Responsible Use of Admissions Data Can Expand College Opportunity. The Proposed New Federal Collection Risks the Opposite.

On August 7, the White House issued a Presidential Memo calling for greater transparency in higher education admissions, and soon after the Department of Education announced a new, extensive data collection—the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) survey that would be added to the existing Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).  

In a different context, IHEP might celebrate the opportunity to analyze more detailed data on students’ college access. In the current context, it’s not so straightforward. IHEP has long championed responsible data collection and use, and it is clear the Trump Administration does not plan to do either responsibly.  

This Administration has a track record of distorting data or dismissing information with which they disagree, and ACTS seems poised to continue that trend. Its stated purpose is to collect data that will “capture information that could indicate whether institutions of higher education are using race-based preferencing in their admissions processes.” While these data can offer insights into inequities in college admissions, they cannot prove whether race was a determining factor in an admissions decision. Numerous factors shape admissions decisions, including those not reflected in the proposed collection. For example, the Administration will not collect disaggregated information on students admitted through legacy admissions. These policies grant admissions preferences based on applicants’ relationship to alumni or donors and typically benefit White and wealthy students.  

In other instances, such as college accreditation, the Administration has taken a radically different stance on the need for disaggregated data. This inconsistency, alongside the goals of the collection, signals that ACTS data are likely to be weaponized to fuel misleading narratives and could lead institutions to take steps that limit access for students of color to avoid drawing the Administration’s ire.  

In addition to possible data misuse, there are aspects of the proposed collection process that are concerning. Primarily, the fact that ACTS data are unlikely to be of high quality given the size of the proposed collection and the rushed timeline. The sheer volume of data the Administration is seeking to collect in a short timeframe is staggering. By one estimate, the proposed ACTS collection would require responses to more than 100 new questions and thousands of new fields per year. And the Administration is requesting these data for the current year and the five years prior. On top of this, there are many significant technical questions that the Education Department needs to answer to ensure the quality, consistency, and usability of these new data. For example, how will GPAs be standardized across high schools? How will “first-generation students” be defined? 

To make matters worse, the Administration laid off 90 percent of Institute of Education Sciences staff and canceled an IPEDS training contract, leaving institutional researchers responsible for submitting these new extensive data with little guidance or support and raising serious concerns about data accuracy.  

Core to IHEP’s work is the belief that data that shine a light on what works and for whom in higher education are essential for catalyzing policy and practice change to ensure all students can access the transformative benefits of higher education. Through our Postsecondary Data Collaborative, we have galvanized the field to improve federal postsecondary data systems. For IPEDS, we have successfully advocated for the creation of the Outcome Measures survey that captures success for a broader population of students; the addition of graduation rates for students who receive federal Pell Grants; and other needed improvements.  

In fact, IHEP supported the inclusion of applicant and admission data disaggregated by race and ethnicity, as well as the collection of new data related to early decision and early action policies to the 2025-26 IPEDS Admissions survey, which are also included in ACTS. We did so because the changes can help the field better understand and address inequities in college access. And because the changes were made after extensive research and field engagement to inform definitions and understand limitations as well as on a timeline that allowed institutions to prepare for the new reporting requirements—unlike the proposed ACTS collection.  

Strengthening the availability, quality, and usability of data to enhance opportunity for all students remains central to IHEP’s mission. In the weeks ahead, we will continue to dive deeply into the technical details, collaborate with partners, and respond to the request for public comment. But you will not find us cheering for the ACTS survey as proposed or echoing the Administration’s goals for this collection.  

Far too many students, including students of color, students from low-income backgrounds, rural students, parenting students, and veteran students, still face barriers to accessing higher education. Data should be used to expand opportunity by informing evidence-based and student-centered policy and practice change. Unless data are collected and used responsibly, they could reinforce inequities rather than help institutions understand and address them. IHEP will continue pushing for data collections that are accurate, transparent, and designed to advance opportunity for all students.  

To learn more about advancing equitable admissions practices, read IHEP’s 2021 report The Most Important Door That Will Ever Open: Realizing the Mission of Higher Education Through Equitable Recruitment, Admissions and Enrollment Policies.