Blog

  • YouTube for Student Recruitment in 2026

    YouTube for Student Recruitment in 2026

    Reading Time: 13 minutes

    For years, YouTube sat at the edge of higher education recruitment strategies. Institutions uploaded campus tours, student testimonials, and program overviews, but often without a measurable link to enrolment performance.

    In 2026, that approach is no longer sufficient.

    YouTube is now the second-largest search engine, a dominant short-form discovery platform, and a powerful recommendation engine. For enrolment marketers, YouTube for student recruitment is a full-funnel channel, not a branding add-on. Prospective students discover institutions through Shorts, research programs via YouTube search, and evaluate credibility through long-form video. The algorithm continues guiding them long after the first view.

    If your content is not structured intentionally, YouTube will still sequence it. The difference is whether that sequencing supports your recruitment goals. This article outlines how to use Shorts for reach, search for intent, and video sequencing to move prospects from awareness to application.

    Refine your school’s YouTube student recruitment strategy?
    Contact HEM for more information.

    How Big Is the Student Recruitment Market?

    The global student recruitment market spans billions annually, including digital advertising, agency partnerships, CRM systems, and marketing services. With international mobility rebounding and domestic competition intensifying, institutions are increasing investment in digital channels such as search, social, and video to secure qualified applicants in an increasingly competitive environment.

    What kind of marketing works best with students on college campuses? Authentic, peer-led, and mobile-first content performs best. Students respond to relatable voices, clear outcomes, and practical information. Video, short-form content, and search-driven resources outperform static promotional messaging. Campaigns that combine social proof, transparency about cost and outcomes, and clear next steps tend to drive stronger engagement and action.

    How to create a YouTube channel for college recruiting? Start with structure, not volume. Define your recruitment goals first. Build channel sections around Tours, Programs, Student Life, and How to Apply. Create 3–5 core playlists that reflect enrolment journeys. Publish Shorts for reach and search-optimized long-form for intent. Use consistent CTAs, end screens, and descriptions that link directly to admissions pages.

    Why YouTube Matters More in 2026, and Why “Posting Videos” Is Not a Strategy

    In 2026, YouTube is no longer a secondary distribution channel. It is part of the core infrastructure for digital recruitment. For higher education institutions competing for fragmented attention, YouTube for student recruitment offers something few platforms can: sustained visibility across awareness, consideration, and decision stages.

    Today, YouTube functions as:

    • A discovery engine driven by search-led intent
    • A daily habit channel powered by Shorts-led reach
    • A conversion-assist channel enabled by sequenced viewing and retargeting

    That combination is precisely what enrolment marketers need. It delivers qualified attention at scale, tighter control over institutional messaging, and a measurable pathway from curiosity to inquiry.

    What has changed is not only audience behaviour. The platform itself has evolved. Shorts’ recommendation mechanics continue to refine how short-form content is surfaced. According to TechCrunch, YouTube search increasingly mirrors traditional SEO dynamics, rewarding structured titles, descriptive metadata, and topical consistency. 

    On the paid side, Google’s shift toward Demand Gen formats is reshaping how institutions build video sequencing and retargeting strategies across devices.

    The implication is clear: publishing isolated videos is not a strategy. A disconnected campus tour, a standalone testimonial, and an occasional program overview do not create momentum. Without intentional sequencing, search framing, and next-step design, views rarely translate into measurable recruitment outcomes.

    HEM perspective: Most schools do not have a YouTube volume problem. They have a sequencing problem. Content exists, but it is not architected to guide prospects from discovery to deeper engagement.

    Example: Harvard University: Harvard organizes content into clearly defined playlists spanning student life, faculty research, campus features, and admissions-related material. Thumbnails are consistent and institutional. Titles are descriptive rather than abstract. This supports sequencing and discoverability. Thematic grouping allows viewers to move laterally across related content, increasing session depth. Harvard treats YouTube as an always-on institutional library, not a campaign archive.

    HEM Image 2HEM Image 2

    Source: YouTube

    These institutions are not outperforming because they publish more. They treat YouTube as an always-on recruitment environment, not a campaign landing zone.

    The 2026 Framework: Shorts + Search + Sequencing

    If you take one model into planning, make it this:

    • Shorts = Reach and familiarity
    • Search = Intent capture
    • Sequencing = Momentum to conversion

    Shorts introduce your institution to new audiences and build repeated exposure through habitual viewing. Search-optimized long-form videos surface when prospects actively research programs, career outcomes, or admissions requirements. Sequencing, through playlists, retargeting, and structured next steps, moves viewers from passive interest to measurable action.

    You can deploy this framework organically, through paid media, or with a hybrid approach. The key is strategic design. Each format should perform one primary function within a coordinated recruitment video strategy, rather than competing for the same objective.

    Part 1: Shorts for Student Recruitment, Top-of-Funnel That Does Not Feel Like Marketing

    Shorts are where students decide whether your institution feels relevant. In 2026, attention is earned in seconds. If your content feels scripted or overly institutional, it is skipped.

    Shorts perform for recruitment when they:

    • Put the student experience into motion, showing campus, community, and daily routines
    • Answer one micro-question clearly and directly
    • Feel native to the feed, with a fast hook, simple structure, and low friction

    This is not about production polish. It is about authenticity and clarity.

    Important platform note for 2026 reporting: Shorts view counting methodologies and search integrations have evolved. Benchmarking performance requires updated internal expectations around reach, retention, and discovery attribution. Marketing teams must recalibrate reporting frameworks accordingly.

    A Practical Short-Content Menu for Higher Ed

    Instead of asking, “What should we post?”, build repeatable categories that align with enrolment questions.

    Belonging and fit

    • “What surprised you most about your first year?”
    • “What I wish I knew before moving into residence.”
    • “One thing people misunderstand about our campus.”

    These build emotional resonance and social proof.

    Program clarity

    • “What you actually do in this major.”
    • “Three career graduates don’t realise this program leads to”
    • “A day in the lab, studio, or clinic”

    These address confusion and surface outcomes early.

    Affordability and outcomes

    • “How scholarships actually work here, in 20 seconds.”
    • “Co-op, placements, and what support looks like.”
    • “How students balance work and study.”

    These reduce perceived barriers.

    Process confidence

    • “Application mistakes to avoid.”
    • “Portfolio tips in 30 seconds”
    • “How to book a campus tour or virtual session.”

    These lower friction and encourage the next steps.

    Example: MIT frequently uses concise, concept-driven videos that demonstrate research and student work in action. Many videos open with outcome-forward framing rather than institutional introductions. This reflects the “show, do, explain” pattern effective for Shorts and short-form discovery. Complex topics are broken into focused, digestible units aligned to curiosity-led viewing.

    HEM Image 3HEM Image 3

    Source: YouTube

    The lesson is structural. One idea. One outcome. One next step.

    Shorts Production That Is Realistic for Higher Ed Teams

    A sustainable workflow typically includes:

    • One filming block per month, capturing 20 to 40 short clips
    • One standardized editing template for captions, opening text, and end card
    • A weekly publishing cadence of two to four Shorts

    To maintain quality without overproduction:

    • Use on-screen captions by default
    • Open with the outcome, not the introduction
    • Prioritize student voice, with staff as contextual authority

    Shorts succeed when they feel human, immediate, and purposeful.

    Part 2: YouTube Search as the Recruitment Middle Funnel

    Shorts create familiarity. Search creates action.

    When a prospect searches YouTube, they are often further along in the decision process than when they passively scroll through Shorts. Search behaviour typically centres on high-intent queries such as:

    • “campus tour [school]”
    • “residence tour [school]”
    • “Is [program] worth it?”
    • “How to apply to [school].”
    • “Scholarships [school]”
    • “International students [school]”
    • “Co-op [school]”
    • “Student life [city] university.”

    These are not curiosity clicks. They signal evaluation. YouTube search, in this context, functions as a middle-funnel conversion driver.

