April 2026, Eye on Research
Commentary
April arrives with a question we can no longer treat as hypothetical. What does AI mean for the programs we offer and for the learners who choose them?
Three recent reports, read together, sketch a picture worth considering. Tufts University's Digital Planet released the first American AI Jobs Risk Index. It projects that about 9.3 million U.S. jobs carry near-term displacement risk under its midrange adoption assumption. Occupations facing the highest share of projected losses are writers and authors, computer programmers, and web and digital-interface designers. Information, professional and technical services, and finance and insurance carry the heaviest concentration of that risk.
Gallup's Gen Z research shows young people have already picked up on the shift. Weekly AI use has leveled off, positive feelings have declined, and feelings of anger associated with AI are up 9% to 31%. Among those already working, 48% believe risks in the workplace outweigh the gains.
The Lumina–Gallup 2026 State of Higher Education study closes the loop. Forty-seven percent of college learners state AI's effect on the job market has them rethinking their major. Sixteen percent have already switched. These shares climb sharply among learners in technology and vocational programs.
What sets this wave of automation apart is where it lands. Earlier rounds concentrated on manual, repetitive, or lower-paid roles. These reports reach further up the wage scale, into the analytic, creative, and decision-heavy work most closely tied to a college credential. That matters for higher education because the earnings premium our learners are pursuing lives largely in exactly those jobs.
What strikes me is how quickly the career calculus has shifted inside the classroom. Learners are not waiting for institutions to catch up. They are revising their plans in real time, often with only partial information about a labor market in flux.
The work ahead is practical for those of us in enrollment, advising, and the registrar's office. We need to help learners recalculate with evidence, rather than anxiety. We must pair transparent, program-level labor-market data with nimble curriculum review and clear AI guidance.
Calls for Subject Matter Experts
AACRAO is seeking three subject-matter expert volunteer editors to review and provide feedback on the forthcoming edition of the Academic Record and Transcript Guide. The guide spans 13 chapters covering academic records, learning mobility, noncredit learning, microcredentials, AI and emerging technologies, and equity in records systems. Editors with expertise in academic records and transcript services, FERPA compliance and learner privacy, learning pathways and microcredentials, record security and fraud prevention, or AI and emerging technologies are encouraged to apply.
Reviewers will use Google Docs suggesting and commenting features to flag editorial issues, technical accuracy, clarity, and alignment with AACRAO competencies. Each chapter is expected to require one to three hours of review time, and the full review period runs six weeks beginning May 13. Applicants should have ten or more years of experience in higher education, be an AACRAO member, work in the U.S. higher education worksphere, and be comfortable working in Google Docs. Selected editors will sign a brief volunteer agreement and receive book content along with a detailed review template.
Volunteers will receive a $100 gift card and will be credited in the published guide. The application deadline is May 8, 2026, and only three positions are available. Apply now by visiting this AACRAO Exchange page.
Calls to Participate
Strategic Enrollment Management Goes International
A research team led by Clayton Smith, Ed.D., of the University of Windsor is conducting a study titled Strategic Enrollment Management Goes International. The purpose of the study is to explore the experiences and perceptions of enrollment professionals regarding how strategic enrollment management (SEM) is used to recruit learners and promote their success at postsecondary institutions beyond the United States. The work is part of AACRAO's 50th-year celebration of strategic enrollment management.
Participation is voluntary. After you contact the research team, you will be invited to complete an online survey that should take approximately 10 minutes. You will also have the option to participate in a one-on-one online interview lasting approximately 45 minutes. All information provided will remain confidential. The study closes May 22, 2026.
This research has been approved by the University of Windsor Research Ethics Board. If you would like to hear more about the study, please contact Dr. Smith at Clayton.Smith@uwindsor.ca. Questions about your rights as a research participant may be directed to the Research Ethics Board, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, N9B 3P4; telephone 519-253-3000, ext. 3948; email ethics@uwindsor.ca.
Co-investigators on the research team are Phil Ollenberg, Ph.D., Emily Carr University; Shaimaa Nabil Hassanein, The American University in Cairo; Nada Al-Khaladi, Keyano College; and Brenley DiFranco, University of Guelph.
ERP System Conversions at U.S. Colleges and Universities
My name is Todd Deese. I am a Doctor of Education candidate in Higher and Adult Education at the University of Memphis and Senior Associate Registrar at the University of Colorado Denver. My dissertation research examines U.S. colleges and universities that have recently converted to a new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system, with particular attention to the Student Module. The study seeks to determine whether participants report that their ERP conversion created value for their institution. Registrar office staff bring a distinctive functional end-user and technical perspective on ERP use, which is central to the significance of the findings.
