By Jonathon Milicevic
U.S. education policy has undergone radical shifts in recent years. Vast revisions to college and government policy have changed who and how students apply to college. For those navigating the college application process, these policy reforms can mean the difference between attending top schools or being priced out.
Financial aid is the leading consideration for rising college students, with 76 percent of applicants listing it as their top priority, according to Inside Higher Ed. As aid policy has changed drastically leading into the 2026 admission season, these changes are top of mind for any upcoming college applicant. The Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) is now transitioning away from Expected Family Contribution (EFC) to an automatically calculated Student Aid Index (SAI). This change will reduce steps in the application process and make it easier to apply for aid. While financial aid is usually based on Prior-Prior Year (PPY) income, families who experience a change in their finances after that period can request a recalculation through a professional judgment appeal. These revisions will have the cumulative effect of increasing the pool of applicants, thereby intensifying the competition for limited funding.
Additionally, undergraduate shifts are paralleled by equally sweeping changes to graduate programs. Programs which usually see a greater return on investment than undergraduate degrees could now be financially inaccessible. Due to the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), Grad PLUS loans, which formerly allowed graduate students to borrow up to the total cost of attendance, will be eliminated along with new caps on Direct Unsubsidized Loans as per Politico’s “What’s in the House GOP Higher-Ed Bill?” These changes will curtail funding for graduate programs; a factor students should consider when choosing majors that require professional or graduate degrees.
With changes to aid policy federally, many students will look to institutions to fill the gaps. New top-tier state and Ivy aid programs will offer full ride for those with family income under a certain threshold. However, new endowment taxes and the federal withholding of research grants will limit the ability of colleges pursuing these changes to realize them. Holistically, with less capital and resources for aid, colleges will shift admissions favor away from aid seekers and toward those more able to pay full tuition, such as out-of-state, ROTC, foreign, or wealthy students.
To combat some of the federal grant restrictions, colleges are capitulating to federal demands for more objective measures of student performance, such as GPA and standardized testing. Additionally, as the COVID era ends colleges are facing increasing pressure to go back to requiring the SAT. These shifts will disproportionately advantage high scorers and students with access to preparatory resources, while further disadvantaging low-income students lacking similar support. These changes will have the inadvertent effect of reducing the number of applicants by weeding out those who would have chosen not to send scores.
Federal policy influence has also changed how schools consider minority applicants due to changes in Supreme Court precedent and the abolishment DEI programs. The 2023 SFFA vs Harvard prohibited the consideration of race in the application process, eliminating affirmative action. No longer explicitly considering race in admission decisions has resulted in a drop in minority and black representation while making room for more international and Asian students. As The Harvard Crimson reports, the percentage of Black students in the Harvard Class of 2028 declined from 18 percent to 14 percent compared to the previous year. Additionally, Trump-era pressure along with the introduction of dozens of state-based DEI restrictions have created a feedback loop. This not only limits institutional flexibility in pursuing diversity but also shifts college admissions strategies. This balancing act between compliance and demands for equitability has shifted demographic diversity toward a system more reflective of class and global competition than race. This guidance has also influenced the scale of relief measures; for example, pressure to end DEI programs at the University of Michigan resulted in office closures responsible for boosting Pell student enrollment by 30-46 percent, Politico reports. To combat this, colleges have proposed new indirect diversity measures such as increased emphasis on personal essays, zip-code, or participation in programs that historically target underrepresented students. Now the DOJ has warned these “racial proxies” could see more scrutiny, being deemed unlawful, threatening almost all alternative diversity methods. These sweeping attacks source a systemic cooling effect: schools may preemptively remove any indirect promotion of equality under risk of federal prosecution.
Holistically, these policy shifts represent a fundamental change in the pathways to higher education. The historical framework for equitable redress has been set aside for measures emphasizing impartiality and efficiency. By simultaneously narrowing financial aid, dismantling diverse initiatives, and opting for tighter admission standards, public policy has gerrymandered the boundaries of who can realistically pursue college. What emerges is a system more dependent on wealth, geography, and standardized performance, with access stratified across twisted lines of class, rather than diverse representation. The changes may streamline the process, on paper, but ultimately threaten to entrench systematic inequality and restrict opportunity.
Graphic by Philip Berkwit