    Why YouTube Search Is More Important in 2026

    Recent platform changes have given users greater control over filtering Shorts versus long-form content in search results. That shift directly affects discoverability and influences how institutions should title, label, and package videos.

    In practical terms:

    • Shorts can dominate quick-answer queries and surface in “how to” or FAQ-style searches
    • Long-form videos win depth queries such as tours, admissions walkthroughs, and program explainers

    A strong recruitment strategy deliberately produces both formats with different search roles.

    The YouTube SEO Checklist for Higher Ed That Actually Matters

    Titles: Clarity First

    • Mirror the language prospects use
    • Avoid internal terminology and acronyms
    • Use year signals when relevant, such as “2026 admissions” or “2026 scholarships”

    If students search “How to Apply to [School],” your title should match that phrasing directly.

    Descriptions: Structure for Search and Action

    • First two lines: state who the video is for and what question it answers
    • Follow with direct links to relevant pages, including program pages, admissions, and tour booking
    • Then include timestamps, related resources, and additional video links

    Descriptions are not filler. They are structural metadata and conversion infrastructure.

    Chapters and Timestamps
    Chapters improve navigation and strengthen topical clarity, especially for longer admissions or financial aid videos. They also reinforce keyword associations within YouTube’s indexing system.

    Captions
    Accurate captions improve accessibility and retention. They also support comprehension for viewers watching without sound and contribute to search relevance.

    Thumbnail and First 10 Seconds
    Winning search visibility is only the first step. Click-through rate and early retention determine whether YouTube continues recommending the video. The opening must confirm relevance immediately.

    Example: University of Michigan’s Prospective Students portal is not YouTube proper, but it is a highly relevant reference model because it demonstrates what a recruitment-first channel should look like: explicit segmentation, clear titles, and playlist-style browsing. The hub has top-level navigation for “Prospective Students,” “Admitted Students,” and “Video Tours,” mirroring the sequencing logic recommended in the article. 

    Within “Prospective Students,” the hub includes canonical, search-matching assets like “Campus Tour” and gives duration context (18 minutes) that signals “depth content for evaluators,” which in the YouTube framework corresponds to Search = intent capture.

    HEM Image 4HEM Image 4

    Source: University of Michigan

    The objective is not imitation. It is recognition through tour intent, application intent, and scholarship intent that live on YouTube. Institutions that optimize for search capture prospects at the moment of evaluation.

    Part 3: Sequencing, the Strategy Most Schools Are Missing

    Sequencing is how you turn YouTube from isolated content into recruitment momentum.

    Most institutions produce individual videos. Few design intentional pathways. Without sequencing, every video must perform independently. With sequencing, each video advances the viewer toward a clearer next step.

    A basic recruitment sequence looks like this:

    • Video A creates curiosity
    • Video B answers the next question
    • Video C reduces risk
    • Video D prompts the action

    This mirrors the enrolment journey. Awareness leads to evaluation. Evaluation leads to reassurance. Reassurance leads to action.

    You build sequences using:

    • Playlists
    • End screens and cards
    • Pinned comments
    • Channel sections
    • Retargeting, where paid media is available
    • Consistent creative cues such as recurring hosts, naming conventions, and thumbnail systems

    The objective is continuity. When a student watches one video, the next logical step should be obvious and frictionless.

    The Simplest Organic Sequence to Implement

    Sequence: From first view to campus tour booking

    • Short: “One thing students wish they knew.”
    • Long-form: “Campus tour, what to expect”
    • Long-form: “Residence, affordability, student support.”
    • Short: “How to book a tour or apply, link in description.”
    • Community post or follow-up Short: “FAQ from comments.”

    This sequence moves from emotional connection to practical detail to conversion instruction. Each step anticipates the next question rather than waiting for the viewer to search again.

    Example: University of Cambridge is a strong exemplar of series-style recruitment packaging that supports all three framework layers. On the channel playlists index, Cambridge pairs short-form-friendly collections (“30 seconds,” “30 seconds of Cambridge Colleges”) with application-oriented sequences (“Get In Cambridge,” “Cambridge Open Days,” “Vlogbridge”). This is exactly what “Shorts + Search + Sequencing” looks like when operationalized as a channel system. 

    Cambridge also provides visible conversion CTAs inside video descriptions that tie YouTube viewing to an enrolment action. In “Top 10 Cambridge University myths – busted!,” the description includes an explicit next step: “See for yourself, sign up for an Open Day…”—a direct example of moving from consideration content into a real-world conversion event. 

    For search, the “myths busted,” “top tips,” and “day in the life” patterns map cleanly to common applicant queries (“is Cambridge really like…,” “how to apply to Cambridge,” “Cambridge myths”), increasing the likelihood that Cambridge’s own videos win the search result instead of third-party explainers.

    HEM Image 5HEM Image 5

    Source: University of Cambridge

    Even when content is broad, grouping videos into clear thematic arcs improves session duration and reinforces institutional positioning. Sequencing is not about producing more content. It is about connecting what already exists into a coherent recruitment pathway.

    Sequencing with paid media in 2026 (what has changed)

    Higher ed paid teams often treat YouTube as a reach buy, then wonder why results look soft.

    In 2026, paid sequencing works best when it is designed like a progression, not a single ad.

    Key platform shift: Google Ads has been moving advertisers from Video Action Campaigns toward Demand Gen, with defined migration milestones and new controls. This matters for schools using YouTube to drive inquiries and applications through paid video.

    A practical paid sequencing model for higher ed

    Layer 1: Prospecting

    • Use short creative variants (15s, 6s, vertical)
    • Optimize for reach and view-based engagement
    • Target by intent clusters (fields of study, career interests), plus geo where relevant

    Layer 2: Consideration

    • Retarget video viewers with longer content
    • Serve “program clarity” and “student experience” assets
    • Drive to high-intent pages (program pages, tours, webinars)

    Layer 3: Conversion assist

    • Retarget site visitors and engaged viewers
    • Use clear CTAs: book a tour, attend an info session, start an application
    • Match landing pages to the promise of the video

    If your institution is in Canada and recruiting nationally or internationally, sequencing also helps you segment by region and readiness, without fragmenting your channel into chaos.

    What “Shorts + Search + Sequencing” looks like in a real editorial plan

    Here is a sample 6-week plan that a small team can execute.

    Weeks 1 to 2: Build the discovery base

    • 6 Shorts (belonging, affordability, program outcomes)
    • 1 search-led long-form video (campus tour, program explainer, admissions walkthrough)
    • Create a playlist: “Start Here: [Institution] in 2026.”

    Example: University of Toronto U of T’s playlists index shows segmentation that maps cleanly to recruitment audiences and intents, including “International Students,” “Welcome to the University of Toronto,” and a tour-focused set (“Tour the Faculty of Arts & Science at U of T”). This is the structural prerequisite for sequencing: viewers can enter at a high-level “welcome” playlist and then self-route into specific need states (tour, international). 

    U of T also maintains Shorts as a format layer (Shorts tab is explicitly present), supporting the “Shorts = reach” side of the framework. Cadence is not explicitly quantified in the excerpt, but the Shorts index includes recent campus-life items like “#MyUofT: Clubs Fair 2025,” indicating recurring short-form presence.

    HEM Image 6HEM Image 6

    Source: University of Toronto

    Weeks 3 to 4: Add the next-question layer

    • 6 Shorts (FAQs from comments, myth-busting, student tips)
    • 1 long-form: “How to apply, key dates, what matters.”
    • 1 long-form: “Scholarships, affordability, support.”

    Weeks 5 to 6: Drive action without feeling pushy

    • 6 Shorts (deadline prompts, “how to book a tour”, “who to contact”)
    • 1 long-form: “Student panel: what I chose and why.”
    • Retargeting flight (if paid is available): viewers of 50%+ of long-form

    Measurement: what to report (and what not to over-index on)

    If YouTube Shorts’ definitions and search filtering are shifting, your reporting needs to be stable enough to remain credible across changes.

