A View of Online Institutional Geographic Enrollment Patterns

NC-SARA data shows how large online institutions differ in in-state reliance and interstate reach

Phil Hill
March 20, 2026

Was this forwarded to you by a friend? Sign up, and get your own copy of the news that matters sent to your inbox every week. Sign up for the On EdTech newsletter. Interested in additional analysis? Upgrade to the On EdTech+ newsletter.

In the earlier Hidden Geography posts, I focused on where students live and where they enroll, using NC-SARA data on exclusive distance education (fully online) students. That view highlighted how states retain, export, or lose online enrollment. But it only tells part of the story.

This post flips the perspective. Instead of starting with student location, we start with the institution and ask a different question: where are its students coming from?

Looking at the largest online-enrollment institutions through this lens, a key takeaway emerges. The idea of a single, borderless online higher education market does not hold up well. Institutions may all operate online, but they are not competing in the same geographic markets or using the same enrollment strategies.

Across the charts, three broad patterns appear. Some large providers operate at national scale with relatively little dependence on their home state. Some public universities retain a strong in-state base while extending selectively into other states. And others—particularly community and state colleges—remain overwhelmingly focused on serving local demand, even in fully online programs.

These are not formal categories, and there is overlap at the margins. But they provide a useful way to interpret the charts and to understand how different institutions are actually positioned in the online market.

Before looking at specific examples, here is how to read the charts.

How to read the charts

Each chart shows where a selected institution’s fully online (exclusive distance education) students live. Flows move from student state (left) through the in-state vs. out-of-state split (middle) to the institution (right), allowing you to see both geographic reach and the balance between local and interstate enrollment.

DESCRIBING: A horizontal, color-coded Sankey diagram from the year 2024. SYNOPSIS: The diagram visualizes the flow of online exclusive distance education students from various U.S. states into Arizona State University. Pathways of varying widths connect each state’s enrollments to ASU, illustrating the relative quantity from each source. Arizona enrolls the most, while California, Texas, and other states contribute significant portions. The visual emphasizes the dominance of out-of-state students in ASU’s total distance education enrollment. IN-DEPTH DESCRIPTION: The image is a left-to-right Sankey diagram. On the left, 15 colored bars represent states or groupings labeled such as “Arizona Exclusive DE Enrollments, 18,423” and “California Exclusive DE Enrollments, 13,327,” down to “Nevada, 1,096” and “Other Exclusive DE Enrollments, 15,649.” Each colored bar flows rightward to converge with thick bands on the center column, labeled “Same State” for Arizona and “Other States” for all non-Arizona sources. These bands funnel into a single right-side column, which is the entry to “Arizona State University (73,906; 100%).” Visual weights and widths of flows represent proportional student counts: about a quarter of ASU’s exclusive DE students are Arizonans; three-quarters are from other states, largely California and Texas. A bubble legend in the top right explains that circle size reflects enrollment counts.

For readability, the chart displays the top 15 sending states, with all remaining states grouped into “Other.” The legend above the institution name indicates the scale of exclusive DE enrollment, with circle sizes providing a quick reference for magnitude across institutions. The goal is to highlight concentration patterns—where demand is strongest, how quickly it falls off, and how dependent each institution is on in-state versus out-of-state students. Below is an example for Arizona State University.

Pattern 1: National Platforms with Broad, Low In-State Concentration

The first group includes the largest fully online providers that operate with relatively low in-state concentration and broad geographic reach. Institutions such as Western Governors University (WGU), Southern New Hampshire University, University of Phoenix, and Liberty University fit this pattern most clearly.

Consider the biggest one, WGU.

DESCRIBING: A horizontal color alluvial flow chart, created for web viewing. SYNOPSIS: The image is a flow diagram showing the number of exclusive distance-education students each U.S. state sends to Western Governors University in the fall of 2024. Texas, California, and Washington are among the largest contributors. The chart highlights that most WGU students enroll from outside the university’s home state, Utah. The total exclusive DE enrollment at WGU is 214,676. IN-DEPTH DESCRIPTION: On the left, vertical bars color-coded by state list the number of students enrolled exclusively through distance education from the top 15 states, led by Texas (25,626), California (19,026), Washington (16,193), and Florida (12,819). Utah, WGU’s home state, has 10,882. Additional states are individually named, while a combined “Other” category includes 64,768 enrollments. Colored, ribbon-like bands flow from each state to a central division: “Same State” (Utah only, 10,882 students) and “Other States” (203,794 students). These flows converge in a single, large bar to the right, representing Western Governors University with a total enrollment of 214,676. Percentages show that 94.9% come from out of state, while only 5.1% are Utah-based.

