What We Can—and Can’t—Learn About College Enrollment Trends from Federal Admissions Data

Since the Supreme Court limited the use of race-conscious admissions in 2023, policymakers, college leaders, and researchers have been eager to understand how the decision reshaped the college access and admissions landscape. Federal data provide an overview into enrollment patterns and certain student demographics. But there are limits. Federal data alone cannot reveal whether factors like race were the deciding factor in an admissions decision. By asking the right questions about available data, decision-makers can better interpret trends, draw informed conclusions, and guide policy responses.

Two established data sets—the Fall Enrollment Data (EF) and the Admissions Survey Component (ADM)—are components of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and offer insights about enrollment patterns and college admissions outcomes. The most recent EF data provide the first look at nationwide college enrollment in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA) ruling. Researchers are making sense of these data and identifying trends. The Trump Administration added a third dataset—the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS)—to IPEDS late last year, to expose “unlawful practices” and ensure institutions are not using “race-based preferences” in admissions.

The rushed ACTS rollout has been marked by serious data quality issues, technical challenges, and litigation. Especially alarming are the Administration’s claims that ACTS data can be used to determine the use of race in admissions—an objective the data cannot be used responsibly to achieve. Despite myriad concerns, the Department of Education plans to release ACTS data as early as this summer.

As these data become available and shape our understanding of college access and admissions, we must critically interrogate what we can—and can’t—learn from them. Three questions can guide responsible use of federal admissions data to understand trends, draw conclusions, and inform policymaking:

1. Are these data high-quality, rigorous, and reliable?

Historically, IPEDS is a reputable source of high-quality data. This quality is maintained, in part, through the rigorous vetting, planning, and implementation process for updating survey components. For example, forthcoming ADM data include changes that were informed through robust field engagement, and were announced approximately one year before the collection opened to give institutions sufficient time to prepare for the expanded collection.

By contrast, ACTS has gone through a highly unconventional, fast-tracked implementation process that has raised substantial data quality concerns. This rushed process led a federal judge to halt the ACTS collection at public colleges and universities in 17 states, and 178 private institutions, the majority of which are represented by six higher education associations. That means any ACTS data released in 2026 are unlikely to be nationally representative or include data from several highly selective institutions where the impacts of SFFA have been most pronounced.

These data quality concerns and limitations should temper how confidently ACTS data are used to understand trends in college access or make claims about institutions’ use of race in admissions.

2. What can the data tell us?

Federal admissions data can help reveal what is happening in college admissions, but alone the data can’t explain why. EF data, for example, are useful for identifying trends like a potential post-SFFA cascade effect where highly qualified Black and Hispanic students enroll in less selective institutions than they may have before the Supreme Court decision. But enrollment data only show the culmination of a long recruitment, admissions, and enrollment process, and may mask changes in who applies and is admitted to college.

The ADM survey, on the other hand, includes information on applicants, admits, and enrollees and provides insights about common admissions factors like letters of recommendation, test scores, and legacy status. These data reveal the pervasive use of legacy status in admissions decisions. But they have limitations as well. Even when we know that legacy status is considered, ADM data cannot explain how it, and other nonacademic factors are used in decision-making. ACTS data, once published, will face the same limitation. Admissions decisions are often holistic and neither collection captures all institutional considerations or how any are weighed together or within the context of a student’s circumstances and experiences. Reducing decisions to any single factor—such as race or test scores—oversimplifies a complex admissions process.

3. What contextual factors may be influencing trends in the data?

Trends in college access do not exist in a vacuum. They must be interpreted within a broader context of overlapping world events and shifts in policy and behavior. The COVID-19 pandemic was a catalyst for positive admissions reforms, including test-optional policies and direct admissions programs. But it also deepened existing challenges like learning loss and its impact on college readiness.

Other contextual factors to consider when interpreting post-SFFA college access data include broader demographic trends, increasing numbers of students who choose not to disclose their race, the troubled rollout of the updated 2024–25 Free Application for Federal Student Aid, and federal and state efforts to curtail diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Taken together, these external factors can have varying and compounding impacts on college access and enrollment that must be considered alongside analyses of federal data.

Admissions Data Can Reveal Inequities, But Shouldn’t Be Reduced to Simplistic Narratives

As new federal data are released and interest in post-SFFA trends grows, the data must be interpreted with care. And any claims that the data can identify the use of race-based preferences in admissions decisions must be carefully scrutinized. Irresponsible data use risks fueling misleading narratives, diverting time and resources toward ineffective solutions, and reinforcing inequities in the admissions process. When used responsibly, federal data can be a powerful tool for surfacing trends and identifying opportunities to expand access to postsecondary education.