Tag: student recruitment

Posted on

Unintended Consequences: How the House Budget Threatens Student-Athletes

A Uniquely American Model Under Threat

June 8, 2025, by Dean Hoke: Intercollegiate athletics occupy a powerful and unique place in American higher education—something unmatched in any other country. From the massive media contracts of Division I football to the community pride surrounding NAIA and NJCAA basketball, college sports are a defining feature of the American academic landscape. Unlike most nations, where elite athletic development happens in clubs or academies, the U.S. integrates competitive sports directly into its college campuses.

This model is more than tradition; it’s an engine of opportunity. For many high school students—especially those from underserved backgrounds—the chance to play college sports shapes where they apply, enroll, and succeed. According to the NCAA, 35% of high school athletes say the ability to participate in athletics is a key factor in their college decision [1]. It’s not just about scholarships; it’s about identity, community, and believing their talents matter.

At smaller colleges and two-year institutions, athletics often serves as a key enrollment driver and differentiator in a crowded marketplace. International students, too, are drawn to the American system for its academic-athletic fusion, contributing tuition revenue and global prestige. Undermining this model through sweeping changes to federal financial aid, without considering the downstream effects, risks more than athletic participation. It threatens a distinctively American approach to education, access, and aspiration.

A New Threshold with Big Impacts

Currently, students taking 12 credit hours per semester are considered full-time and eligible for the maximum Pell Grant, which stands at $7,395 for 2024-25 [2]. The proposed House budget raises this threshold to 15 credit hours per semester. For student-athletes, whose schedules are already packed with training, competition, and travel, this shift could be devastating.

NCAA academic standards require student-athletes to maintain full-time enrollment (typically 12 hours) and make satisfactory academic progress [3]. Adding another three credit hours per term may force many to choose between academic integrity, athletic eligibility, and physical well-being. In sports like basketball, where teams frequently travel for games, or in demanding STEM majors, completing 15 credit hours consistently can be a formidable challenge.

Financial Impact on Student-Athletes

Key Proposed Changes Affecting Student-Athletes:

  • Pell Grant Reductions: The proposed budget aims to cut the maximum Pell Grant by $1,685, reducing it to $5,710 for the 2026–27 academic year. Additionally, eligibility criteria would become more stringent, requiring students to enroll in at least 15 credit hours per semester to qualify for full-time awards. These changes could result in approximately 700,000 students losing Pell Grant eligibility [4].
  • Elimination of Subsidized Loans: The budget proposes eliminating subsidized federal student loans, which currently do not accrue interest while a student is in school. This change would force students to rely more on unsubsidized loans or private lending options, potentially increasing their debt burden [5].
  • Cuts to Work-Study and SEOG Programs: The Federal Work-Study program and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG) are slated for significant reductions or elimination. These programs provide essential financial support to low-income students, and their removal could affect over 1.6 million students [6].
  • Institutional Risk-Sharing: A new provision would require colleges to repay a portion of defaulted student loans, introducing a financial penalty for institutions with high default rates. This could strain budgets, especially at smaller colleges with limited resources [7].

Figure 1: Total student-athletes by national athletic organization (NCAA, NAIA, NJCAA).

While Figure 1 highlights the total number of student-athletes in each organization, Figure 2 illustrates how deeply athletics is embedded in different types of institutions. NAIA colleges have the highest ratio, with student-athletes comprising 39% of undergraduate enrollment. Division III institutions follow at approximately 8.42%, and the NJCAA—serving mostly commuter and low-income students—relies on athletics for 8.58% of its total student base [8].

Even Division I, with its large student populations, includes a meaningful share (2.49%) of student-athletes. These proportions underscore how vital athletics are to institutional identity, especially in small colleges and two-year schools where athletes often make up a significant portion of campus life, retention strategy, and tuition revenue.

Figure 2: Percentage of student-athletes among total undergraduate enrollment by organization (NCAA Divisions I–III, NAIA, NJCAA).

The Pell Grant Profile: Who’s Affected

Pell Grants support students with the greatest financial need. According to a 2018 report, approximately 31.3% of Division I scholarship athletes receive Pell Grants. At individual institutions like Ohio State, the share is even higher: 47% of football players and over 50% of women’s basketball players. In the broader NCAA system, over 48% of athletes received some form of federal need-based aid in recent years [9].

There are approximately 665,000 student-athletes attending college. The NCAA reports that more than 520,000 student-athletes currently participate in championship-level intercollegiate athletics across Divisions I, II, and III [10]. The National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) oversees approximately 83,000 student-athletes [11], while the National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA) supports around 60,000 student-athletes at two-year colleges [12].

The NAIA and NJCAA systems, which serve many first-generation, low-income, and minority students, also have a high reliance on Pell Grant support. However, exact figures are less widely published.