The chart for Western Governors University is a clean example of a national platform. Only 5.1% of students are from Utah, its home state, meaning nearly 95% of enrollment is out-of-state. The top sending states—Texas, California, Washington, and Florida—are large and geographically dispersed, and even beyond those, there is a substantial “Other states” category. The defining feature here is not just scale but lack of geographic dependence. WGU’s enrollment is broadly distributed across the country, with no single state acting as a dominant anchor.

In this pattern, no single state dominates enrollment. Even the home state—where applicable—often represents a relatively small share of total students. Instead, enrollment is distributed across a wide set of states, with a long tail beyond the top contributors. The result is a profile that looks less like a state-based institution and more like a national marketplace presence.

There are still pockets of concentration—California, Texas, Florida, and a handful of other large states show up repeatedly—but the defining feature is not which states are largest. It is how evenly spread the enrollment is across many states. These institutions are not dependent on any single state policy environment or local demand base in the same way as others.

Pattern 2: Public Universities with Strong In-State Anchors and National Reach

A second group includes public universities and affiliated campuses that combine high in-state retention with meaningful out-of-state enrollment. University of Central Florida is one of the clearest examples, along with institutions such as Purdue Global and, in a somewhat different way, Arizona State University. This pattern, however, is somewhat loose in nature—more of an it’s not either extreme grouping. Think of public universities that built significant online strategies over the past 10-15 years, often through MOOCs, nonprofit conversions, or OPM partnerships.

Consider Georgia Tech.

DESCRIBING: A wide, horizontal color flowchart, or Sankey diagram, illustrating exclusive distance education student migration to Georgia Tech for Fall 2024. SYNOPSIS: The chart depicts how many exclusive distance education students enroll at Georgia Tech’s main campus from each U.S. state. Students from Georgia itself represent only about a fifth of enrollments, while most online-only students come from outside Georgia, with California and Texas being the top out-of-state contributors. The diagram illustrates these flows with colored bands, emphasizing the major states and aggregating smaller contributors. IN-DEPTH DESCRIPTION: The left side of the diagram lists 15 states and a category for “Other States,” each with a colored bar labeled with the number of exclusive DE enrollments. Georgia leads with 3,574 enrollments, followed by California (2,703), Texas (1,384), and Virginia (958). Other notable states include Florida, New York, New Jersey, and Washington. Curved bands flow rightward from each state, converging near the center into two categories: “Same State” for Georgia and “Other States” for all others. These merge into a single box for Georgia Tech’s main campus, totaling 17,634 students. Percentages are provided: 20.3% are from Georgia, and 79.7% are from other states; every flow leads into the final “Georgia Institute of Technology – Main Campus” box on the right.

The chart for Tech reflects a distinctive hybrid model shaped in part by its early move into large-scale online programs. Georgia is the largest single source of students, but it represents only about 20% of enrollment, with roughly 80% coming from out-of-state. That national reach is not accidental. It traces back to Georgia Tech’s expansion into MOOC-based degrees, starting with the online MS in Computer Science developed with Udacity and then extending into additional programs. The result is a profile where out-of-state demand is both substantial and concentrated in a set of large, tech-oriented states—California, Texas, Virginia, and Florida stand out—rather than evenly distributed nationwide. Georgia Tech remains anchored in-state, but its online strategy has clearly positioned it to compete in select national markets.

The institutions in this pattern typically show a large in-state block—often the single largest source of enrollment—paired with a set of out-of-state flows that are substantial but not as evenly distributed as the national-platform providers. Instead of drawing broadly from every state, they tend to have clusters of out-of-state demand tied to regional proximity, brand recognition, or specific program strengths.

This creates a hybrid profile. On the one hand, these institutions are clearly serving their home-state populations at scale. On the other hand, they are also competing beyond state lines, sometimes quite effectively. The key difference from the first group is that the in-state market still anchors the institution, even as it expands outward.

