Where Do They Go? Migration Patterns of Iowa State University Alumni

By Grant Crespi and Aakansha Jain

Iowa faces two dimensions of brain drain, a phenomenon that has long concerned rural policymakers (Artz 2003; Artz, Kim, and Orazem 2014). The first involves rural communities losing graduates to cities, both within Iowa and outside. The second involves young Iowa graduates leaving for regional hubs like Chicago, Denver, and Minneapolis (Artz and Yu 2011). However, studies show that the place where students attend college significantly shapes their later-life location decisions (Winters 2020). As a land-grant institution, Iowa State University plays a central role in developing Iowa’s workforce (Andrade et al. 2025a). This article evaluates whether Iowa State graduates stay in Iowa, where they go if they leave, and whether they ever return if they depart. Presuming a college educated workforce will be an important element for Iowa’s future economic growth, the answers to these questions are vital to the state's economic future.

Using data from two Iowa State alumni surveys conducted in 2008 and 2024, this article tracks migration patterns across four decades of graduating cohorts. The 2008 survey (Jolly, Yu, and Orazem 2009) captures cohorts graduating from 1982 to 2006, observed 2 to 26 years after graduation. The 2024 survey (Andrade et al. 2025b) extends the window to cohorts graduating from 1982 to 2023, observed 1 to 42 years after graduation. By comparing the same graduation cohorts at different life stages, we can distinguish between temporary early-career moves and permanent relocation.

Together, these data reveal several important patterns:

1. Rural brain drain is substantial and persistent: 60% to 80% of rural-origin alumni move to urban areas, and this rate does not decline with age.
2. Iowa retention improves over the lifecycle. For overlapping cohorts, retention rates are consistently higher in the 2024 survey than in the 2008 survey, which is consistent with return migration—Iowa natives who left early in their careers appear to have come back in their 40s and 50s.
3. Economic conditions at graduation leave a visible imprint on migration patterns. Rural-to-urban migration rates were highest during the 1980s agricultural recession and those graduates did not return to rural areas later in life. Iowa retention is negatively correlated with the state's unemployment rate—when Iowa's economy weakens, fewer graduates stay and more leave.
4. The rise of remote work following the COVID-19 pandemic may have influenced patterns among the most recent cohorts, allowing graduates to remain in or return to Iowa while working for employers in larger metropolitan areas.
5. Iowa State has historically struggled to retain out-of-state students, with only 10­–20% remaining in Iowa after graduation among earlier cohorts. However, this rate shows modest improvement over time, which implies that Iowa is becoming a more attractive destination for non-native graduates.

Data

We measure migration by comparing each alumnus's home zip code at the time of college enrollment, obtained from university administrative records, with their current zip code at the time of the respective survey. We matched zip codes to county FIPS codes, which we classify as urban or rural using US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC).¹ We classify counties with RUCC codes 1 through 3 as urban, while counties with RUCC codes 6 through 9 are rural. We exclude counties with RUCC codes 4 and 5, which are small urban and suburban counties, to allow comparison between true metropolitan and rural counties. The 2008 survey used 2003 RUCC codes, the 2024 survey used 2023 RUCC codes, and both determined state of residence from county FIPS codes. We weighted all figures to make the results representative of all Iowa State alumni between 1982 to 2023. Pooled comparison figures (figures 3 and 6) use 5-year moving averages to smooth year-to-year volatility.

Findings

Rural-urban migration

The 2008 survey captures where alumni lived roughly 2 to 26 years after graduation. We calculate migration rates within each origin group: rural-origin alumni either stayed rural or moved urban and urban-origin alumni either stayed urban or moved rural. The dominant pattern is urban retention (figure 1). Around 90–95% of urban-origin alumni return to urban areas after graduation, reflecting the strong pull of metropolitan labor markets (Winters 2011). Rural-to-urban migration is also substantial: 60–80% of rural-origin alumni moved to urban areas. Rates are higher among younger cohorts, likely because they are still early in their careers. The flat trend line for rural-to-urban migration suggests brain drain has been a persistent feature across all cohorts.

The 2024 survey extends the observation window to 42 years post-graduation for the oldest cohorts. Urban retention remains high at 95% or above across all cohorts (figure 2). Rural-to-urban migration shows a declining trend, falling from around 75–80% among 1980s graduates to 60–70% among more recent cohorts. This downward trend suggests that recent rural-origin graduates are returning to rural areas at higher rates than earlier cohorts observed at a comparable career stage in the 2008 survey. However, the rates remain substantial: even among recent graduates, a majority of rural-origin alumni have moved to urban areas.

The key advantage of having two surveys is that we can observe the same cohorts at different points in their lives. The overlapping years (1984 to 2004 graduates) allow us to track how migration patterns evolve as people age. For graduates from the mid-1980s to mid-1990s, rural-to-urban rates are similar or slightly higher in 2024 than in 2008. These alumni were in their 30s and 40s when first surveyed and by 2024 they were in their 50s and 60s. The persistence of high rural-to-urban rates tells us brain drain does not reverse with age.

