(Editor's Note: This article, originally published July 16, 2024, is being republished to provide the link to the medians interactive dashboard.)
Key Takeaways
- U.S. public higher education institutions continued a long trend of weakening demand metrics in fiscal 2023, with a median enrollment decrease of 0.7%. This trend was almost evenly spread across rating categories with the exception of a small increase in median enrollment at 'AAA' rated flagship institutions.
- Freshman application metrics were down similar to enrollment trends, but public colleges and universities had more success in maintaining retention and graduation rates.
- While demand pressures and the depletion of federal relief funds translated into tightening financial performance, improved state funding allowed most institutions to maintain net operating results close to pre-pandemic levels.
- Despite some volatility in investment markets, nearly all financial resource ratios modestly improved in fiscal 2023 across rating categories.
For U.S. public colleges and universities, fiscal 2023 tested their financial resilience as demand pressures continued and operating support from emergency federal money was spent by most institutions if it was not already depleted. Although there was more revenue support received from returning to normalized operations, this was more than offset by falling enrollment and increasing inflation. In fiscal 2023, the big differentiator for public institutions was the growth in state support, given improved state credit quality in the past few years. However, this wasn't enough to quell the operating pressures at smaller regional public universities with weaker credit quality. Although the trend was more muted than at private institutions, public colleges and universities continued to reflect bifurcated credit quality: Large flagship institutions with demand elasticity, sound resources, and excellent reputations held on to their strengths whereas regional institutions with weak selectivity and less financial flexibility faced credit stress.
Full details of the medians are available through our interactive dashboard, by clicking here.
The following image is a preview.
S&P Global Ratings had 145 ratings on U.S. public colleges and universities as of June 1, 2024. The ratings ranged from 'AAA' to 'CC', with more than 80% of institutions rated in the 'A' or 'AA' category, and the 'AAA', 'BBB', and speculative-grade categories consisting of only seven, 13, and two schools, respectively. Therefore, changes in median metrics for these categories might represent the variability associated with a small sample size, rather than wholesale differences in credit quality. Since our last medians report, we have raised the ratings on five public universities. Three of these upgrades reflected the upgrades on the states of Illinois and Ohio (see "U.S. Higher Education Rating Actions, 2023," published Jan. 23, 2024). We raised the ratings on Montana State University and Clemson University this year because the institutions saw positive enrollment trends, consistent surplus operations, and sustained heathy levels of financial resources. Of note, we didn't lower the ratings on any public colleges and universities and revised the outlook to negative on only one entity during the past year.
All data and ratings included in this report are as of June 1, 2024. We excluded the financial data for two institutions that had not yet published a fiscal 2023 audit as of this date. In general, public universities follow standards issued by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. However, four public institutions report financials according to the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). For comparability, we excluded the financial ratios of public institutions using FASB reporting but included enterprise risk profile data for these schools. Although we rate other types of debt for public colleges and universities, such as housing or other auxiliary-secured debt, the data in this report reflect the underlying credit characteristics of publicly rated universities, colleges, or systems. In addition, while we rate many community colleges and community college systems, we included our ratings on only four-year institutions or systems that primarily constitute four-year programs to maintain data consistency and enable a meaningful comparison between similar entities.