    For recruitment teams, focus on:

    YouTube-native engagement quality

    • Returning viewers growth
    • Watch time and average view duration (especially on search-led long-form)
    • Audience retention curves (where do they drop, where do they rewatch)

    Traffic and conversion assist

    • Clicks to site (from descriptions, end screens)
    • Branded search lift (in Google Search Console)
    • Tour bookings, info session registrations, inquiry form completions

    Sequence health

    • Playlist starts and completions
    • End screen click-through rate
    • Viewer paths (what they watched next)

    Avoid overreacting to:

    • Raw view counts alone (especially on Shorts, where counting approaches have changed) 
    • One-off viral spikes that do not lead to deeper viewing

    Common Mistakes HEM Sees with YouTube in Higher Education

    Many institutions post polished highlight reels that have no search utility. The video may look strong, but without query-based titles, structured descriptions, chapters, or a clear CTA, it does not capture intent or drive action.

    Shorts are often treated as random content rather than strategic entry points. Effective Shorts should ladder into a longer answer, playlist, or defined next step. Without that bridge, attention dissipates.

    Another common issue is the absence of a series architecture. If prospects cannot easily binge related content, they leave the channel and continue research elsewhere.

    Overproduction is also a frequent trap. Cinematic quality does not compensate for inconsistency. In recruitment, regular publishing and clarity build more trust than occasional flagship videos.

    Finally, one-size-fits-all messaging weakens impact. International students, domestic commuters, graduate applicants, and career switchers each evaluate different risks and priorities. Sequencing and content design should reflect those distinctions.

    The Operational Checklist So Teams Can Execute

    Channel foundations

    • Clear channel trailer for prospective students
    • Channel sections: Tours, Programs, Student Life, How to Apply, International
    • 3 to 5 pinned playlists

    Content system

    • 4 Shorts categories you can repeat every month
    • 2 search-led long-form videos per month (minimum)
    • 1 student-led recurring series (simple format)

    Conversion pathways

    • Description templates with consistent CTAs
    • End screens: next video + “Apply / Book a tour”
    • Pinned comment linking to the next step

    Paid (optional)

    • Viewers retargeting pools
    • Sequence creative mapped to funnel stages
    • Landing pages matched to video promises

    Where HEM Fits

    YouTube marketing is not separate from your enrolment marketing system. It should connect to your inbound strategy, your content planning, and your conversion pathways across the site.

    If you want HEM support with:

    • YouTube strategy and sequencing architecture
    • Search-led video content planning for recruitment
    • Paid YouTube and Demand Gen sequencing tied to enrolment actions
    • Measurement frameworks that leadership can trust

    You can start here:

    Refine your school’s YouTube student recruitment strategy?
    Contact HEM for more information.

    FAQs

    How to create a YouTube channel for college recruiting?
    Start with structure, not volume. Define your recruitment goals first. Build channel sections around Tours, Programs, Student Life, and How to Apply. Create 3–5 core playlists that reflect enrolment journeys. Publish Shorts for reach and search-optimized long-form for intent. Use consistent CTAs, end screens, and descriptions that link directly to admissions pages.

    What kind of marketing works best with students on college campuses?
    Authentic, peer-led, and mobile-first content performs best. Students respond to relatable voices, clear outcomes, and practical information. Video, short-form content, and search-driven resources outperform static promotional messaging. Campaigns that combine social proof, transparency about cost and outcomes, and clear next steps tend to drive stronger engagement and action.

    How big is the student recruitment market?
    The global student recruitment market spans billions annually, including digital advertising, agency partnerships, CRM systems, and marketing services. With international mobility rebounding and domestic competition intensifying, institutions are increasing investment in digital channels such as search, social, and video to secure qualified applicants in an increasingly competitive environment.

    Source link

  • A Tribute to Jesse Jackson

    A Tribute to Jesse Jackson

    The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tenn., on April 4, 1968. Jesse Jackson, his 26-year-old protégé, was there. Photos and videos from that era show Black people being hosed down by police officers, attacked by dogs, humiliated, beaten, bloody and facedown on concrete streets. Jesse Jackson was there.

    Black people were jailed for trying to integrate “whites-only” establishments, for attempting to vote and for sitting with dignity in the front of city buses. Jesse Jackson was there. In fact, he was repeatedly jailed for civil rights protests throughout the 1960s. The first time was when he was an 18-year-old college freshman; he and seven other Black teens were arrested and jailed for reading books at a whites-only public library in Greenville, S.C., Jackson’s birthplace.

    Time and time again throughout adulthood, Jackson was called to scenes all across America where racial injustice had occurred. Too often, Black children, women and men had been murdered. Too many were wrongly convicted of crimes and subjected to cruel circumstances in which they were treated as less than human. Jesse Jackson was there. He saw and experienced this all. And yet, he famously insisted that all Americans, especially Black citizens, “keep hope alive.”

    The Honorable Rev. Jesse Louis Jackson Sr. died. He was 84 years old. How can it be that someone who saw so much evil maintained hope and consistently inspired others to do the same? The King murder would have been enough for most people—they would have lost faith in the racial equality and social justice efforts for which their mentor and dear friend lived, fought and ultimately died.

    Yesterday, one television network referred to “keep hope alive” as a Jackson “catchphrase.” That was a mischaracterization. It was not merely a slogan that became most widely known during his two campaigns for the U.S. presidency. Instead, it was Jackson’s philosophy. It kept him fighting for and believing in justice, even when so much around him could have easily thrust him and others into apathy and hopelessness.

    Constantly calling Jackson to the scene of injustice over decades was sometimes met with critique. “Jesse Jackson doesn’t speak for all Black people” was the shortsighted complaint. Here is the thing: The Rainbow PUSH Coalition founder always spoke for Black people and was one of the most reliable leaders to ever do so. Also praiseworthy is how Jackson consistently answered the calls and showed up. He was there. We need more, not fewer defenders, protectors, ambassadors and freedom fighters like him. Courageous leaders who somehow still believe that our nation is capable of living up to its ideals and promises, in spite of its recurring contradictions and betrayals, are what we desperately need.

    There is a lot happening in the U.S. right now: snatching health care from poor, working class and elderly people; suppressing voting rights, which is guaranteed to disproportionately affect Black citizens; terrorizing immigrants and separating families; and unnecessarily killing unarmed Black people and peaceful protesters. That is just some of it. Jackson saw and experienced even more than this over his lifetime. So then, again, how did he manage to keep hope alive?

    I asked a version of this question to one of my beloved mentors, the legendary Black psychology professor Joseph L. White, who always reminded others and me to “keep the faith.” I still do because he always did, despite all the injustice to which he bore witness over his 84 years on this earth. It is my daily tribute to Dr. White. Henceforth, it will also become my daily tribute to Rev. Jackson.

    CNN NewsNight host Abby Phillip provides insights into Jackson’s philosophy in her 2025 book, A Dream Deferred: Jesse Jackson and the Fight for Black Political Power. Marshall Frady did so as well in his 1996 biography, Jesse: The Life and Pilgrimage of Jesse Jackson. Many other scholars in African American studies, political science and other academic fields have published research that provides windows into Jackson’s faith, optimism and enduring commitment to fulfilling King’s agenda as well as his own vision for America.

    These are tough times for our nation, including its higher education institutions. Surviving this particular moment requires us to be more like Jackson: hopeful, courageous, reliable, consistent, brave and enduring. Undoubtedly, there will be numerous tributes to his life, legacy and massive impact on America and its Democratic Party. But if we really want to honor this colossal civil rights icon, we will do exactly as he instructed: Keep hope alive.

    Shaun Harper is University Professor and Provost Professor of Education, Business and Public Policy at the University of Southern California, where he holds the Clifford and Betty Allen Chair in Urban Leadership. His most recent book is titled Let’s Talk About DEI: Productive Disagreements About America’s Most Polarizing Topics.