The Institutional Review Board at the University of Memphis has approved this research study. Participation is voluntary, and the online survey should take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Responses will be kept confidential and anonymous. The survey will be available through May 22, 2026. A $10 donation will be made to AACRAO for every completed survey submission, up to a total of $300.
To review the consent statement and begin the survey, please use this link to the survey. If you have any questions, please reach out to me via email at tdeese@memphis.edu.
AACRAO Research Updates
The Transcript-Practices Survey Has Closed
This survey closed on April 24, 2026. A stand-alone report will be released early summer, summarizing the findings. Survey data will also help shape the revision of the AACRAO Academic Record and Transcript Guide, previously published in 2019.
The 2026 survey explored official transcript content, transfer-credit recording practices, identity-related record changes, and the communication of academic decisions. The guide has long served as a key reference for registrars and enrollment professionals. Participation from the field will ensure the next edition reflects current institutional practices.
Forthcoming Benchmarking
In late summer 2026, we will deploy the Chief Enrollment Management Career Profile survey.
In fall 2026, we will deploy two 60-Second Surveys. The first 60-Second Survey will ask about FERPA-related academic-record practices for noncredit learner records to support the efforts of the AACRAO and UPCEA work group.
The second 60-Second Survey is tentatively scheduled to benchmark practice and policy related to efforts to prevent admissions fraud.
Current Higher-Education Research and Related Topics
AI's White-Collar Job Threat: What the Numbers Actually Show
Tufts University's Digital Planet research center has built the American AI Jobs Risk Index. It is the first data-driven framework to map actual job-displacement risk across every major occupation, industry, metro area, and state in the United States. Unlike prior research that measured exposure, this index focuses on vulnerability. Research examines the likelihood that AI exposure actually results in job loss and ties those findings directly to projected income loss and geography.
- Under a median AI adoption scenario, over 9 million of the 151 million jobs analyzed are at risk in the near term, with a plausible range of 2.7 to 19.5 million depending on AI-adoption speed. Associated household income loss ranges from $200 billion to $1.5 trillion annually, with a midpoint of about $757 billion.
- Industry-wide vulnerability averages around 6%. The highest-risk sectors include Information Technology (18%), Finance and Insurance (17%), and Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (16%), which concentrate digital, rules-based tasks that are most susceptible to automation.
- The most vulnerable occupations are Writers and Authors (57%), Computer Programmers (55%), and Web and Digital Interface Designers (55%). The greatest total income loss falls on Software Developers, Management Analysts, and Market Research Analysts.
- At the state level, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Virginia, Maryland, Washington, and Colorado face the highest share of jobs at risk. California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois are projected to absorb the largest absolute job and income losses.
Community-College-Transfer Rates: What the Data Show
The National Student Clearinghouse Research Center's Tracking Transfer report examines outcomes for learners who start at a community college and then transfer to a 4-year institution. It measures transfer-out rates, retention, and bachelor's-degree completion across learner groups, institutions, and states. The 2026 update focuses on learners who entered community college in fall 2018 and examines their 6-year outcomes.
- Thirty-one percent of first-time-ever-in-college learners who started at a community college in fall 2018 transferred to a 4-year institution within 6 years. Of those who transferred, 48.7% completed a bachelor's degree.
- Learners who entered community college with prior dual-enrollment experience outperformed their peers. These learners achieved higher transfer-out rates (45.4%) and bachelor's-degree completion rates (58.6%). Rates were also highest at 71.2% within 6 years.
- Retention after transferring was 81.8% overall. That percentage rose to 86.9% for learners who earned a credential before transferring. This was nearly 10% higher than that of learners who transferred without a credential.
Graduate-School ROI: It Depends on What You Study
The PEER Center at American University published new research by economists Joseph Altonji, Ph.D., and Zhengren Zhu, Ph.D., that examines the financial return on graduate education. Administrative data from Texas was used in the study. The study goes beyond raw-earnings comparisons by accounting for tuition costs and income lost while enrolled. This is one of the more rigorous looks at whether graduate school actually pays off.
- Graduate programs increase a learner’s earnings by 17% on average, but returns vary dramatically by field. MD programs yield a 110% earnings boost, JD programs yield 59%, and MBA programs yield 16%. Master’s degrees in clinical psychology and curriculum and instruction yield returns around 4%.