S&P Global Ratings publishes these medians as general benchmarks to observe broader industry trends. The credit analysis for any institution involves an assessment of qualitative factors that are beyond the scope of this article. Therefore, these medians should not be considered thresholds to achieve a particular rating.
Table 1
Public colleges and universities--Sectorwide fiscal 2023 ratios | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | |||||||||
Sample size | 149 | 145 | 143 | 145 | 141 | 145 | ||||||||
ENROLLMENT AND DEMAND | ||||||||||||||
Total FTE enrollment | ||||||||||||||
Median | 19,541 | 19,426 | 18,773 | 18,650 | 18,397 | 18,100 | ||||||||
Mean | 35,268 | 35,929 | 36,248 | 35,484 | 36,152 | 36,308 | ||||||||
FTE enrollment change (%) | ||||||||||||||
Median | -1.0 | -0.6 | -0.5 | -1.5 | -1.9 | -0.7 | ||||||||
Mean | 1.5 | 1.9 | -0.7 | -2.1 | -1.9 | -1.0 | ||||||||
Undergraduates as a % of total enrollment | ||||||||||||||
Median | 81.2 | 81.5 | 80.6 | 82.7 | 82.0 | 82.4 | ||||||||
Mean | 81.0 | 81.6 | 80.8 | 82.2 | 81.9 | 82.3 | ||||||||
First-year acceptance rate (%) | ||||||||||||||
Median | 71.8 | 72.7 | 71.8 | 75.1 | 77.8 | 79.6 | ||||||||
Mean | 69.9 | 70.4 | 70.3 | 72.9 | 75.7 | 75.1 | ||||||||
First-year matriculation rate (%) | ||||||||||||||
Median | 32.3 | 30.4 | 28.9 | 25.8 | 25.7 | 24.8 | ||||||||
Mean | 34.8 | 32.6 | 31.1 | 29.1 | 27.6 | 26.5 | ||||||||
Average SAT scores | ||||||||||||||
Median | 1147 | 1162 | 1171 | 1152 | 1188 | 1177 | ||||||||
Mean | 1152 | 1172 | 1173 | 1157 | 1183 | 1180 | ||||||||
Average ACT scores | ||||||||||||||
Median | 23.4 | 24.0 | 24.0 | 24.0 | 24.0 | 23.9 | ||||||||
Mean | 23.8 | 24.3 | 24.4 | 24.4 | 24.7 | 24.4 | ||||||||
Retention rate (%) | ||||||||||||||
Median | 80.6 | 80.3 | 80.0 | 82.0 | 80.2 | 80.0 | ||||||||
Mean | 80.0 | 80.3 | 80.7 | 81.3 | 79.9 | 79.9 | ||||||||
Six-year graduation rate (%) | ||||||||||||||
Median | 56.3 | 59 | 62.0 | 61.6 | 62.4 | 62.6 | ||||||||
Mean | 58.3 | 60.7 | 62.4 | 62.1 | 62.8 | 63.0 | ||||||||
In-state students (%) | ||||||||||||||
Median | 79.0 | 79.6 | 79.7 | 77.0 | 77.5 | 76.7 | ||||||||
Mean | 76.5 | 76.5 | 76.2 | 75.8 | 75.6 | 74.7 | ||||||||
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE | ||||||||||||||
Operating margin (%) | ||||||||||||||
Median | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 3.7 | 2.9 | 0.3 | ||||||||
Mean | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 4.3 | 2.9 | 0.7 | ||||||||
REVENUE DIVERSITY | ||||||||||||||
State appropriations to revenue (%) | ||||||||||||||
Median | 21.5 | 21.1 | 20.9 | 21.4 | 20.7 | 22.9 | ||||||||
Mean | 23.0 | 22.1 | 22.2 | 21.8 | 21.9 | 23.4 | ||||||||
Student-generated revenue (%) | ||||||||||||||
Median | 47.6 | 47.3 | 46.4 | 41.9 | 42.3 | 43.3 | ||||||||
Mean | 45.1 | 45.4 | 44.4 | 40.1 | 40.7 | 41.3 | ||||||||
Auxiliary revenue (%) | ||||||||||||||
Median | 9.8 | 10.0 | 8.4 | 6.6 | 8.5 | 9.2 | ||||||||
Mean | 10.1 | 10.1 | 8.7 | 6.9 | 8.7 | 9.1 | ||||||||
Grants and contracts to revenue (%) | ||||||||||||||
Median | 9.7 | 10.1 | 10.5 | 10.8 | 11.3 | 11.5 | ||||||||
Mean | 11.1 | 11.4 | 12.1 | 12.0 | 12.3 | 12.7 | ||||||||
Gifts and pledges to revenue (%) | ||||||||||||||
Median | 1.6 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 2.5 | 2.0 | ||||||||
Mean | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 3.1 | 2.5 | ||||||||
Investment and endowment income to revenue (%) | ||||||||||||||
Median | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 1.3 | ||||||||
Mean | 1.8 | 1.6 | 1.5 | 3.4 | 0.2 | 1.6 | ||||||||
FINANCIAL AID/EXPENSE RATIOS | ||||||||||||||
Financial aid burden as a percentage of expenses (%) | ||||||||||||||
Median | 9.0 | 9.3 | 9.3 | 9.7 | 9.1 | 9.8 | ||||||||
Mean | 9.5 | 9.7 | 9.7 | 10.1 | 9.6 | 9.9 | ||||||||
Instruction expense as a percentage of expenses (%) | ||||||||||||||
Median | 26.9 | 26.7 | 26.2 | 25.4 | 23.1 | 23.3 | ||||||||