    Source link

  • National Institute on Transfer Finds a New Home

    National Institute on Transfer Finds a New Home

    The National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students is moving to USC’s National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | MarioGuti and Wolterk/iStock/Getty Images

    When the National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students lost university funding and its home base at the University of North Georgia last year, supporters worried transfer student success would suffer. For two decades, NISTS had connected scholars who study transfer with the campus staff who facilitate it, disseminating resources and research to improve the process for students nationwide.

    But NISTS has since found a new home. The National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition (NRC) at the University of South Carolina agreed to sustain NISTS’s legacy for years to come, including taking over much of its programming and resources for transfer professionals.

    “I didn’t want to see decades of really important knowledge-building disappear,” said Kate Lehman, executive director of the NRC. “Transfer is just an increasing part of the conversation in higher ed, and to lose that resource—it just was unconscionable to me.”

    After NISTS announced plans to close last October, multiple organizations came forward and offered to help continue its work.

    But the NRC won out because the two organizations have significant overlap in their missions and already have long-held “professional relationships grounded in mutual respect,” said Janet Marling, NISTS’s former executive director. “I could not be more thrilled [about] how things have landed.”

    The NRC has historically produced scholarship and guidance on first-year experience courses but also focuses on improving student transitions more broadly, including their transfer from one institution to another. The center was working on building up its programming and resources related to transfer when NISTS fell on hard times and needed a new home.

    The NRC’s absorption of NISTS “bolsters some of the really great work they’ve already been doing in this area” and “builds on where they’ve been headed,” Marling said. The partnership “also gives them a very large collective set of knowledge and an entire community to think about serving in new ways, which I think only increases their importance to the field.” For NISTS, “it allows for the work to continue.”

    J. Rex Tolliver, the University of South Carolina’s vice president for student affairs and academic support, said the move also bodes well for “the reach and reputation of USC as a leader in student success.”

    “This moment reflects our enduring commitment to excellence in research, practice and partnership and signals to the national higher education community that USC continues to shape how institutions support students through critical transitions from their first year to transfer and beyond,” Tolliver said in a press release.

    Going forward, NISTS won’t retain its name, but many of its offerings will continue. The NRC took over NISTS’s website to make sure its reports and resources remain available and will slowly transition those documents to the NRC’s site, Lehman said. The NRC hired NISTS’s assistant director, Emily Kittrell, as a transfer expert in residence to lead the integration effort. And while the NRC is still hashing out the details, NISTS’s beloved annual conference will live on in some form; the NRC plans to either add transfer-related programming to its existing conferences or create a separate event.

    “I’m really committed to having some sort of in-person event,” because “that was really the hallmark” of the institute, Lehman said.

    To facilitate the transition, NRC hosted a welcome webinar for members of the NISTS community last month, recognized NISTS’s team at its First-Year Experience Conference this week and held a listening session at the conference about NISTS’s integration.

    The goal is to preserve NISTS’s offerings “in a way that elevates the work they were doing, honors the transfer champions they served and preserves the most important aspects” of their mission, Lehman said. “I hope to co-construct whatever this future looks like” with the people who relied on NISTS’s resources.

    At a time of closures and mergers, when higher ed doesn’t always have enough resources to go around, “this is a really interesting example of two higher ed organizations coming together for the greater good,” Lehman added, “and figuring out in this shifting environment how to collaborate and maximize the resources we do have to advance our mission.”

    Source link

  • Should Degrees Come With Lifetime Professional Education?

    Should Degrees Come With Lifetime Professional Education?

    On Medium, futurist Jim Carroll writes, “In 1900, knowledge doubled approximately every 100 years. By 1945, this rate accelerated to every 25 years, and by 1982, it was every 13 months. Currently, between 2020 and 2025, some estimates suggest that knowledge is approaching a doubling rate every 12 hours.” That’s merely the time between breakfast and dinner!

    Unfortunately, we graduate students with degrees and certificates that, once upon a time, we believed certified current and continuing expertise in a given field. It lasted a lifetime. That was true at the turn of the 20th century, but certainly not now in the age of AI. As we continue to accelerate the creation of new information, how can we ensure our students in degree or certificate programs are kept up-to-date with what they need for the ever-changing workplace?

    The accelerating rate of change in my field of communication technology was abundantly apparent even when I was a professor of communication at the University of Illinois Springfield 30 years ago. In teaching my graduate seminar New and Emerging Technologies in the Electronic Media, I was challenged with getting my students to identify new knowledge and information in order to write literature critiques and research reports. I created a curated reading Listserv for students enrolled in the seminar each term. Some of the most dedicated students asked me at the end of the semester if I could keep them on the Listserv for the following terms so they could continue to keep up with the cutting edge.

    When it became available, I moved to a new online technology developed by Pyra Labs called web logs, or “blogs.” (Later Pyra was acquired by Google as a foundation for blogger.com.) As a result, the curated readings moved to the then-new World Wide Web and became available most everywhere around the globe.

    The primary purpose of the blogs I developed was to offer students links to key articles as they came out on important emerging topics in electronic media. However, as with much online material, the blogs came to serve many functions around the world: Corporate leaders subscribed to keep up with the newest releases, faculty members at other institutions subscribed to have access to updated resources for their own classes, and enterprising students elsewhere found this was a good source of new materials for their own analogous seminars that didn’t require digging through periodical guides.

    For my own purposes, I began to share the concept at national conferences, such as the annual Distance Teaching and Learning conference in 2007. I referred to the practice as the “Semester Without End,” in which students could continue receiving updates on course material after they had completed the course. Since I was already doing the blogging for the current class, there was no extra work to share it with others via the blog URL. This approach provides a low- or no-budget, tried-and-true way that a professor can share a curation of links to new and emerging discoveries, theories, practices and applications in any field.

    As I write this article, the much-evolved blog, now named Professional, Continuing and Online Education by UPCEA, is on the verge of passing three million page views.

    It was also a two-way medium with the option to allow readers to comment and discuss the material that was shared. As such, I believe a version of this curated reading list with associated podcasting can become the backbone of addressing the issue of keeping graduates of degree programs and completers of certificate programs updated on subsequent new materials. The addition of periodic synchronous sessions can provide further professional learning opportunities in the discipline area by bringing in guest speakers to address important developments in practice or those that are anticipated.

    Some larger universities offer continuing education aimed specifically at alumni, such as the Purdue for Life program, which offers more than 200 online or hybrid programs. New York University offers $15 Alumni College professional certificates and classes through their School of Professional Studies. The University of Michigan offers alumni free access to more than 100 online courses at Continuing Education for Alumni. Other universities offer alumni discounts on their continuing and professional learning programs, such as Brown University’s Lifelong Learning and Travel Program, and Duke University offers alumni an assortment of programs and learning opportunities.

    These are admirable initial efforts to provide graduates and certificate completers with the opportunity to keep up with the rapidly changing technological environment, the AI-enhanced advancements and the societal context of the evolving, complex fourth industrial revolution. We are no longer judged by what we teach in semesters leading up to degrees or certificates online or on campus, but rather by the way in which we support our learners when they enter careers in the workplace. These are careers that may radically change over time—some will become extinct, replaced by agentic AI, embodied robotics and technologies yet to be imagined.

    Therefore, we need to continue to grow our efforts to ensure that our learners are not abandoned by employers for lack of preparation in response to those changes wrought by the fourth industrial revolution. Regrettably, we have graduated and certified countless learners over the past decade who are today being confronted with the lack of foresight and skills necessary to advance in their career field.

    Who at your university is leading the effort to ensure that all learners are offered free or affordable continuing professional learning opportunities that enable them to successfully advance with their careers in the emerging fourth industrial revolution? Are you prepared to support your students through custom blogs as a lifeline to update their knowledge and skills? This cannot wait another semester, another year; we are certifying learners who are leaving our universities unprepared for the careers that will emerge this year and in 2027.

