Author: admin

  • Lean, Global, and Tuition-Free: The University of the People Model

    Lean, Global, and Tuition-Free: The University of the People Model

    One of the most consistent problems in higher education, one that bedevils systems around the globe, is that of cost containment. Costs in higher education grow inexorably, both due to the Baumol effect, that is, services in labor intensive industries like education tend to have costs that grow faster than inflation. And the Bowen Effect, which states that because quality and education is unmeasurable and expenditures are often mistaken for quality, there’s a permanent ratchet effect on university costs limited only by the amount of resources a university can amass. Education’s expensive and getting ever more so.

    But what if I told you there was a university out there that had the cost problem licked? It’s a university based in the United States and accredited by the very respected Western Association of Schools and Colleges. It delivers education the world over with 150,000 students in more than 200 countries and territories. And it educates all these students tuition free, for a grand total of about $150 US per year per student. Sound miraculous? Well, it is in a way, and it’s not easily replicable, but it is real and it’s worth learning from. It’s called the University of the People, an online institution founded in 2009 and based in California. 

    Today, my guest is the University of the People’s Founder and President Shai Reshef. He’s received global recognition for his work at University of the People. He’s an Ashoka fellow. He’s one of Fast Company’s Most Creative in Business, named the Top Global Thinker by Foreign Policy Magazine, and most impressively, he was winner of the 2023 Yidan Prize for Educational Development, which is probably the highest form of global recognition in the field of education.

    In our chat today, Shai and I cover the basic economics of running a mega online university. We answer the questions: how do you serve students across 20 plus time zones? How does a university without government support stay tuition free? And most importantly, how — even if most of your staff are volunteer — are you able to manage things like academic governance and quality assurance on a shoestring?

    And as I said, not everything Shai is going to tell us today is going to be transferrable to other institutions, but his message should have at least some resonance and the University of the People’s experiences can lead to change elsewhere.

    But enough for me. Let’s listen to Shai.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.29 | Lean, Global, and Tuition-Free: The University of the People Model

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Shai, let’s start with the basics. For listeners who might not be familiar—what is the University of the People? Who does it serve? And how does that make it different from a traditional university?

    Shai Reshef (SR): The University of the People is the first nonprofit, tuition-free, accredited American online university. Our mission is to open the gates of higher education to anyone in the world who is qualified but has no other way to access it—either because it’s too expensive, like in the U.S., or because they live in countries where there aren’t enough universities. Africa would be a great example.

    We also serve people who are deprived of access for political or cultural reasons—refugees, women in Afghanistan, or anyone else who, for personal reasons, can’t attend a traditional university. We use the internet to bring higher education to them.

    AU: How big is the institution? How many students do you have? Where are they from? And what’s the breadth of programming that you offer?

    SR: We started in 2009. As of now, we have 153,000 students from 209 countries—so, pretty much from almost every country in the world.

    Our students are typically people who did go to high school but didn’t attend university afterward. Many of them started working and later realized they needed a degree to advance their careers. Our student body tends to be older; they’re not your typical 18-year-olds. They come to us because they want a better future.

    That’s why we only offer degrees that are likely to help them find jobs. At the undergraduate level, we offer degrees in business administration, computer science, and health science. At the graduate level, we offer programs in education, information technology, and business—specifically, the MBA.

    AU: That’s huge. This must cost an awful lot of money. You’re not a public university in the sense of being government funded, and you’re not charging tuition. So how does it work? What does it cost, and how do you make ends meet?

    SR: Well, first of all, we are nonprofit. So, we’re not making money—maybe a small surplus, but not profit. And we are tuition-free. That means students can study for free, but when they get to the exams, we ask them to pay $140 USD per exam.

    Now, for some students—especially those from developing countries—even that amount is too much. So we provide scholarships where we can. About half of our students pay the exam fees, and the other half receive scholarships.

    We’re able to stay sustainable and tuition-free because we run a very lean operation. We rely heavily on technology. We offer only a few degree programs, all of which are directly relevant to the job market. We also operate in many parts of the world where we can deliver quality education at lower costs.

    We don’t have buildings—since we’re fully online—and importantly, we lean heavily on volunteers. I’m a volunteer. The deans are volunteers. Our professors and faculty are volunteers too. In fact, we have over 40,000 volunteers supporting the university.

    AU: But surely $140 per exam on its own isn’t enough to run the institution, right? You must have other sources of income, I imagine?

    SR: Our budget—running a university with 153,000 students—is about $20 million USD. Two-thirds of that comes from student fees. The remaining one-third comes from donations. These include contributions from wealthy individuals and foundations such as the Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Ulet Foundation. We also receive some government support—for example, from the German government.

    So, about $7 million comes from donations, and $13–14 million comes from student fees. But again, we operate on just a fraction of the budget that any other university of our size would require.

    AU: I’m just looking at the numbers—$20 million to teach 150,000 students. That’s about $120 or $130 per student. That’s very, very low. And one of the ways you manage that, I understand, is through your use of volunteers. How do you get people to teach for free?