- Once tuition and foregone earnings are factored in, adjusted lifetime returns shift considerably. MD programs yield 173%, PharmD programs yield 68%, and JD programs yield 41%. Some fields, such as social work, clinical psychology, and psychology, produce negative lifetime returns.
- Earnings effects are generally higher for women, lower for part-time learners, and higher for learners who came from lower-paying undergraduate majors. JD and MBA programs with higher U.S. News and World Report rankings also tend to produce stronger returns than lower-ranked programs.
- Simple measures, such as average postgraduate earnings, can understate returns in some fields and overstate them in others. This makes reliable program-level data critical for learners and policymakers.
Recent Research From CCRC: Two Highlights
The CCRC Publications page is a searchable archive of over 700 reports, briefs, journal articles, and practitioner resources from Columbia University's Community College Research Center (CCRC). The publication page includes topics like dual enrollment, developmental education, transfer, workforce education, and learner support. If you work in or study higher education, this is a solid resource to bookmark. New research drops regularly. Filtering tools make it easy to find what's relevant to your work. Here are two recent publications.
The Returns to Degree Completion at CUNY’s Community Colleges
This CCRC report tracks CUNY community-college learners over 10 years. It found that terminal associate-degree completers earned about $9,700 more annually than noncompleters. Bachelor's-degree completers gained roughly $16,000 per year. Results were consistent across learner subgroups and estimation methods.
Community Colleges as Providers of Adult Education ESL: The Role of Federal Policy
This CCRC report examines how community colleges deliver adult-education ESL programs and how federal policy shapes that work. The report draws on a literature review and expert interviews. Findings identify policy opportunities at the federal, state, and institutional levels to improve program access and outcomes for multilingual learners.
Gen Z and AI: More Exposure, Less Confidence
This Gallup report (co-released with the Walton Family Foundation and GSV Ventures) tracks how 1,500+ Gen Zers (ages 14 to 29) think and feel about AI. The picture is clear. AI usage has leveled off while skepticism keeps climbing. Gen Z isn't abandoning AI, but they're not fully embracing it either. Their concerns about what it does to their thinking, creativity, and job prospects are growing.
- AI use among Gen Z has flatlined: Just over 50% use it weekly or daily, even as broader workplace AI access rose 50% in 2025. Young people are not keeping pace with organizational adoption.
- Positive emotions toward AI dropped sharply: Excitement fell 14% to 22%, and hopefulness fell 9% to 18%. Anger climbed to 31%, and anxiety held steady at 42%. Curiosity is the one bright spot at 49%.
- Gen Z workers are skeptical of AI's value on the job: Nearly 50% say the risks outweigh the benefits. Trust in AI-assisted work is far lower than trust in fully human output.
- Learners see the writing on the wall: 52% agree they will need AI skills for college, up 5% from 2025. Fifty-six percent believe they will graduate high school prepared to use it, a 12% jump.
College Learners Use AI Constantly—and It's Reshaping What They Study
The Lumina Foundation–Gallup 2026 State of Higher Education study is a survey of roughly 4,000 adults enrolled in associate or bachelor's programs. It was fielded October 2–31, 2025. Two clear patterns emerged from the survey. AI has embedded itself into everyday coursework, regardless of institutional stance, and it is increasingly a factor in what learners choose to study in the first place.
- Every day use is the norm: Weekly AI use now reaches 57% of learners, with daily use clustering around 20%. A notable gender gap shows up in the daily figures—27% for men versus 17% for women. Usage runs highest in business, technology, and engineering fields. Learners depend on AI most often to work through material they find confusing (64% use it weekly or more), verify their homework (60%), polish their writing (54%) or condense lectures or notes (54%). Those who hold back cite ethical discomfort most often, with school rules and privacy worries close behind. Unfamiliarity with AI tools ranks last as a deterrent.
- Policy and practice are out of sync: Learners describe their institution's stance as either discouraging AI (42%) or outright banning it (11%). Yet within technology, vocational, and business programs, most learners say the opposite. Their school actively encourages it.
- Career anxiety is reshaping major choices: Forty-seven percent of learners report worries about AI's effect on the job market, which has prompted them to reconsider their field of study. Fourteen percent state they've weighed it heavily; another 33% have weighed it moderately. The gender split here is stark. Sixty percent of men versus 38% of women express some anxiety. Beyond reconsidering, 16% have actually switched fields because of AI, a figure that climbs to 21% for men. Nineteen percent of associate-degree learners have switched fields, and 26% of vocational learners and 25% of technology learners have also switched fields. About 70% of learners in technology and vocational career tracks say AI has prompted a rethink, while those in healthcare and the natural sciences are least affected.