    Source link

  • How to: make sure your job description and person specification articulate what you actually need

    How to: make sure your job description and person specification articulate what you actually need

    Author:
    Julia Roberts

    Published:

    This blog was kindly authored by Julia Roberts, Founder and Principal Consultant at Julia Roberts Advisory.

    It is the third blog in our four-part ‘How To’ series that focuses on recruitment in higher education leadership roles. The first blog, on working with executive search, can be found here. The second, on recruiting non-executives, can be found here.

    When someone leaves a leadership role in a university, the first instinct is almost always practical: start the recruitment process, pull up the job description on file, make a few updates and get it out to market. But if you move too quickly, you miss the most important question of all.

    Are you replacing the role, or are you replacing the person?

    Roles grow as people grow. Good leaders stretch their portfolios, fix long-standing problems, absorb responsibilities that never formally belonged to them and shape work in ways that reflect their strengths. By the time they leave, the job they are walking away from is often far bigger, more complex and more strategically significant than the one they started in. Yet many institutions recruit to the historical blueprint, not the current reality.

    A vacancy is not an inconvenience. It is a strategic moment. It is your opportunity to pause, to look honestly at what your institution needs now and to redesign the role around today’s challenges rather than yesterday’s structure.

    This requires discipline. Instead of reaching for the old document, start with the work. What problems actually need solving? What outcomes matter most over the next one to two years? How has the environment shifted? Regulatory pressure is tighter. Financial pressure is heavier. Digital maturity is becoming non-negotiable. AI and cyber risk now sit at the heart of institutional resilience. None of this existed in the same form when that original job description was drafted.

    When you write from the present rather than the past, the shape of the role changes. You shift from describing tasks to identifying outcomes. You distinguish between what this leader must do and what they must enable. Leadership in universities is never about personal output. It is about building the capability, clarity and confidence that allow others to thrive.

    A strong job description must describe a leader who can create the conditions for success, support people to grow, strengthen relationships across academic and professional communities and foster psychological safety so colleagues can raise concerns and contribute ideas.

    The person specification needs equal attention. It must focus on the capabilities that genuinely predict success: judgement, resilience, influence without authority, enabling others, confidence with digital systems and regulatory complexity and a track record of strengthening teams and culture.

    Language matters. Avoid internal shorthand and sector specific jargon. Write for candidates who may bring valuable external experience. Clear, accessible language widens your field and signals openness.

    Finally, test the documents. Share them with someone outside your institution. Ask them to explain the role back to you. If they cannot articulate the purpose, outcomes and expectations, refine again.

    A vacancy is one of the few chances an institution has to realign a role with its strategic needs. Treat your job description and person specification as the tools they are: instruments of clarity, ambition and institutional renewal.

    Key Takeaways

    1. Start by asking whether you are replacing the role or the person.
    2. Ignore the job description on file until you understand the real work.
    3. Focus on outcomes, not task lists.
    4. Make enabling others central to leadership roles.
    5. Write a selective, strategic person specification.
    6. Reflect modern leadership realities including AI and cyber.
    7. Use clear, inclusive language.
    8. Test the documents externally before publishing.

    Source link

  • What needs to change to make evidence-based teaching the norm?

    What needs to change to make evidence-based teaching the norm?

    UK higher education increasingly demands evidence‑based, inclusive, competence‑focused teaching, while refusing to fund the research needed to make that possible.

    This needs to change.

    Teaching quality

    Students and staff still feel the impact that the covid-19 pandemic has had on academic practice. Meanwhile, the seemingly unlimited reach of generative artificial intelligence raises profound questions on the purpose of higher education. With the additional pressures that universities face from league tables, funding constraints, and recruitment challenges, we can no longer afford the luxury to hope that good teaching comes naturally nor that students are willing to adapt to traditional learning methods. As it is, the system is broken and a new funding strategy must be urgently developed by UK research councils to support evidence-based teaching and discipline-based education research.

    Embedding education research in the context of the discipline is essential. QAA Subject Benchmark Statements emphasise discipline standards as reference points for learning and teaching innovation in the context of EDI, accessibility, sustainability, enterprise and generative AI. In parallel to this, accreditation criteria from professional bodies increasingly emphasise the development of skills and graduate competencies, requiring these to be taught and assessed by discipline experts in an inclusive, supportive environment that reflects the diversity of the student body and of the society at large. This shifting focus from the national frameworks that steer quality enhancement across universities gives departments both permission and strong encouragement to modernise.

    Where the system is failing

    Teaching quality is a natural expectation if we want universities to strive. What do we need to meet this expectation? The answer is simple: evidence-based teaching. Obtaining the evidence relies on well-understood principles: good research design, good evaluation strategies, and good data coming from longitudinal studies and cross-institution comparisons.

    None of this happens without funded research capacity. Sadly, as a recent sector‑wide analysis of physics education research shows, that is nowhere to be seen on the UK HE funding landscape.

    A case in point

    Let’s take a closer look. Of course, physics is not the only discipline affected by the absence of funded education research. But it is one where the consequences of poorly evidenced teaching design that does not consistently keep pace with how students learn and still relies on traditional curricula, rigid lectures and high-stakes exams, often become visible earliest. The same consequences emerge more slowly, but not less seriously, in most other disciplines.

    Physics learning is highly sequential. Weaknesses in first-year mathematics and conceptual misunderstandings compound rapidly, making later recovery difficult. Suboptimal teaching and assessment design in hierarchical curricula carries serious consequences for student progression, retention, and attainment. Meanwhile, students from underrepresented backgrounds often find their study environment unwelcoming, which compounds the diversity challenge. This puts additional constraints on departments to adopt culturally relevant approaches to enhance all students’ sense of belonging and self-efficacy. If university departments are unable to adopt evidence-based strategies to design programmes and support their students, the consequences on students are real.

    As a discipline, physics underpins clean energy, advanced manufacturing, secure communications and health technologies. The Institute of Physics’ evidence to Parliament in 2022 underscores physics’ economic contribution alongside its high delivery costs. Evidence-based teaching is essential and is a cost effective way to ensure every pound spent on education generates demonstrable graduate capability aligned to national priorities.

    Clearly, the underlying issue is not disciplinary. In all cases, the absence of funded discipline-based education research harms the purpose of education and shifts the consequence onto students and staff.

    What is needed

    Credibly meeting the expectations set by accreditation bodies and good practice across the sector depends on research‑led curriculum and assessment design, and evaluation of student learning gains. That’s precisely what discipline-based education research in universities produce. Quality requires research.

    This is where UK research councils come in. Currently they fund disciplinary research and doctoral training, but they do not fund discipline-based education research that determines how future graduates are educated.

    As long as research councils ignore stable funding programmes that support doctoral and postdoctoral training in discipline-based education research, the pipeline of discipline-based education research evidence is broken, staff capacity is badly harmed, and promising teaching innovations stall before they scale.

    What funding DBER will enable

    Discipline-based education research translates disciplinary knowledge into teachable, assessable, inclusive curricula at scale. Without sustained funding for DBER, the system cannot produce the research on the “grand challenges” that require comparable evidence across institutions. The absence of DBER funding programmes limits the reach of evidence‑based practice by normalising doomed career pathways and systematically preventing credible programme design and continuous enhancement.

    If the UK wants universities to deliver world‑class teaching, it must fund the research that makes it world‑class through dedicated funding schemes that match the ambition of other strategic research investments.

    Research councils must act now

    Undergraduate and taught postgraduate teaching is expected to be evidence‑based, inclusive, and future‑facing, but the current UK funding regime is actively preventing the development of evidence-based teaching. As we are reassessing the purpose of higher education, it is time UK research funding bodies seriously up their game and establish a robust funding system for discipline-based education research.

    We cannot demand evidence‑based teaching while refusing to fund the evidence. Until discipline‑based education research is funded alongside disciplinary research, evidence‑based teaching will remain an expectation with no delivery mechanism.

    The authors would like to thank Helen Heath for the thoughtful discussions that helped inform the arguments developed in this article.