Mean | 27.8 | 27.6 | 27.5 | 27.3 | 24.8 | 24.5 | ||||||||
Tuition discount rate (%) | ||||||||||||||
Median | 24.8 | 26.2 | 26.6 | 27.6 | 29.0 | 29.5 | ||||||||
Mean | 25.7 | 27.5 | 27.6 | 28.6 | 29.7 | 31.0 | ||||||||
ENDOWMENT | ||||||||||||||
University endowment market value ($000s) | ||||||||||||||
Median | 280,997 | 256,077 | 243,637 | 310,900 | 298,414 | 316,286 | ||||||||
Mean | 1,279,107 | 1,207,481 | 1,249,529 | 1,660,882 | 1,475,863 | 1,759,341 | ||||||||
FINANCIAL RESOURCE RATIOS | ||||||||||||||
Cash and investments to expenses (%) | ||||||||||||||
Median | 48.7 | 49.1 | 46.9 | 55.8 | 95.6 | 99.1 | ||||||||
Mean | 60.1 | 59.0 | 60.2 | 70.1 | 112.3 | 111.3 | ||||||||
Cash and investments to debt (%)* | ||||||||||||||
Median | 117.0 | 109.4 | 121.2 | 139.5 | 231.3 | 244.9 | ||||||||
Mean | 157.1 | 146.1 | 158.4 | 183.2 | 268.7 | 272.7 | ||||||||
DEBT RATIOS | ||||||||||||||
Total outstanding debt ($000s)* | ||||||||||||||
Median | 322,940 | 315,113 | 342,018 | 356,473 | 376,200 | 390,557 | ||||||||
Mean | 869,479 | 924,263 | 984,463 | 1,003,116 | 1,180,558 | 1,298,499 | ||||||||
Average age of plant (years) | ||||||||||||||
Median | 14.0 | 14.2 | 14.8 | 15.3 | 15.1 | 14.2 | ||||||||
Mean | 14.5 | 14.8 | 15.3 | 15.7 | 15.4 | 14.5 | ||||||||
MADS burden (%) | ||||||||||||||
Median | 4.2 | 4.1 | 4.0 | 3.9 | 3.8 | 4.0 | ||||||||
Mean | 4.6 | 4.4 | 4.2 | 4.4 | 4.1 | 4.3 | ||||||||
FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT RATIOS | ||||||||||||||
Total debt per FTE ($)* | ||||||||||||||
Median | 16,167 | 17,216 | 17,505 | 18,183 | 19,554 | 21,640 | ||||||||
Mean | 20,544 | 22,174 | 22,414 | 22,999 | 26,398 | 27,121 | ||||||||
State appropriations per FTE ($) | ||||||||||||||
Median | 7,704 | 7,929 | 8,189 | 8,487 | 9,350 | 10,433 | ||||||||
Mean | 8,734 | 8,727 | 8,894 | 9,663 | 10,403 | 11,279 | ||||||||
Endowment per FTE ($)† | ||||||||||||||
Median | N.A. | N.A. | 13,586 | 17,150 | 15,394 | 18,597 | ||||||||
Mean | N.A. | N.A. | 27,466 | 36,208 | 31,691 | 37,155 | ||||||||
FTE--Full-time-equivalent. MADS--Maximum annual debt service. *Foundation cash and investments and debt included in fiscal 2023 and fiscal 2022. †Endowment value for fiscal 2023 includes only university-held endowment. Source: S&P Global Ratings. |
Table 2
Public colleges and universities--Fiscal 2023 ratios by rating category | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AAA | AA | A | BBB | Sector-wide | ||||||||
Sample size | 7 | 53 | 68 | 15 | 145 | |||||||
ENROLLMENT AND DEMAND | ||||||||||||
Total FTE enrollment | ||||||||||||
Median | 60,866 | 38,162 | 12,526 | 3,659 | 18,100 | |||||||
Mean | 81,416 | 64,595 | 16,436 | 4,936 | 36,308 | |||||||
FTE enrollment change (%) | ||||||||||||
Median | 0.7 | -0.3 | -2.2 | -1.6 | -0.7 | |||||||
Mean | -0.3 | -0.3 | -1.4 | -1.0 | -1.0 | |||||||
Undergraduates as a % of total enrollment | ||||||||||||
Median | 75.6 | 80.2 | 84.3 | 88.2 | 82.4 | |||||||
Mean | 74.6 | 78.0 | 83.9 | 87.6 | 82.3 | |||||||
First-year acceptance rate (%) | ||||||||||||
Median | 52.7 | 73.7 | 83.1 | 84.5 | 79.6 | |||||||
Mean | 46.3 | 69.2 | 81.6 | 79.6 | 75.1 | |||||||
First-year matriculation rate (%) | ||||||||||||
Median | 32.9 | 27.1 | 22.8 | 21.7 | 24.8 | |||||||
Mean | 36.0 | 27.1 | 24.4 | 26.9 | 26.5 | |||||||
Average SAT scores | ||||||||||||
Median | 1,347 | 1,249 | 1,091 | 1,020 | 1,177 | |||||||
Mean | 1,350 | 1,046 | 925 | 780 | 1,180 | |||||||
Average ACT scores | ||||||||||||
Median | 29.7 | 25.7 | 22.8 | 21.0 | 23.9 | |||||||
Mean | 29.6 | 21.9 | 20.8 | 18.6 | 24.4 | |||||||
Retention rate (%) | ||||||||||||
Median | 95.0 | 85.6 | 76.6 | 66.9 | 80.0 | |||||||
Mean | 92.9 | 85.5 | 77.6 | 66.3 | 79.9 | |||||||
Six-year graduation rate (%) | ||||||||||||
Median | 91.1 | 71.0 | 58.4 | 47.3 | 62.6 | |||||||
Mean | 86.4 | 71.7 | 57.9 | 45.1 | 79.9 | |||||||
In-state students (%) | ||||||||||||
Median | 65.6 | 72.4 | 81.8 | 81.0 | 76.7 | |||||||
Mean | 65.5 | 69.5 | 78.5 | 77.1 | 74.7 | |||||||
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE | ||||||||||||
Operating margins (%) | ||||||||||||
Median | 2.9 | 2.1 | -1.0 | -4.6 | 0.3 | |||||||
Mean | 2.2 | 2.7 | 0.0 | -3.1 | 0.7 | |||||||
