you have some ideas of success based on prior years, but in reality, you're at the mercy of factors you have zero control over.

As an example: Last year, UCLA received 146,276 applications. About 13,114 students or 9% were admitted. For comparison, just 4 years earlier, in 2020, the university had an acceptance rate of 18%. And a decade+ ago in 2010, it was 23%. Go back further to 2000, it was 29%. And wait for it, in 1990, it was just above 40%. A lot has changed in a 30+ years.

Year	UCLA Acceptance Rate
1990	40+%
2000	29%
2010	23%
2020	18%
2024	9%

UCLA is not unique in this way.

Meet Intead! 

Find us at NACUBO in DC in July, and NACAC in Columbus in September. Be in touch to share a cup of coffee in person.

Bookmark this: Intead’s Resource Center
Access 800+ articles, slides decks, reports with relevant content on any topic important to enrollment management and student recruiting.  Check it out .

Applications have skyrocketed for most institutions. For top-tier universities, this surge makes them even more selective (or rejective) — great for prestige and ranking supposedly, tough for admissions teams and applicants alike. For the majority of institutions, however, the steep rise in applications is just that, a steep rise in applications. Yield is on a different trajectory, and it’s driven by a simple concept: Algebra.

The rise in applications has dramatically outpaced the increase in college-bound students, and of course, a student can only enroll in one institution, whether they are admitted to two or twenty. This then leads to a big increase in the volume of ibuprofen intake by admissions teams, as predicting the behavior of students is getting harder all the time. While institution leaders continue to demand enrollment results.

Thank goodness for the consistent ibuprofen supply.

We can point to the Common App as the bane of the admissions process. But that’s not really fair. Its advent brought more students into the system, increasing access overall. So, there’s the good. And not every university seeing the surge uses the Common App, and the University of California system is among those that do not.

The real drivers of the application tsunami: access, competition, and coaching from influencers like school counselors and advisors. There are pros and cons to this situation. Ironically, the unpredictable nature of admissions decisions causes stress, which causes students to hedge their bets and apply to more colleges, which makes the admissions process less predictable.

For context:

In 2000, the typical applicant applied to three to five institutions.
Today, the average student applies to eight to 12+, simply because they can.
In 1998, when Common App went digital, ~250,000 applications were submitted through it.
In 2024, that number hit 7.3 million – a 2,820% increase. (Yes, they have many more institutions as clients today, but still!)

The problem, of course, isn’t just the mountain of applications (besides, new AI tools are now helping with that to some degree). The problem is predicting yield to land just the right number of students who can bring just the right amount of revenue (and did we mention housing capacity?).

Read on…

Bring Your Student Leads Into Focus

Predicting Student Yield: The Demonstrated Intent Challenge

Subscribe to our Blog

Recent Posts