    Source link

  • Racism ‘deeply embedded’ in universities – Campus Review

    Racism ‘deeply embedded’ in universities – Campus Review

    The much-anticipated Racism@Uni survey has found racism is systemic in universities and has profound impacts on staff and students.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Don’t let perfect get in way of ATEC bill – Campus Review

    Don’t let perfect get in way of ATEC bill – Campus Review

    Lasting policy reforms, almost always, have difficult beginnings. Think Medicare, the Superannuation Guarantee, or the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Who calls the shots when resolving students’ complaints?

    Who calls the shots when resolving students’ complaints?

    One of the more interesting questions that surrounds the prospect of thousands of students getting compensation for Covid (or strike) related complaints is about who picks up the tab.

    On Radio 4’s PM, HEPI’s Nick Hillman suggested that it’s current students who will pay the price:

    So what I worry about, and I really feel for that covid generation, and I do think they’re very hard done by as were school children, of course, at the same time. But of course, it will be current students often that end up suffering as a result of having to make these compensation arrangements.”

    The Student Group Claim’s FAQ takes a different view, reassuring those who sign up as follows (my bolding):

    Is it fair to expect my university to pay compensation? Yes, in our view. Covid-19 and to some degree the strikes were not universities’ fault, but the question is who should bear the risk of the damage they caused to students. In our opinion, universities are better able to bear that risk, for example by taking out insurance, and it is therefore fairer for universities to pay compensation than it is for students to be left paying for services which they do not receive.

    Universities do take out professional indemnity insurance, which can cover claims arising from alleged failures to provide professional services to the required standard – and that can include claims that teaching, supervision, facilities, or academic services didn’t meet contractual or professional obligations. Student complaints alleging breach of contract, negligence, or misrepresentation can fall within the scope of professional indemnity cover.

    But what neither Hillman nor the Student Group Claim site address is whether that insurance actually covers these particular claims – and what it might mean for students if it does.

    The coverage question

    Back in March 2021, specialist education insurance lawyers Beale & Co published a piece called Please OIA, may I have some compensation…? that made a critical distinction:

    Whilst fee refund claims are likely to be excluded from most Professional Indemnity policies, claims for compensation (including any awards made by the OIA) based upon poor or inadequate teaching are likely to fall to be covered. A review of the most recent OIA decision suggests that Insurers may see a rise in these types of complaints over the next few years.

    Fee refunds excluded, then, but compensation for inadequate teaching probably covered. There’s a further wrinkle, though. Most PI policies include what’s called a contractual liability exclusion, designed to exclude express liabilities the policyholder has assumed under its contracts.

    The Student Group Claim has been framing its case as breach of contract – “universities breached their contracts with students” – which is the category that often falls outside coverage.

    The Covid crunch

    Whatever the technical coverage questions, universities’ insurers were clearly spooked by the pandemic. A Queen Mary University of London paper presented to its Audit and Risk Committee in October 2020 – Insurance update 2020-21 – suggests the market had shifted.

    Its professional indemnity premium increased from £22,651 to £88,034 – nearly a fourfold increase. The paper explicitly attributed this to:

    …sector wide concerns regarding professional indemnity cover in light of potential ‘failure to educate’ claims arising from campus closure and movement of courses to virtual and remote learning and logistical difficulties.

    Also issues arising from industrial action, a more litigious student population and the impact of COVID on course availability and the financial viability of HEIs have added to underwriter’s concerns which is then reflected in their calculations.

    That phrase – “failure to educate” – doesn’t seem to be something QMUL invented for the pandemic. It’s standard professional indemnity terminology.

    Hiscox’s PI policy examples include “a student fails to achieve target grades and parent blames tutor for failure to educate.” SA Law defines failure to educate claims as falling into two categories – failure to diagnose special educational needs, and teaching that was inadequate. The terminology was already there – Covid just made insurers very worried about it.

    At the same time as premiums were rocketing up – pricing in the risk of “failure to educate” claims – insurers were also narrowing their coverage to exclude exactly those claims.

    Lloyd’s Market Association issued LMA5391, a “Coronavirus Exclusion” clause, in March 2020. The wording is comprehensive:

    “This Insurance does not cover any claim in any way caused by or resulting from: a) Coronavirus disease (COVID-19); b) Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2); c) any mutation or variation of SARS-CoV-2; d) any fear or threat of a), b) or c) above.

    Patrick Davison, LMA’s deputy director, explained the rationale:

    Covid-19 was clearly becoming a major, major problem and the view was taken that unfortunately a risk of that systemic nature is frankly uninsurable.

    UMAL, the specialist mutual insurer for universities and FE colleges, was explicit about applying Covid exclusions. Its note on main cover changes for the 2020/21 indemnity year states that UMAL imposed a Covid-19 exclusion for professional indemnity limits above £5 million, while “full cover is available up to £5m.”

    So universities renewing policies from spring 2020 onwards likely faced a triple coverage problem – higher premiums priced for anticipated claims, Covid-specific exclusions narrowing coverage for those claims, and pure breach of contract exclusions potentially denying coverage anyway.

    Whether the UCL settlement – announced confidentially with no admission of liability – was funded by insurers or by UCL itself is something we don’t know, nor do we know if the rest of the universities now served a pre-action letter are covered.

    But phrases like “no admission of liability” and confidential financial terms are classic hallmarks of insurer-managed resolution.

    What insurers require

    If insurers are involved in student complaints – whether pandemic-related group claims or routine individual complaints seeking compensation – what does that involvement actually look like?

    Professional indemnity policies are often written on a “claims-made” basis, meaning insurers can insist on being notified not only when a claim is formally made, but also when a university becomes aware of facts that could reasonably lead to a claim later. The threshold for notification tends to be deliberately low.

    Keele University’s policy on additional earnings and consultancy includes what appears to be a practical PI guide, telling staff to contact the Payments and Insurance Manager “immediately” when they become aware of “a potential claim or a circumstance that could give rise to a claim.”

    It defines “circumstance” to include an intimation by a third party – whether expressed or implied – of an intention to claim, criticism of your performance where it may give rise to a financial loss, and your discovery of a service or action which may fail to meet the standards required and could cause financial loss, even if your client is unaware.

    A student submitting a formal complaint saying “I paid for in-person teaching, I got online, I want compensation” would appear to meet all three of those criteria.

    The University of Oxford’s liability insurance guidance to departments is explicit about what happens next:

    Do not admit liability for any incident. Do not provide any documentation to the claimant or their representative.

    Those instructions flow directly from insurer notification and conduct conditions. And Oxford isn’t unusual. Gallagher’s Professional Indemnity Guide for Higher Education Institutions (May 2022) puts it this way:

    We would recommend that this guidance is shared with any colleagues within your institution that could find themselves dealing with a complaint or contract breach and that they are aware of the importance of reporting circumstances to insurers – and to do so within stipulated timescales.

    It continues:

    We would recommend that departments involved in handling and managing disputes and complaints are made familiar with your Professional Indemnity cover and how it operates. This could include ‘scenario testing’ for various types of incidents and at which point to escalate and notify insurers.

    Standard policy conditions typically require that the insured must not admit liability without insurer consent, must have draft correspondence approved by insurers before sending, must not settle without insurer approval, must cooperate with the insurer’s investigation, and must allow the insurer to take conduct of the claim if they choose. As one industry guide puts it:

    Never admit liability or attempt to resolve a complaint on your own, even if you are at fault. Let your insurer take care of it.

    Let’s imagine the PI excess is £2,500, while public liability third party property damage is £2,000. Any complaint seeking more than those amounts would engage insurer interest above the excess. For complaints above that threshold – and OIA case summaries regularly show compensation awards of £5,000, £8,000, £12,000 or more – it’s potentially the insurer’s money at stake, not the university’s.