REVENUE DIVERSITY | ||||||||||||
State appropriations to revenue (%) | ||||||||||||
Median | 12.1 | 17.2 | 23.3 | 30.6 | 22.9 | |||||||
Mean | 11.8 | 18.3 | 24.0 | 29.6 | 23.4 | |||||||
Student-generated revenue (%) | ||||||||||||
Median | 24.3 | 36.2 | 47.8 | 43.8 | 43.3 | |||||||
Mean | 29.4 | 35.1 | 43.8 | 40.1 | 41.3 | |||||||
Auxiliary revenue (%) | ||||||||||||
Median | 4.2 | 8.4 | 9.9 | 9.7 | 9.2 | |||||||
Mean | 5.7 | 8.8 | 8.9 | 9.6 | 9.1 | |||||||
Grants and contracts to revenue (%) | ||||||||||||
Median | 16.4 | 14.5 | 8.7 | 6.4 | 11.5 | |||||||
Mean | 15.5 | 14.5 | 11.0 | 7.0 | 12.7 | |||||||
Gifts and pledges to revenue (%) | ||||||||||||
Median | 4.2 | 2.7 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 2.0 | |||||||
Mean | 4.4 | 3.0 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 2.5 | |||||||
Investment and endowment income to revenue (%) | ||||||||||||
Median | 3.2 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 1.3 | |||||||
Mean | 4.9 | 1.8 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.6 | |||||||
FINANCIAL AID/EXPENSE RATIOS | ||||||||||||
Financial aid burden as a percentage of expenses (%) | ||||||||||||
Median | 4.1 | 7.5 | 10.3 | 12.8 | 9.8 | |||||||
Mean | 5.1 | 7.6 | 10.4 | 10.8 | 9.9 | |||||||
Instruction expense as a percentage of expenses (%) | ||||||||||||
Median | 20.0 | 21.9 | 23.9 | 25.0 | 23.3 | |||||||
Mean | 20.2 | 21.3 | 23.8 | 29.1 | 24.5 | |||||||
Tuition discount rate (%) | ||||||||||||
Median | 23.6 | 28.2 | 28.4 | 38.2 | 29.5 | |||||||
Mean | 23.0 | 26.9 | 29.1 | 34.4 | 31.0 | |||||||
ENDOWMENT | ||||||||||||
University endowment market value ($000s) | ||||||||||||
Median | 6,996,261 | 1,291,622 | 152,721 | 36,015 | 316,286 | |||||||
Mean | 15,435,260 | 1,947,682 | 266,963 | 47,501 | 1,759,341 | |||||||
FINANCIAL RESOURCE RATIOS | ||||||||||||
Cash and investments ($000s) | ||||||||||||
Median | 2,125,070 | 839,721 | 165,379 | 27,535 | 254,531 | |||||||
Mean | 1,986,978 | 1,561,177 | 307,279 | 61,005 | 858,563 | |||||||
Cash and investments to expenses (%) | ||||||||||||
Median | 180.0 | 116.1 | 90.1 | 65.1 | 99.1 | |||||||
Mean | 197.5 | 117.9 | 97.9 | 63.4 | 111.3 | |||||||
Cash and investments to debt (%)* | ||||||||||||
Median | 467.1 | 290.2 | 215.9 | 141.6 | 244.9 | |||||||
Mean | 197.5 | 117.9 | 97.9 | 63.4 | 272.7 | |||||||
DEBT RATIOS | ||||||||||||
Total outstanding debt ($000s)* | ||||||||||||
Median | 3,617,407 | 985,387 | 227,298 | 42,211 | 390,557 | |||||||
Mean | 4,256,412 | 2,253,344 | 417,123 | 80,715 | 1,298,499 | |||||||
Average age of plant (years) | ||||||||||||
Median | 13.9 | 12.7 | 14.4 | 15.3 | 14.2 | |||||||
Mean | 14.4 | 12.3 | 13.8 | 14.2 | 14.5 | |||||||
MADS burden (%) | ||||||||||||
Median | 3.3% | 3.5% | 4.2% | 4.2% | 4.0% | |||||||
Mean | 3.7% | 3.5% | 4.6% | 4.3% | 4.3% | |||||||
FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT RATIOS | ||||||||||||
Total debt per FTE ($)* | ||||||||||||
Median | 47,517 | 25,743 | 18,337 | 11,588 | 21,640 | |||||||
Mean | 60,966 | 29,977 | 21,963 | 13,807 | 27,121 | |||||||
State appropriations per FTE ($) | ||||||||||||
Median | 11,021 | 10,873 | 9,314 | 10,408 | 10,433 | |||||||
Mean | 12,236 | 11,330 | 9,788 | 10,971 | 11,279 | |||||||
Endowment per FTE ($) | ||||||||||||
Median | 165,208 | 37,928 | 12,988 | 11,187 | 18,597 | |||||||
Mean | 176,613 | 41,582 | 18,379 | 10,988 | 37,155 | |||||||
*Foundation cash and investments and debt included in fiscal 2023. FTE--Full-time-equivalent. MADS--Maximum annual debt service. Source: S&P Global Ratings. |
Chart 1
Chart 2
Enrollment And Demand Medians
Enrollment declines slow across the sector
Fiscal 2023 saw the sixth consecutive year of median declines in full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment for public colleges and universities, though they were slower than in recent years. The median enrollment drop of 0.7% in fall 2022 was less than the decreases in the previous two years. As public universities recover from the initial impact of the pandemic on enrollment, demographic pressures persist across the U.S., with fewer students graduating from high school each year in several regions.