Pattern 3: Community and State Colleges with Strong In-State Focus

The third pattern is the most consistent—and the most striking once you see it. Community colleges and state colleges (as distinct from large research universities) show an overwhelmingly in-state orientation, even in fully online programs.

In these charts, the in-state flow dominates to a degree not seen in the other categories. Out-of-state enrollment is often minimal, sometimes barely visible relative to the total. Even when there is some interstate activity, it tends to be limited and not central to the institution’s enrollment strategy.

Consider Lone Star College System in Texas.

DESCRIBING: A widescreen color Sankey diagram chart. SYNOPSIS: The diagram illustrates the states sending exclusive distance education students to Lone Star College System in Texas for Fall 2024. It shows a large majority of students come from within Texas, with a small number contributed by other states. The chart breaks down the flow and proportions of student origins, emphasizing the overwhelming volume from Texas. IN-DEPTH DESCRIPTION: On the left, a large block labeled "Texas Exclusive DE Enrollments (18,532)" dominates the view. This wide, pastel-pink block connects through a thick band to the central column, labeled "Same State (18,532: 98.5%)," which in turn flows right to the "Lone Star College System (18,818: 100.0%)" on the far right, colored pale yellow. Beneath Texas, smaller lines represent other states. For example, California contributes 37 students, followed by Georgia with 24, and then Louisiana with 21. These smaller, colored strands converge at a narrow "Other States (286: 1.5%)" junction in the center before joining the main system on the right. In the top right corner, there is a legend showing relative enrollment numbers using circles of different sizes for context.

The chart for Lone Star College System shows perhaps the strongest and most consistent pattern in this analysis. 98.5% of students are from Texas, with only a negligible number from other states. Even the largest out-of-state contributors barely register in comparison. This is not a case of limited reach due to lack of online delivery—the programs are fully online—but rather a clear indication of mission and market focus. Community and state colleges like Lone Star are overwhelmingly serving local demand, and the geographic concentration is far more extreme than anything seen in the other categories.

This pattern holds across multiple states and institutions. Regardless of geography, the story is similar: these colleges are using online delivery to serve their existing resident populations more flexibly, not to compete in a national market.

One more example to show just how similar the schools are in this pattern: Bellevue College. At a high level, this looks almost identical to Lone Star.

DESCRIBING: A wide rectangular digital data visualization, primarily a Sankey diagram in color. SYNOPSIS: This image shows where Bellevue College’s exclusively distance education students come from, based on Fall 2024 data. Nearly all of these students are from Washington state, while a small percentage come from multiple other states. The diagram creates a visual flow, making it clear how few enrollments come from outside Washington. IN-DEPTH DESCRIPTION: The flow diagram is dominated by a thick, pale green band representing 14,747 students from Washington state, which leads to a central bar labeled “Same State (14,747: 98.5%)” and then to the Bellevue College bar on the right, marked as “Bellevue College (14,971: 100%).” Underneath is a thin collection of colored lines, each representing other U.S. states like California, Arizona, Oregon, and several more, adding up to 224 students, shown as “Other States (224: 1.5%).” Each state is listed with the exact enrollment count, ranging from 51 in California down to a handful in other states. The image visually emphasizes the huge proportion of local (Washington) students compared to a much smaller, more diverse out-of-state group.

That distinction matters. It suggests that for many public two-year and state colleges, online education is still fundamentally an extension of their local mission rather than a vehicle for interstate expansion. The technology may be the same, but the market behavior is very different.

Putting the Patterns Together

Taken together, these patterns reinforce a broader point from the earlier posts: online higher education is not a single, unified market. It is a set of overlapping markets shaped by institutional mission, state policy, and strategic choices.

Some institutions operate at national scale with diversified enrollment sources. Some balance strong in-state demand with selective interstate reach. And others remain deeply rooted in serving their own states, even when delivery is fully online.

The charts in this post are intended to make those differences visible. We’ll dive deeper in future posts for On EdTech+ subscribers (upgrade here).

The main On EdTech newsletter is free to share in part or in whole. All we ask is attribution.

Thanks for being a subscriber.