The proposed redefinition of “full-time” means many of these students could lose up to $1,479 per year in aid, based on projections from policy experts [13]. For low-income students, this gap often determines whether they can afford to continue their education.

Fewer Credits, Fewer Dollars: Academic and Athletic Risks

Another major concern is how aid calculations based on “completed” credit hours will penalize students who drop a class mid-semester or fail a course. Even if a student-athlete enrolls in 15 credits, failing or withdrawing from a single 3-credit course could drop their award amount [14]. This adds pressure to persist in academically unsuitable courses, potentially hurting long-term academic outcomes.

Athletic departments, already burdened by compliance and recruitment pressures, may face added strain. Advisors will need to help students navigate increasingly complex eligibility and aid requirements, shifting focus from performance and development to credit-hour management.

Disproportionate Effects on Small Colleges and Non-Revenue Sports

The brunt of these changes will fall hardest on small, tuition-dependent institutions in the NCAA Division II, Division III, NAIA, and NJCAA. These colleges often use intercollegiate athletics as a strategic enrollment tool. At some NAIA schools, student-athletes comprise 40% to 60% of the undergraduate population [8].

Unlike large Division I schools that benefit from lucrative media contracts and booster networks, these institutions rely on a patchwork of tuition, modest athletic scholarships, and federal aid to keep programs running. A reduction in Pell eligibility could drive enrollment declines, lead to cuts in athletic offerings, and even force some colleges to close sports programs or entire campuses.

Already, schools like San Francisco State University, Cleveland State, and Mississippi College have recently announced program eliminations, citing budgetary constraints [15]. NJCAA institutions—the two-year colleges serving over 85,000 student-athletes—also face a precarious future under this proposed budget.

Economic Importance by Division

Division I: Athletics departments generated nearly $17.5 billion in total revenue in 2022, with $11.2 billion self-generated and $6.3 billion subsidized by institutional/government support or student fees [16]. Many Power Five schools are financially resilient, with revenue from TV contracts, merchandise, and ticket sales.

Division II: Median revenue for schools with football was around $6.9 million, but generated athletic revenue averaged only $528,000, leading to significant deficits subsidized by institutional funds [17].

Division III: Division III schools operate on leaner budgets, with no athletic scholarships and total athletics budgets often under $3 million per school. These programs are typically funded like other academic departments [18].

NAIA and NJCAA: These schools rely heavily on student-athlete enrollment to sustain their institutions. Athletics are not profit centers but recruitment and retention tools. Without Pell Grants, many of these athletes cannot afford to enroll [11][12].

Figure 3: Estimated number of NAIA, Division III, and NJCAA programs by state.

Unintended Tradeoffs: Equity and Resource Redistribution

Attempting to offset lost federal aid by reallocating institutional grants could result in aid being shifted away from non-athletes. This risks eroding equity goals, as well as provoking internal tension on campuses where athletes are perceived to receive preferential treatment.

Without new revenue sources, institutions may also raise tuition or increase tuition discounting, potentially compromising their financial stability. In essence, colleges may be forced to choose who gets to stay in school.

The High-Stakes Gamble for Student-Athletes

Figure 4: Estimated impact of Pell Grant changes on student-athletes, including projected dropouts and loan default rates.

For many student-athletes, especially those from low-income backgrounds, the Pell Grant is not just helpful—it’s essential. It makes the dream of attending college, competing in athletics, and earning a degree financially feasible. If the proposed changes to Pell eligibility become law, an estimated 50,000 student-athletes could be forced to drop out, unable to meet the new credit-hour requirements or fill the funding gap [19]. Those who remain may have no choice but to take on additional loans, risking long-term debt for a degree they may never complete. The reality is sobering: Pell recipients already face long-term student loan default rates as high as 27%, and for those who drop out, that figure climbs above 40% [20]. Stripping away vital support will almost certainly drive those numbers higher. The consequences won’t stop with individual students. Colleges—particularly smaller, tuition-dependent institutions where athletes make up a significant share of enrollment—stand to lose not just revenue, but the very programs and communities that give purpose to their campuses.

Colleges, athletic associations, policymakers, and communities must work together to safeguard opportunity. Student-athletes should never be forced to choose between academic success and financial survival. Preserving access to both education and athletics isn’t just about individual futures—it’s about upholding a uniquely American pathway to achievement and equity.

Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean is the Executive Producer and co-host for the podcast series Small College America. 