Despite these pressures, highly selective schools remained insulated from enrollment decreases in fall 2022, with those in the 'AAA' rating category posting a median increase of 0.7% and those in the 'AA' rating categories remaining essentially flat. This represents the solid demand for these schools and their ability to draw from a wider student population than lower-rated, often very regional institutions. Schools in the 'A' and 'BBB' rating categories reported enrollment decreases on a median basis. Across all rating categories, 19 of 145 (13%) institutions saw FTE enrollment slip more than 5%, while 30 (21%) saw two consecutive years of growth; most of them are rated in the 'AA' category or higher. Preliminary fall 2023 data shows enrollment has continued to recover for rated public universities, with a median FTE enrollment change over one year that is stronger than in previous years.
Chart 3
Since the start of the pandemic, public colleges and universities have faced uncertain demand and a shrinking applicant pool due to changes in the labor market as well as demographic pressures. This has resulted in many institutions choosing to accept more students with the aim of stabilizing their first-year class. Since fall 2020, the median freshman acceptance rate has weakened further, reaching a high of 79.6% in fall 2022 from 75.1% in fall 2020, and 71.8% in fall 2019. The increasing use of the Common Application and the adoption of test-optional application processes at many institutions in recent years have made applying to colleges easier, resulting in an increase in the average number of applications. This, in turn, has affected institutions' ability to matriculate students. Unlike many other metrics, median first-year matriculation fell across nearly all rating categories, reflective of the competition in the sector broadly. Although public colleges and universities are increasingly challenged in getting students to enroll, they have had better success in retaining and graduating them at a steady rate. In our view, these trends reflect enhanced focus at colleges and universities on initiatives to support student success and outcomes.
Financial Medians
Pressured operating margins reflect the exhaustion of pandemic relief funds, although more state funding provides some offset
Most higher education institutions entered fiscal 2023 expecting weaker financial performance given the exhaustion of federal relief funds, increases in expenses as campus activities returned to pre-pandemic levels, and inflation-related costs. This is evident through the weakening in sectorwide median net adjusted operating income to 0.3% in fiscal 2023 from 2.9% in fiscal 2022 and 3.7%, in fiscal 2021. However, in our view, this metric being in line with pre-pandemic levels indicates strong state support is offsetting student-derived revenues. Pressures associated with demand difficulties and higher expenses were most prevalent at schools in the 'BBB' rating category, with a median operating deficit of 4.6% in fiscal 2023, down materially from the near-breakeven median in the previous year.
With most states recording an improvement in credit quality since 2020, they have relayed more financial support to public higher education institutions through an increase in operating as well as capital appropriations. We observed this trend in several median metrics for fiscal 2023, such as increased median state operating appropriations to revenue of 22.9%, the highest level in the past six years. The shift in revenue mix is also reflected by a decrease in median student-generated revenues. State appropriations per FTE in fiscal 2023 were 11.6% higher than in fiscal 2022 as a result of increased state support as well as a drop in enrollment. With state budgets expected to remain stable in fiscal years 2024 and 2025 in the majority of states, we expect that state funding will continue to offset some demand pressures in the near term for several institutions, although smaller, regional public institutions will still require tight expense controls in parts of the country with unfavorable demographic trends.
Chart 4
Gradual growth in financial resources supports mixed trends in debt issuances
Our key metric of a public higher education institution's balance-sheet strength is total cash and investments, including those held at related foundations. We assess this in combination with the level of restriction and the liquidity of the financial resources. Despite some movement in the investment markets, median financial resources in fiscal 2023 relative to adjusted operating expenses and debt improved modestly for almost all rating categories. Since the start of the pandemic, public colleges and universities have steadily invested in maintaining campus infrastructure, as represented by an improvement in the median average age of plant to 14.2 years in 2023 from 15.1 years in 2022. We expect investments in capital projects will continue in the near term as institutions try to remain attractive amid fierce competition and leverage favorable state funding.