    The insurer’s calculation is straightforwardly commercial. Defending a claim costs money – legal fees, staff time, the risk of an adverse judgment with costs – and at some point those defence costs exceed what it would take to make the problem go away.

    An insurer might settle a complaint for £8,000 not because the university did anything wrong, but because fighting it to OIA and beyond would cost £15,000 in solicitors’ fees and management time. Equally, an insurer might refuse to settle a claim the university would prefer to resolve quickly, because conceding sets a precedent that increases exposure across the portfolio.

    The point is that these decisions may not be being made on the basis of what’s fair to the student, or what’s right for the institution’s relationship with its students, or what the university would choose to do if it were spending its own money.

    They may be being made on the basis of what minimises the insurer’s aggregate liability. Students have no visibility into that calculation – and neither does the OIA.

    The transparency gap

    The OIA’s Good Practice Framework is explicit about what fairness requires. It defines bias as:

    …a tendency to treat one person or group, thing or point of view more or less favourably than another, especially in a way considered to be unfair…

    …and notes that bias can be deliberate, but it can also be unintentional. Providers, it says:

    …have a duty to act fairly which means that decision-making should be unbiased and should be seen to be unbiased.

    The framework sets out a clear principle – that providers need to take steps to avoid not just actual bias but “the reasonable perception of bias.” They are also told to consider whether the involvement of a particular individual could, intentionally or unintentionally, affect the fairness of the decision, or whether the student might reasonably think that it might.

    On who shouldn’t be appointed as investigators or decision-makers, the guidance includes anyone who has “a personal interest in the outcome of any decision being made.” It states that “it is a fundamental principle of fairness that no-one should be the judge of their own actions,” and that students:

    …must have confidence that evidence will be gathered fairly, and that an investigator will look for information which supports either side of an argument.

    The framework also emphasises transparency about who is involved. It says it will not normally be appropriate to keep the name of a person considering, investigating or deciding the complaint or appeal confidential, because that:

    …would lack transparency and may undermine the student’s confidence in the process.

    And it’s good practice to:

    …give students an opportunity to raise concerns about the individuals looking at their case as early as possible so that the provider can consider whether the student has a reasonable basis for their concerns.

    Nobody seems to have asked the obvious question, though. If a university’s response to a complaint is shaped by – or even drafted by – its PI insurer or the insurer’s appointed solicitors, does that affect the independence and fairness OIA expects?

    Insurers aren’t just involved individuals with a personal connection – they have a direct financial interest in the outcome of complaints. They’re not neutral adjudicators looking for information that supports either side of an argument. They’re potential payers seeking to minimise liability.

    The OIA framework recognises that complete independence isn’t always achievable and permits mitigations – talking to the student about what would help them have confidence in the process, or bringing in someone independent to oversee things.

    But there’s a difference between a university having an institutional interest in complaint outcomes – which is inevitable – and a university’s complaint responses being defacto controlled by an external insurer whose financial exposure depends on the result. How would a student raise concerns about insurer involvement “as early as possible” if nobody tells them an insurer is involved at all?

    On NDAs, the then Independent Adjudicator Felicity Mitchell said in March 2020:

    NDAs are rarely appropriate in the context of student complaints. The potential for the use of an NDA to have a negative impact on the individual student involved has been clearly illustrated in recent media reports. NDAs or similar agreements should not be used as a tool to silence students or cover up serious issues.

    But OIA guidance contains no reference to whether universities notify PI insurers of student complaints, whether insurer involvement affects complaint handling, whether university positions reflect insurer instructions, whether settlements are insurer-approved, or whether students should be told if an insurer is involved.

    There’s a gap between how PI insurance formally works – notification requirements, insurer control of claims, approval of settlements – and how student complaints are publicly understood to work, where the university makes an independent assessment and OIA reviews the university’s decision.

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch

    What makes this especially uncomfortable is that throughout the pandemic, ministers repeatedly directed students to use individual complaints procedures rather than providing blanket refunds or regulatory intervention.

    Michelle Donelan’s messaging was consistent and relentless. In January 2021, she tweeted:

    STUDENT MESSAGE 3: If students think they aren’t getting quality, quantity & accessibility they should raise their concerns with their Uni via the complaints process. If unresolved, they can go to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA).

    In her official letter to students in February 2021, published across university websites:

    However, if you have concerns, there is a process in place. You should first raise your concerns with your university. If your concerns remain unresolved, you can ask the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education to consider your complaint.

    And in evidence to the Education Select Committee in April 2021:

    If that is the position for a student, they should, first of all, make a formal complaint to their university and, if still unresolved, go to the OIA, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator… I can’t guarantee that if a student goes through that process it will lead to a refund. It has the potential to do so. A few weeks ago the OIA published about 20 case studies, one of which was a refund up to the value of £5,000.

    And when the OIA’s annual report showed record complaints in 2022, Donelan responded:

    I have been very clear that students deserve quality, transparency and value. Where students believe they are not receiving the high-quality experience they were expecting they have every right to raise a complaint with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator if they are not happy with the response from their university. Students deserve a fair deal and it is good to see this process working with compensation pay outs increasing to over £1.3 million and more complaints upheld than ever before.

    So government actively directed potentially hundreds of thousands of students to make individual complaints, while refusing blanket refunds and never explaining what complaints could actually achieve or addressing consumer rights questions or funding compensation if complaints succeeded.

    If universities were following typical PI insurance notification requirements, each complaint seeking compensation above the policy excess would potentially trigger insurer involvement – without students, government, or apparently OIA being aware this was happening.

    Known and unknown

    What remains unclear is whether universities routinely notify insurers of student complaints and at what threshold, how often insurers engage versus decline involvement, whether complaint responses are ever insurer-drafted or approved, whether the OIA has visibility into insurer involvement, whether Covid exclusions were applied to education PI policies, and whether settlements end up insurer-funded or self-funded.

    None of this amounts to an accusation of wrongdoing – it’s a feature of professional indemnity insurance with potential implications for student complaints that haven’t been publicly examined. When a student complains and seeks compensation, they may be negotiating not with their university but with their university’s insurer’s claims strategy – and nobody’s told them.

    Whether that gap matters in practice – how often it’s crossed, at what level, with what effects – is genuinely unknown. But we may be about to get a chance to find out.

    OfS is expected to consult shortly on a version of Condition C5 – the ongoing condition that will require new providers to the register to “treat students fairly.” The current version, introduced in 2025, focuses on matters like fee information, course changes, and complaints procedures. But if “treating students fairly” means anything, it ought to mean transparency about who is actually pulling the strings on a student’s complaint and whose interests they represent.

    If insurers are routinely involved in shaping university responses to complaints – approving correspondence, instructing legal strategy, controlling settlements – then students arguably have a right to know that. And if universities are required to tell students when their complaint has been notified to insurers, when responses have been insurer-approved, or when settlement offers require insurer sign-off, that would be a meaningful addition to the “treating students fairly” framework.

    Universities might reasonably respond that insurance arrangements are commercial matters outside OfS’ regulatory remit. But the regulator already concerns itself with how complaints procedures operate – condition C5 requires providers to have procedures that are “accessible and clear” and to handle complaints “in a way that is fair and reasonable.”

    If the reality is that complaints above a certain value are handled not by the university but defacto by its insurer’s claims team, that seems relevant to whether the process is “clear” and whether students can have confidence it’s “fair.”

    If the answer to “who pays” is “insurers,” then students deserve to know. And if OfS is serious about treating students fairly, the regulator should probably ask.

    Source link

  • What happens when inclusion loses its limits?

    What happens when inclusion loses its limits?

    In higher education, few concepts have accelerated and expanded as dramatically as inclusion.

    What began as a tightly defined commitment to enabling students with disabilities to participate on equitable terms has evolved into something far broader, more ambitious, and increasingly vague.

    It is now treated as a moral imperative, a performance metric, a strategic direction, a pedagogic philosophy, and an institutional identity.