References

  1. NCAA. (n.d.). Estimated probability of competing in college athletics. Retrieved from https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/11/4/estimated-probability-of-competing-in-college-athletics.aspx
  2. Federal Student Aid. (2024). Federal Pell Grants. Retrieved from https://studentaid.gov/understand-aid/types/grants/pell
  3. NCAA. (n.d.). Academic Standards and Eligibility. Retrieved from https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2021/6/17/academic-eligibility.aspx
  4. Washington Post. (2025, May 17). Most Pell Grant recipients to get less money under Trump budget bill, CBO finds. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/05/17/pell-grants-cbo-analysis/
  5. NASFAA. (2024). Reconciliation Deep Dive: House Committee Proposes Major Overhaul of Federal Student Loans, Repayment, and PSLF. Retrieved from https://www.nasfaa.org/news-item/36202/Reconciliation_Deep_Dive_House_Committee_Proposes_Major_Overhaul_of_Federal_Student_Loans_Repayment_and_PSLF?utm
  6. U.S. Department of Education, FY2025 Budget Summary. (2024). Proposed Cuts to Campus-Based Aid Programs. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html
  7. Congressional Budget Office. (2025). Reconciliation Recommendations of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Retrieved from https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61412
  8. NJCAA, NAIA, and NCAA. (2023). Student-Athlete Participation Reports.
  9. NCAA. (2018). Pell Grant data and athlete demographics. Retrieved from https://www.ncaa.org/news/2018/4/24/research-pell-grant-data-shows-diversity-in-division-i.aspx
  10. NCAA. (2023). 2022–23 Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rates Report. Retrieved from https://www.ncaa.org/research
  11. NAIA. (2023). NAIA Facts and Figures. Retrieved from https://www.naia.org
  12. NJCAA. (2023). About the NJCAA. Retrieved from https://www.njcaa.org
  13. The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS). (2024). Analysis of Proposed Pell Grant Reductions. Retrieved from https://ticas.org
  14. Education Trust. (2024). Consequences of Redefining Full-Time Status for Financial Aid. Retrieved from https://edtrust.org
  15. ESPN. (2024, March); AP News. (2024, November). Athletic program eliminations at Cleveland State and Mississippi College.
  16. Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics. (2023). College Athletics Financial Information (CAFI). Retrieved from https://knightnewhousedata.org
  17. NCAA. (2022). Division II Finances: Revenues and Expenses Report. Retrieved from https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2022/6/17/finances.aspx
  18. NCAA. (2023). Division III Budget Reports and Trends. Retrieved from https://www.ncaa.org
  19. Internal projection based on available data from NCAA, NAIA, NJCAA, and CBO Pell Grant impact estimates.
  20. Brookings Institution. (2018). The looming student loan default crisis is worse than we thought. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-looming-student-loan-default-crisis-is-worse-than-we-thought

Posted on

Recruiting International Students: More than the 4Ps

January 25, 2022, by Don Hossler Philip Kotler, considered by many higher education professionals to be the Godfather of modern university admissions marketing, urged professionals in the field to consider the 4P’s when putting together a recruitment marketing plan. The 4P’s stand for:

  • Product
  • Place
  • Price
  • Promotion

However, when developing admissions marketing plans for international students, I always keep in mind the 4P’s, plus one R, and the word “courtship”.

The R stands for risk reduction. Any effort to create a targeted marketing plan for international students also has to consider the risks that students, and often their families, evaluate when they are contemplating attending a university in another country. This is true for both prospective undergraduate and graduate students. For me, the word courtship is an important consideration because we are courting these new students. And we must always keep in mind that courting a new partner from another culture, who may speak another language, adds a level of complexity to the process. Although, these are considerations for both undergraduate and graduate students some of the factors that go into the decision-making process are sufficiently different that I will focus only on undergraduates.

The 4P’s are also relevant for undergraduate international students. The majors, academic programs, and the out-of-class experience are an essential part of the product that any university offers. College rankings are important in the United States and even more important to students from other countries. Whether we like it or not, our ranking is part of our product. And an institution’s ranking is also an important part of risk reduction for international students. The place is another factor that gets careful consideration. How far is my institution from the home of this international student? For decades, universities located in metropolitan areas were more attractive to many international undergraduate students. The idea of being in a large city with many cultural opportunities was attractive. However, with growing concerns about personal safety, some students and their families may prefer being located in a small town where crime rates are lower, and personal safety is not as great a concern. It is axiomatic that price, the total cost of attendance, including travel, will always be an essential consideration for international students and their families.  Finally, promotion and courtship are similar constructs for admissions recruiting.

 The risks that potential international undergraduate students face include being a long distance from home, cultural similarities or dissimilarities, concerns about safety, uncertainty about whether or not their degree and the institution that they attended will be valued in their home country, and concerns about their ability to get relevant work experience before returning to their country of origin. Enrollment management professionals, admissions leaders, faculty members, and student life professionals should always be cognizant of these risk factors for potential international students. For example, the language barriers for students arriving from European countries will not be as pronounced as for a student coming from Thailand. Because English has become the lingua franca of business, many European countries offer or, in some cases, require programs in English. In addition, there will be more cultural similarities for these students in comparison to an undergraduate coming to the United States from Senegal.