What We're Watching
Enrollment challenges: In line with broader sector trends, we anticipate public colleges and universities will face ongoing demand pressures in the near term. This trend will remain bifurcated, with large flagship and land-grant institutions being positioned more favorably through their wide brand recognition and broader reach. Conversely, we expect that smaller regional public universities will be hit harder by changes in demographics in their service areas. For fall 2024, delayed processing of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid has created heightened uncertainty for colleges and universities amid a rising percentage of prospective college students opting for trade schools or directly entering the labor market after high school.
State support: According to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association's annual Grapevine survey, state support (excluding federal relief) for higher education hit $126.5 billion in fiscal 2024, up 10% from fiscal 2023. For fiscal 2024, 41 states reported year-over-year increases in combined state and federal stimulus funding, with 20 states boosting support by more than 10%. Therefore, we expect that state governments will continue to support public higher education institutions as they navigate tough demand conditions, although some states, like Arizona and California, have announced cuts to the higher education budget for fiscal 2025. For more information, see "With The Fiscal 2025 Budget Deadline In Sight, U.S. States Navigate A New Revenue Environment," published June 25, 2024.
Evolving risk management: The U.S. higher education industry continues to grapple with a multitude of emerging risks. These range from the need for changes to academic offerings based on labor market and student demand, the probable heightening of demographic pressures in certain regions of the country, evolving climate risks, and rising cyber security risks. After a wave of campus protests in 2024, several universities and senior leadership teams have faced heightened scrutiny. This has further contributed to the higher-than-normal presidential turnover at universities in the past few years. We will continue to monitor university enrollment, leadership responses, and potential fundraising implications for any credit impact related to these risks.
Pension and other postemployment benefit (OPEB) funding: Fiscal 2023 and fiscal 2024 year-to-date investment returns have generally been favorable compared with fiscal 2022. As a result, we expect improvement in U.S. public pension funded ratios for fiscal 2024. However, conditions are less visible entering fiscal 2025, given uncertainty about monetary policy and the upcoming U.S. presidential election. For more information on U.S. public pension and OPEB credit characteristics, please see "Five U.S. Public Pension And OPEB Points To Watch In 2024," published Jan. 29, 2024.
Capital investments: During the past few years, several universities have delayed capital projects due to high construction costs and increased interest rates. Although borrowing and construction projects were on the rise early in calendar year 2024, with election season on the horizon, future market activity remains uncertain at this time.
Continued credit bifurcation: In this environment, we expect higher-rated colleges and universities with strong balance sheets, supportive state legislatures, and significant fundraising capabilities will continue to differentiate themselves, contributing to further bifurcation of credit quality within the sector.
Appendix
Table 3
Public colleges and universities--Rating list | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
As of June 1, 2024 | ||||||
Institution | State | Outlook | ||||
AAA | ||||||
Indiana University | IN | Stable | ||||
Purdue University | IN | Stable | ||||
Texas A&M University System | TX | Stable | ||||
University of Michigan | MI | Stable | ||||
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill | NC | Stable | ||||
University of Texas System | TX | Stable | ||||
University of Virginia | VA | Stable | ||||
AA+ | ||||||
Clemson University | SC | Stable | ||||
Florida State University | FL | Stable | ||||
Florida State University System | FL | Stable | ||||
Texas A&M at College Station | TX | Stable | ||||
Texas Tech University System | TX | Stable | ||||
University of Alabama Birmingham | AL | Stable | ||||
University of Delaware | DE | Stable | ||||
University of Florida | FL | Stable | ||||
University of Kentucky | KY | Stable | ||||
University of Missouri | MO | Stable | ||||
University of Pittsburgh | PA | Stable | ||||
University of Utah | UT | Stable | ||||
University of Washington | WA | Stable | ||||
University System of Maryland | MD | Stable | ||||
AA | ||||||
Arizona State University | AZ | Stable | ||||
College of William & Mary | VA | Stable | ||||
Iowa State University of Science and Technology | IA | Stable | ||||
Michigan State University | MI | Stable | ||||
North Carolina State University at Raleigh | NC | Stable | ||||
Ohio State University* | OH | Stable | ||||
Pennsylvania State University | PA | Stable | ||||
State University of Iowa | IA | Stable | ||||
University of Alabama | AL | Stable | ||||
University of California | CA | Stable | ||||
University of Houston | TX | Positive | ||||
University of Minnesota | MN | Stable | ||||
University of Nebraska System | NE | Stable | ||||