Economic conditions at graduation play a role in migration patterns. Rural-to-urban migration rates are higher among cohorts graduating during the 1980s farm crisis and the late 1990s dot-com boom, and lower among cohorts graduating during the early 1990s recession (figure 3). The rural graduates that left for cities in the 1980s farm crisis did not return, and so the rural-to-urban share is even larger in 2024 than in 2008.

Iowa retention

In the 2008 survey, Iowa retention among Iowa-origin alumni varies from around 35% to 70% depending on graduation year (figure 4). Retention is notably low for early 1980s graduates, who entered the workforce during the farm crisis. The upward trend line suggests Iowa retention improved over time for graduates observed in 2008. The Other-to-Iowa rate remains below 20% across all cohorts, typically hovering around 10%.

The 2024 survey shows higher Iowa retention across the board. Iowa-to-Iowa rates range from 50% to 90%, with a clear upward trend for more recent cohorts (figure 5). This pattern likely reflects growing economic opportunities for college graduates within the state, including rural entrepreneurship (Yu and Artz 2018), making Iowa more attractive both for natives to stay and for out-of-state graduates to remain after graduation. Out-of-state retention shows a similar upward trend, rising from around 10% among 1980s graduates to 30% on average among recent cohorts, though year-to-year volatility is high. The spike in retention among the most recent graduates (post-2020) likely reflects graduates staying in-state for post-graduation education.

The pooled comparison reveals a striking pattern. For overlapping cohorts (1984 to 2004 graduates), Iowa-to-Iowa retention is consistently higher in the 2024 survey than in the 2008 survey (figure 6). Since these are the same graduation cohorts observed at two points in time, the gap between the two lines is consistent with return migration to Iowa. Iowa natives who had left the state earlier in their careers appear to have returned by the time of the 2024 survey. This pattern is strongest among 1980s and early 1990s graduates, who were early in their careers when the 2008 survey was conducted and in their 40s and 50s by 2024. Other-to-Iowa rates also show a modest increase across surveys, reinforcing the finding that Iowa's ability to retain graduates has improved over time. Coupled with earlier results that the 1980s graduate cohort were atypically located in urban areas, this suggests that return migrants to Iowa are moving to Iowa metros.

We examine whether economic conditions influence migration patterns. Iowa retention is negatively correlated with the state's unemployment rate (correlation: -0.28 to -0.33), while brain drain is positively correlated with unemployment (correlation: 0.18 to 0.28). When Iowa's economy weakens, fewer graduates stay and more leave.

Note on survey weights

Survey weights were constructed to ensure that respondents are representative of all Iowa State alumni between 1982–2023 by graduation year and college. For each survey, weights were calculated as the ratio of total alumni (from university administrative records) to the number of survey respondents within each graduation year and college cell. For the pooled comparison graphs, the 2008 weights were scaled by the fraction of total alumni (1982–2023) who graduated during the overlapping period (1982–2008) to ensure comparability.

Footnotes

1. Available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes

References

Andrade, A., J. Eyles, A. Jain, K. Kimle, P. Orazem, and R. Unal. 2025a. “How A Land Grant College Affects Business and Job Creation.” Agricultural Policy Review, Fall 2025. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University. https://agpolicyreview.card.iastate.edu/fall-2025/how-land-grant-college-affects-business-and-job-creation

Andrade, A., J. Eyles, A. Jain, K. Kimle, P. Orazem, and R. Unal. 2025b. “An Overview of the 2024 Iowa State University Alumni Survey.” Working Paper, Iowa State University. https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/entities/publication/97359445-0bab-4701-b30b-b225b517aa88

Artz, G. 2003. “Rural Area Brain Drain: Is it a Reality?” Choices 18(4):11-15.

Artz, G., and L. Yu. 2011. “How ya Gonna Keep 'em Down on the Farm: Which Land Grant Graduates Live in Rural Areas?” Economic Development Quarterly 25(4):341-352.

Artz, G., Y. Kim, and P. Orazem. 2014. “Can the Trend of Rural Population Decline be Reversed?” Agricultural Policy Review, Spring 2014. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University. https://agpolicyreview.card.iastate.edu/spring-2014/can-trend-rural-population-decline-be-reversed

Jolly, R., L. Yu, and P. Orazem. 2009. “After They Graduate: An Overview of the Iowa State University Alumni Survey.” Working paper No. 09002. Department of Economics, Iowa State University. https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/entities/publication/e5c6e303-6f1e-498a-bb87-729ece9fc402

Winters, J.V. 2011. “Why are Smart Cities Growing? Who Moves and Who Stays.” Journal of Regional Science 51(2):253-270.

Winters, J.V. 2020. “In-state College Enrollment and Later Life Location Decisions.” Journal of Human Resources 55(4):1400-1426.

Yu, L., and G. Artz. 2018. “Does Rural Entrepreneurship Pay?” Agricultural Policy Review, Spring 2018. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University. https://agpolicyreview.card.iastate.edu/spring-2018/does-rural-entrepreneurship-pay

Suggested citation

Crespi, G., and A. Jain. 2026. “Where Do They Go? Migration Patterns of Iowa State University Alumni.” Agricultural Policy Review, Winter 2026. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University. https://agpolicyreview.card.iastate.edu/winter-2026/where-do-they-go-migration-patterns-iowa-state-university-alumni