Enrollment professionals understand that promotion – admissions marketing – plays a vital role in students’ decisions as to where to matriculate. However, I have always found it helpful if I have a broader metaphor to use as I consider new and existing admissions marketing and recruitment approaches. To that end, I have always found courtship to be an evocative metaphor for my thinking. If I was indeed courting the person whom I hoped would become my life partner, or even someone with whom I’m trying to develop a really good friendship, thinking about my actions as forms of courtship helps to broaden my thinking, to think beyond the traditional approaches to admissions marketing and recruitment and to evaluate new strategies. How might a prospective cosmopolitan female student who speaks Mandarin or Hindi respond differently than domestic female students to the various steps in the admissions and recruitment process? For institutions that might use financial aid to recruit prospective international undergraduates, admissions and financial aid professionals need to be aware that these students  might have no understanding of campus-based financial aid at the start of the recruitment process

Within this framework, when recruiting international undergraduates, colleges and universities must do comprehensive self-assessments of their market positions. Enrollment leaders need to know where they stand in relation to their products, including rankings, competitor universities, or specific academic programs. For example, not all colleges have high quality undergraduate performance-oriented music programs. Enrollment professionals must have a clear-eyed understanding of the extent to which the university’s location is attractive to prospective international students. Senior campus administrators, faculty, admissions marketing staff, and enrollment management leaders should realize that they have limited ability in the short run to change the academic programs (products) they offer or to alter their location(s).  It often takes a decade or more for a university to substantially improve its position in ranking schemes. The attractiveness of a location is likely to be a function of distance from home, similarity of cultures, and personal safety. In the short term, institutional net pricing (which is the cost of attendance minus any institutional financial aid), promotion, and actions aimed at risk reduction are the only policy and programmatic levers that enrollment managers can employ.

Promotion and related risk reduction strategies need to be based on an understanding of where the university stands in the higher education marketplace in the United States.  Understanding the cultural milieu from which students are being recruited is also essential knowledge for admissions professionals. This understanding can help them to develop effective messaging around the attractiveness of where the university is located, and the degree of safety for international undergraduates. More importantly, this knowledge can help admissions staff to identify the cultural norms associated with “courting” someone from that part of the globe.

It is also essential for universities to collect information on the competitor universities that their targeted international students apply to, and where they enroll. This knowledge is essential for developing more effective recruitment/promotion strategies. A competitor analysis also enables universities to make comparisons of the net price of attendance. These competitor analyses must be rooted in data. Promotional and recruitment tactics are unlikely to be successful if enrollment leaders have identified aspirational competitors as opposed to those institutions with whom they most often compete directly for international undergraduates.  

  Alongside the most highly ranked universities, or programs, in the United States, enrollment leaders are likely to discover that they have other competitors in different international markets. Thus, the enrollment modeling will need to be sensitive to the possibility of varying net price strategies depending upon the region of the world from which a university is trying to attract more international students. Finally, universities, and their specific academic programs, need to know that persistence is required.  If your university is not a household name in a particular region of the country where you are recruiting, it will take time to develop a steady stream of applicants. This is another example why a thorough competitive analysis is necessary. Without this, universities may spend a great deal of time and money with unrealistic hopes of enrolling more international undergraduate students.

At the bottom line, colleges and universities attempting to enroll more international students must keep in mind the 4P’s, but to see them through the lenses of risk reduction and of recruitment as a form of courtship.

Donald Hossler a member of the Edu Alliance Group Advisory Council is an emeritus professor of educational leadership and policy studies at Indiana University Bloomington (IUB). He currently serves as a Senior Scholar at the Center for Enrollment Research, Policy and Practice in the Rossier School of Education, at the University of Southern California. Hossler has also served as vice chancellor for student enrollment services, executive associate dean of the School of Education, and the executive director of the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.

Hossler’s areas of specialization include college choice, student persistence, student financial aid policy, and enrollment management. Hossler has received career achievement awards for his research, scholarship, and service from the American College Personnel Association, the Association for Institutional Research, the College Board, and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. He recently received the Sonneborn Award for Outstanding Research and Teaching from IUB and was named a Provost Professor.

Edu Alliance Group, Inc. (EAG) is an education consulting firm located in Abu Dhabi, the United Arab Emirates, and Bloomington, Indiana, USA. We assist higher education institutions worldwide on a variety of mission-critical projects. Our consultants have accomplished university/college leaders who share the benefit of their experience to diagnose and solve challenges.

EAG has provided consulting and successful solutions for higher education institutions in Australia, Egypt, Georgia, India, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Nigeria, Uganda,  United Arab Emirates, and the United States.

Edu Alliance offers higher education institutions consulting services worldwide. If you like to know more about how Edu Alliance can best serve you, please contact Dean Hoke at dean.hoke@edualliancegroup.com