University of South Florida | FL | Stable | ||||
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University | VA | Stable | ||||
AA- | ||||||
Auburn University | AL | Stable | ||||
Ball State University | IN | Stable | ||||
California State University | CA | Stable | ||||
City University of New York* | NY | Stable | ||||
East Carolina University | NC | Stable | ||||
Florida International University | FL | Stable | ||||
Georgia Tech Facilities Inc.§ | GA | Stable | ||||
Montana State University | MT | Stable | ||||
Minnesota State College & University | MN | Stable | ||||
Nevada System of Higher Education | NV | Stable | ||||
North Dakota State University | ND | Stable | ||||
Oklahoma State University | OK | Stable | ||||
University of Alabama Huntsville | AL | Stable | ||||
University of Arizona | AZ | Negative | ||||
University of Central Florida§ | FL | Stable | ||||
University of Cincinnati* | OH | Stable | ||||
University of Illinois | IL | Positive | ||||
University of Kansas | KS | Stable | ||||
University of Maine System | ME | Negative | ||||
University of Massachusetts | MA | Stable | ||||
University of New Mexico | NM | Stable | ||||
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center | OK | Stable | ||||
University of Oregon | OR | Stable | ||||
University of Wyoming | WY | Stable | ||||
Virginia Commonwealth University | VA | Stable | ||||
A+ | ||||||
Boise State University | ID | Stable | ||||
Bowling Green State University* | OH | Stable | ||||
Central Michigan University | MI | Stable | ||||
Cleveland State University* | OH | Stable | ||||
Colorado School of Mines | CO | Stable | ||||
Colorado State University System | CO | Stable | ||||
Ferris State University | MI | Negative | ||||
Grand Valley State University | MI | Stable | ||||
Kansas State University | KS | Positive | ||||
Kent State University* | OH | Stable | ||||
Missouri State University | MO | Stable | ||||
Morgan State University | MD | Stable | ||||
New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology | NM | Stable | ||||
New Mexico State University | NM | Stable | ||||
Northern Arizona University | AZ | Stable | ||||
Ohio University* | OH | Stable | ||||
Old Dominion University | VA | Stable | ||||
Rutgers University | NJ | Stable | ||||
State University of New York*§ | NY | Stable | ||||
Temple University | PA | Stable | ||||
Troy University | AL | Stable | ||||
University of Alaska | AK | Stable | ||||
University of Central Missouri | MO | Stable | ||||
University of Connecticut | CT | Stable | ||||
University of Louisville | KY | Stable | ||||
University of North Carolina at Charlotte | NC | Positive | ||||
University of North Carolina at Greensboro | NC | Stable | ||||
University of Oklahoma | OK | Stable | ||||
University of Rhode Island | RI | Stable | ||||
University of South Alabama | AL | Stable | ||||
University of Vermont & State Agricultural College | VT | Positive | ||||
University System of Georgia§ | GA | Stable | ||||
University System of New Hampshire | NH | Stable | ||||
Washington State University | WA | Stable | ||||
Wayne State University | MI | Stable | ||||
Youngstown State University* | OH | Stable | ||||
A | ||||||
College of New Jersey | NJ | Stable | ||||
Florida Atlantic University§ | FL | Stable | ||||
Metropolitan State University of Denver | CO | Stable | ||||
Minot State University | ND | Stable | ||||
Nebraska State College | NE | Stable | ||||
New Jersey Institute of Technology | NJ | Stable | ||||
Northern Michigan University | MI | Stable | ||||
Pennsylvania College of Technology | PA | Stable | ||||
Ramapo College | NJ | Stable | ||||
Rowan University | NJ | Stable | ||||
Saginaw Valley State University | MI | Stable | ||||
Southeast Missouri State University | MO | Stable | ||||
University of Idaho | ID | Stable | ||||
University of North Alabama | AL | Stable | ||||
University of North Florida | FL | Stable | ||||
University of Northern Iowa | IA | Positive | ||||
University of Southern Indiana | IN | Stable | ||||
University of Toledo* | OH | Stable | ||||
West Virginia University | WV | Stable | ||||
Western Carolina University§ | NC | Stable | ||||
Western Michigan University | MI | Positive | ||||
Worcester State University | MA | Stable | ||||
A- | ||||||
Eastern Kentucky University | KY | Stable | ||||
Fayetteville State University | NC | Stable | ||||
Florida Gulf Coast University§ | FL | Stable | ||||
Illinois State University | IL | Positive | ||||
Kean University | NJ | Stable | ||||
University of Louisiana at Lafayette | LA | Stable | ||||
University of Montevallo | AL | Stable | ||||
University of Northern Colorado | CO | Stable | ||||
Western Kentucky University | KY | Stable | ||||
Winston-Salem State University | NC | Stable | ||||
BBB+ | ||||||
Indiana University of Pennsylvania | PA | Stable | ||||
Lake Superior State University | MI | Negative | ||||
Mayville State University | ND | Stable | ||||
Southern Illinois University | IL | Stable | ||||
Valley City State University | ND | Stable | ||||
BBB | ||||||
Governors State University | IL | Stable | ||||
Jacksonville State University | AL | Stable | ||||
Missouri Western State University | MO | Stable | ||||
Nicholls State University§ | LA | Stable | ||||
University of North Carolina at Pembroke§ | NC | Stable | ||||
BBB- | ||||||
Alabama State University | AL | Positive | ||||
Delaware State University | DE | Stable | ||||
Eastern Illinois University | IL | Stable | ||||
