Stevens Strategy

Just the Facts: A new analysis by the Texas A&M University System’s Office of Data Science evaluates the potential effects of new federal student loan limits on graduate and professional programs nationwide.

The analysis centers on the RISE Rule, effective July 1, 2026, which establishes new annual federal loan caps for new borrowers: $20,500 for graduate students and $50,000 for professional program students. Based on PEER Center estimates, the findings indicate that the impact will be substantial yet uneven. Key insights include:

🔶 Nationally, approximately 29% of graduate and professional borrowers would have been affected by the new loan limits, representing 367,518 out of 1.27 million borrowers included in the analysis.

🔶 The affected loan volume is considerable. According to PEER Center estimates, $8.7 billion, or 25.2% of the $34.4 billion in annual loan volume analyzed, exceeded the new federal limits.

🔶 The impact differs significantly by state. In Oregon, California, New York, Nevada, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., at least 40% of graduate and professional borrowers exceeded the new limits. In Texas, nearly 19% of borrowers and 14% of loan volume would have been affected.

🔶 Private nonprofit institutions face the greatest exposure. Across all credential levels, nearly 36% of borrowers at these institutions would be affected. Private nonprofit institutions accounted for over $5.7 billion in affected loan volume, representing 65.6% of the total estimated impacted loan volume.

The new loan limits will not affect all graduate and professional programs uniformly. The greatest impact will occur in high-cost, borrowing-dependent programs, particularly in fields where students have traditionally relied on federal loans to cover the full cost of attendance. Institutions may need to reevaluate pricing structures, institutional aid, student financing options, enrollment projections, and the clarity with which they communicate the expected return on investment for the credential.

Just the Facts: AAC&U’s 2026 report, Open Educational Resources: A New High-Impact Practice, examines whether open educational resources, or OER, should be understood as more than a textbook affordability strategy. The report argues that OER can support student success when implemented with the right institutional conditions. Additional insights include:

🔶 OER implementation was associated with lower course withdrawal rates. Across the full sample, predicted withdrawal rates were lower after OER implementation than before, though the report emphasizes that the magnitude of the impact varied by institutional context.

🔶 In every context studied, the share of A grades increased after OER implementation. Overall, A grades rose from 38% to 43%, while B, C, and D grades declined. The report also notes that F grades increased slightly, suggesting that some students may be staying enrolled in courses they might otherwise have withdrawn from, but still need additional academic support to succeed.

🔶 OER exposure was linked to shorter time to completion for students who took longer than four years to complete their credentials. The largest effect was seen at community colleges, where taking at least one OER course was associated with roughly a half-year reduction in predicted time to completion. For community college students who took six OER courses, the reduction was approximately one calendar year.

🔶 Implementation quality matters. Instructors who revised, remixed, or created OER were more likely to report changes to their teaching practices than those who adopted OER materials as-is. Yet one-third of instructors reported receiving no form of support, and time support was the least commonly reported form of assistance.

What this really means is that OER sits at the intersection of affordability, pedagogy, and completion. The strongest finding is not simply that free materials help students save money. It is that OER appears to work best when institutions treat implementation as academic work, not just a course materials decision.

Just the Facts: UPCEA and EducationDynamics’ Marketing and Enrollment Management AI Readiness Report 2025 examines how higher education institutions are adopting artificial intelligence across marketing, enrollment management, admissions, student success, and student services.

🔶 Sixty-five percent of respondents say they currently use emerging technology, including AI, in their marketing or enrollment work, up from 40% in 2024. Institutional receptivity has also increased, with 61% saying their institution is open to using emerging technology for marketing and enrollment, compared to 40% the previous year.

🔶 Despite increased use, many institutions do not see themselves as leaders. Only 21% of respondents believe their institution is ahead of peer institutions in adopting emerging technologies, while 36% believe they are behind. Additionally, 56% disagree that their institution is a leader in implementing AI for marketing and enrollment management.

🔶 The main barriers are operational, not philosophical. Seventy-six percent of respondents cite budget constraints, 64% cite technical infrastructure readiness, and 52% cite data privacy and security concerns. These barriers have become more pronounced since 2024, indicating that willingness to adopt AI is rising faster than institutional capacity.

🔶 AI is already showing measurable value. Sixty-one percent of respondents say AI has increased marketing and enrollment efficiency, 52% say it has improved work quality, and 48% say it has positively influenced the enrollment funnel.

AI in enrollment and marketing is no longer theoretical. Staff is using it, institutions are becoming more receptive to it, and early adopters are beginning to see gains in efficiency and funnel performance.

The next challenge is moving from scattered adoption to coordinated strategy by investing in staff training, clarifying responsible use policies, strengthening data governance, and aligning AI tools with specific enrollment goals.

Just the Facts: Encoura’s 2026 College Affordability and Financial Aid Communication Practices Report provides a detailed look at how four-year colleges and universities communicate cost, aid, borrowing, and value to prospective students and families.

Simply, the findings point to a clear gap. Institutions communicate affordability frequently, but not always in ways that families can easily understand, compare, or act on. Additional insights include:

🔶 Most institutions report having affordability or ROI messaging strategies, with 70% of private institutions and 66% of public institutions saying they have one. However, only 8% of private institutions and 14% of public institutions feel very confident in their ability to clearly communicate value to families.

🔶 Early cost estimates before admission remain inconsistent. Only 43% of private institutions and 28% of public institutions provide early scholarship ranges or cost estimates, even though affordability concerns often shape the college decision long before admission.

🔶 Net price calculators are widely maintained, but many are not designed as strategic enrollment tools. Only 10% of public institutions and 12% of private institutions include estimated borrowing and monthly repayment projections, and just 4% include job placement or graduate outcomes data.

🔶 Borrowing conversations are nearly universal, with 100% of public institutions and 96% of private institutions communicating about loans. Yet only 16% of public institutions and 17% of private institutions communicate total projected debt at graduation. Only 2% of institutions say they are very confident that prospective students fully understand their loan obligations before enrolling.

The strategic implication is clear. Communication regarding affordability is no longer a financial aid function alone. It's a core enrollment strategy. Institutions that treat affordability as a coordinated journey, spanning marketing, admissions, financial aid, digital tools, and yield strategy, will be better positioned than those that treat it as a set of disconnected messages. In a cost-sensitive enrollment environment, clear communication on affordabili