    Inclusion is invoked with confidence and urgency, yet rarely interrogated with the precision that universities would normally demand from ideas that shape policy, resource allocation, and everyday academic work.

    As a result, it’s become a shifting and unfocused ideal whose ever-expanding theoretical basis risks rendering its practical implementation unmanageable and, at times, incoherent.

    Not a rejection

    This isn’t a rejection of inclusion – it’s an attempt to address what inclusion is becoming. An umbrella concept that absorbs disparate agendas, a rhetorical device that legitimises policy, and a shield that obscures the widening gap between educational aspirations and the realities of institutional capacity.

    It’s essential to recognise that inclusion expanded for understandable reasons – entrenched inequalities in recruitment, attainment, belonging, and graduate outcomes demonstrated that earlier, narrower models left many students structurally disadvantaged.

    These concerns were real, and they demanded more than minimal compliance. But as the concept expands without restraint, the very idea of what’s “reasonable” becomes stretched to the point where clarity dissolves and feasibility collapses.

    Where it started

    Historically, inclusion in higher education centred on the notion of reasonable adjustments, grounded in law and shaped by considerations of necessity, proportionality, and practicality. These provided targeted interventions – lecture capture, extended deadlines, accessible buildings – designed around identifiable needs. The principle was pragmatic, bounded, and tangible.

    Over time, though, inclusion has been recast in ways that go far beyond these original commitments. Increasingly, it’s treated as a universal promise – a guarantee that every student, regardless of background, preference, psychological disposition, or socio-cultural identity, will experience higher education without encountering barriers, discomfort, or inequity.

    In practice, this shift is visible in policies that extend far beyond disability – the blanket introduction of “inclusive assessment” models that limit exams, require universal flexible deadlines, or favour coursework-only structures, often justified on the grounds that they reduce inequity rather than because they support specific pedagogic goals.

    This evolution has transformed a rights-based approach into something closer to an all-purpose institutional obligation, where every expression of challenge or dissatisfaction risks being reframed as evidence that inclusion has failed, and every failure becomes justification for further expansion. That trajectory produces an impossible mandate that no institution can fully satisfy.

    Mission creep

    The inflation of inclusion has taken several forms. As the term has broadened, it’s become synonymous with maximal institutional responsiveness, and ordinary aspects of learning – moments of uncertainty, academic struggle, or cultural unfamiliarity – are increasingly interpreted as problems requiring institutional intervention rather than as inherent features of intellectual development.

    Some departments now pre-emptively remove or sanitise challenging materials – texts dealing with violence, empire, or identity – because they fear that student discomfort may be framed as exclusionary or unsafe. Staff report avoiding topics that might generate emotional strain, not because the material is inappropriate, but because the institutional climate encourages risk-avoidance in the name of inclusion.

    At the same time, inclusion has shifted from a framework aimed at widening participation and removing barriers to one that implicitly seeks to eliminate differential outcomes, drawing universities into a logic that treats divergence in student experience or performance not as a reflection of diversity or academic challenge but as evidence of structural shortcomings.

    Alongside these shifts, inclusion has been elevated into a moral identity for universities, reducing a complex set of tensions to a simplistic dichotomy in which institutions are either inclusive or exclusive, with little room for legitimate limits. Yet inclusion, discomfort, and intellectual difficulty can – and often must – coexist, and the task is to manage that tension rather than eliminate it.

    The capacity problem

    As inclusion intensifies, universities are expected to reorganise teaching, assessment, communication, and campus culture to accommodate an ever-widening array of expectations. Yet institutions aren’t infinitely adjustable – they operate with finite resources, finite pedagogical flexibility, and finite staff capacity.

    The assumption that universities can continually re-engineer their practices to meet every evolving preference risks creating an expanding cycle in which expectations grow faster than institutions can respond. The recent proliferation of mandatory EDI training modules, for instance, often positions inclusion as requiring continual curricular redesign, staff behavioural modification, and extensive administrative reporting – expectations that far exceed the original aims of removing concrete barriers.

    As the gap widens, the perceived failure to deliver becomes itself a rationale for expanding inclusion further, generating an escalating cycle of promise and disappointment.

    The chill on teaching

    This dynamic imposes significant burdens on academic staff, who must manage the tension between pedagogical rigour and the need to anticipate and respond to an increasingly diverse set of affective, cultural, and practical expectations. It also encourages the avoidance of difficult or contentious material, since any emotional discomfort may now be interpreted as a failure of inclusion.

    The rise of universal content warnings – now sometimes extended to standard curriculum texts or canonical material – illustrates this drift well. What began as a specific support measure for trauma-related needs increasingly operates as a universalised expectation that all discomfort is problematic.

    Paradoxically, a concept designed to widen participation begins to narrow the intellectual terrain, making courses safer, smoother, and less demanding at the expense of the challenge and complexity essential to higher learning.

    The quiet consensus

    The sector rarely acknowledges the possibility that inclusion, if allowed to expand indefinitely, may begin to undermine education itself. Without clear conceptual boundaries, inclusion risks becoming a universal mandate that treats all discomfort as harmful, all difference as disadvantage, and all expectations as justified.

    When every aspect of academic life becomes a potential site for inclusion-related intervention, the concept loses definition and becomes impossible to operationalise. Acknowledging this doesn’t mean romanticising discomfort or denying the reality of educational inequalities – rather, it requires recognising that an over-extended inclusion agenda can unintentionally flatten the distinctions between necessary support, valuable challenge, and unreasonable accommodation.

    The pursuit of infinite inclusion transforms a valuable principle into an unmanageable ideal.

    Inclusion as alibi

    What’s most concerning is the extent to which inclusion is increasingly used as an all-purpose justification for policy change. Proposals ranging from assessment redesign to campus conduct rules to staff training programmes are routinely framed as necessary for inclusion, even when their connection to meaningful access or equity is tenuous.

    In some institutions, internal debates about anonymous marking, curriculum reform, or lecture recording policy are effectively short-circuited because the label “inclusive” confers automatic moral authority. The rhetorical power of inclusion discourages dissent, stifles debate, and positions policy decisions as morally self-evident rather than contestable.

    In this way, inclusion becomes an alibi – an unquestionable rationale that masks uncertainty, disagreement, or competing priorities. When a concept assumes such unassailable status, its intellectual value is diminished, because it becomes difficult to challenge and therefore difficult to refine.

    Drawing the line

    For inclusion to remain a coherent and defensible principle, it needs to be re-grounded – and that requires renewed clarity about its purpose and limits. It has to distinguish itself from broader aspirations related to comfort, preferences, and outcome parity, and acknowledge that educational environments are inherently demanding, that intellectual difficulty isn’t a sign of systemic exclusion, and that learning sometimes requires discomfort.

    It also needs to recognise the legitimacy of staff and institutional constraints, and the need to preserve pedagogical integrity even while addressing inequality – because institutions simply can’t accommodate every conceivable expectation without compromising coherence, quality, or mission. Above all, inclusion must be understood as serving education rather than substituting for it.

    What comes next

    The sector is at a point where inclusion has become indispensable to institutional identity and strategic discourse, yet its conceptual boundaries have become increasingly diffuse. Unless this trajectory is confronted with rigour and honesty, the widening gap between the expansive theories of inclusion and the practical realities of institutional capacity will continue to destabilise both.

    The challenge isn’t to choose between inclusion and rigour, but to develop an approach capable of holding these aims in tension – one that’s ambitious but sustainable, principled but not absolute, supportive but not all-consuming.

    Many of the practices gathered under the banner of inclusion aren’t inherently problematic – many are necessary and overdue. The difficulty is that higher education still lacks any shared framework for determining where inclusion appropriately ends, and without boundaries, even well-intentioned adjustments can drift into an ever-expanding mandate that overwhelms academic purpose.

    A recalibrated, better-defined approach is now essential – inclusion should illuminate the purpose of higher education, not eclipse it. Only by clarifying its limits can the sector protect both the integrity of inclusion and the integrity of education itself.

    Source link