Florida Polytechnic University§ | FL | Stable | ||||
Missouri Southern State University | MO | Stable | ||||
Western Illinois University | IL | Stable | ||||
BB+ | ||||||
Northeastern Illinois University† | IL | Stable | ||||
CC | ||||||
University of Puerto Rico | PR | Negative | ||||
*Rating reflects application of the Government-Related Entites methodology. §Rating may reflect notching off of the underlying rating on the institution based on the security structure of the debt. †Rating changed subsequent to June 1, 2024. |
Table 4
Glossary of ratios and terms | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Metric or ratio | Definition | |||
ENROLLMENT AND DEMAND | ||||
Average ACT scores | Average ACT scores for entering first-year students | |||
Average SAT scores | Average combined math and reading SAT scores for entering first-year students | |||
First-year acceptance rate (%) | Number of students accepted/total number of completed first-year applications | |||
FTE enrollment | Total students enrolled on a full-time-equivalent basis | |||
In-state students (%) | Students enrolled who come from within the state/total students enrolled | |||
Matriculation rate (%) | Total number of enrolled students/total number of accepted students | |||
Retention rate (%) | First-year students who matriculated for sophomore year/total students who completed their first year | |||
Six-year graduation rate (%) | Students who graduate from the university within six years/total students in the first-year cohort | |||
Undergraduate students (%) | Total number of undergraduate students/total students | |||
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE | ||||
Operating margin (%) | Adjusted net operating income/total adjusted operating expense | |||
REVENUE DIVERSITY | ||||
Gifts and pledges (%) | Gifts and pledges/total adjusted operating revenue | |||
Grants and contracts (%) | Government grants and contracts/total adjusted operating revenue | |||
Investment and endowment income (%) | Endowment spending income and investment income/total adjusted operating revenue | |||
State appropriations (%) | Total state operating appropriations/total adjusted operating revenue | |||
Student-generated revenue (%) | (Gross tuition and fees + auxiliary revenue)/total adjusted operating revenue | |||
FINANCIAL AID/EXPENSE RATIOS | ||||
Financial aid burden (%) | Total financial aid expense/total adjusted operating expense | |||
Instruction (%) | Instructional expense/total adjusted operating expense | |||
Tuition discount rate (%) | Total financial aid expense/gross tuition revenue | |||
ENDOWMENT | ||||
Foundation endowment market value ($000s) | Market value of foundation as of fiscal year-end | |||
University endowment market value ($000s) | Market value of endowment as of fiscal year-end | |||
FINANCIAL RESOURCE RATIOS | ||||
Cash and investments to expenses (%) | Cash and investments/total adjusted operating expense | |||
Cash and investments to debt (%) | Cash and investments/total debt | |||
Cash and investments including foundation to expenses (%) | Cash and investments, including those of related foundations/total adjusted operating expense | |||
Cash and investments including foundation to debt (%) | Cash and investments, including those of related foundations/total debt including foundation | |||
DEBT RATIOS | ||||
Average age of plant | Accumulated depreciation/depreciation expense | |||
MADS burden (%) | Maximum annual debt service/total adjusted operating expense | |||
FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT RATIOS | ||||
Endowment per FTE ($) | Market value of foundation and endowment/FTE enrollment | |||
State appropriations per FTE ($) | Total state operating appropriations/FTE enrollment | |||
Total debt per FTE ($) | Total debt/FTE enrollment | |||
DEFINITIONS | ||||
Cash and investments | Cash, unrestricted and restricted financial investments, including those of related foundations | |||
Total adjusted operating expense | Total operating expenses + institutionally funded financial aid + interest expense – noncash pension and other postemployment benefits expenses | |||
Total adjusted operating revenue | Total operating revenues + institutionally funded financial aid + government appropriations + government grants + endowment spending - realized and unrealized gains/losses | |||
FTE--Full-time equivalent. MADS--Maximum annual debt service. |
This report does not constitute a rating action.
Primary Credit Analyst: | Ruchika Radhakrishnan, Toronto + 1 (647) 297 0396; ruchika.r@spglobal.com |
Secondary Contacts: | Jessica L Wood, Chicago + 1 (312) 233 7004; jessica.wood@spglobal.com |
Laura A Kuffler-Macdonald, New York + 1 (212) 438 2519; laura.kuffler.macdonald@spglobal.com | |
Research Contributor: | Athira Chennamangalath, CRISIL Global Analytical Center, an S&P affiliate, Pune |
Additional Contacts: | Beth Bishop, Chicago +1 3122337141; beth.bishop@spglobal.com |
Vicky Stavropoulos, Chicago +1 3122337035; vicky.stavropoulos@spglobal.com |
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software, or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced, or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees, or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment, and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors, and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.spglobal.com/usratingsfees.