    SR: It’s a good question. In my previous life, before I started the University of the People, I launched and ran the first online university in Europe. So I had a good understanding of how an online university should operate.

    When I decided to start the University of the People and make it tuition-free, the main difference—among several—was to rely on volunteers rather than paid faculty and staff. At the time, I wasn’t sure how well that would work.

    I announced the university in January 2009 at a conference in Munich. The next day, The New York Times ran a full-page article about it. And the day after that, I already had hundreds of professors writing to me saying, “We love this idea. We want to help.”

    So people come to us. I’m not out there recruiting them—they come because I’m not the only one who believes higher education should be a basic right, and that money shouldn’t be a barrier. I came with the idea of tuition-free higher education, and a lot of people believe in that mission. They want to be part of it and help.

    AU: What kind of support services are you able to offer students? I mean, student services, academic support—how can you do that within a tuition-free model? Are there still some things you’re able to provide?

    SR: Oh, we’re able to do a lot. First of all, all of our courses are written in advance by subject matter experts. They go through a peer review process, just like any other academic program. Once finalized, they’re taught in our online classes.

    When students sign up, they’re placed in a class of 20 to 30 students—each time with peers from 20 to 30 different countries. Every course runs for eight weeks. On the first day of the week, students receive their lecture notes, reading assignments, homework, and discussion question.

    The core of our pedagogy is peer discussion—students engage in week-long discussions around the topic of the week. Every class has a professor who reads and moderates the discussion daily.

    Each student also has a program advisor who follows them from the moment they enroll until they graduate. So there is a lot of support. If a student stops showing up to class, they’ll typically get an email asking where they are.

    Even though our professors are volunteers, they commit 10 to 15 hours per week, per course, to support students with everything they need. So it’s a full-service university.

    The difference between us and a traditional university is that we don’t offer the “nice-to-haves.” We don’t have a football team, a gym, or psychological services—which are important, but we simply can’t afford them. But everything core to the academic experience is there—and delivered with high quality.

    AU: Shai, I want to ask—one of the things you must have to navigate when you’ve got students from all over the world and you’re operating in so many jurisdictions is accreditation. That seems like something that’s very bureaucratic and time-consuming. So how do you handle that? Do you do any jurisdiction shopping? Where are your degrees accredited, and is that part of the reason people pursue them?

    SR: Originally, in 2014, we were accredited by DEAC, which is a national accreditation agency in the U.S. And just a couple of weeks ago, we were accredited by WASC—the Western Association of Schools and Colleges—which is one of the six regional accrediting bodies in the U.S.

    That puts us in the same group as Stanford, Berkeley, UCLA. Some might argue they need to work a little harder to meet our standards—but in any case, we’re now in the same accreditation category.

    Now, even though our students come from around the world, many of them admire American education. That’s a big part of why they choose us. In a few countries, we’re not locally recognized because we’re fully online. But still, thousands of students study with us because they value the American degree, and because local employers recognize and appreciate the quality of our education.

    Was it easy to get accredited? No, it was hard. It took a lot of work. We had to prove that what we offer is equivalent, in terms of outcomes, to what traditional universities offer. That includes how we admit students, how we support them, and how we assess their learning outcomes.

    In the end, we did everything required to meet those expectations—and we succeeded. That’s why we were granted accreditation.

    AU: It just occurred to me, as I was thinking about this, that maybe this is your secret sauce. These are the kinds of things that cost millions of dollars at many universities. And if you’re able to do it without complex quality assurance structures, academic senates, registrar’s offices, and all those kinds of things—if you’re able to do it with the leanest version of those—isn’t that something other institutions could learn from?

    SR: Yes, they can learn. But do they want to learn? That’s a different question.

    One of the challenges we pose to other universities is this: when you’re charging $30,000 to $50,000 a year, and then here comes a university charging just $1,400 a year—if students pay in full and study full time—that’s a huge contrast. And when traditional institutions see that, they often just turn around and say, “No way,” because they don’t believe it’s real.

    The truth is, our advantage comes from the fact that we built a new institution from scratch. That allowed us to decide what to do—and what not to do.

    Let me give you an example. At a university our size, the admissions office alone might have thousands of people reading student résumés, essays, checking social media, verifying every detail—thoroughly evaluating each application.

    We do it differently. We say: if you have a high school diploma, come and take two courses. If you pass, you’ve shown us you meet our standards. You get credit for those courses and become a degree-seeking student. If you can’t pass, you can’t continue.

    Now, not only is that a better system in my view—because it tests students based on how they actually perform, not how well someone coached them on an application—but it also saves a ton of money. We don’t need a large admissions operation. Just come in and prove yourself.

    It’s a different way of operating—and a much more efficient one. And I think that’s our real secret. It’s not really a secret—but it works.

    AU: You’ve scaled up incredibly quickly—15 years to reach 150,000 students, and to be embedded in, I guess, just about every country in the world. What were the biggest hurdles in that scaling process? Were there moments where you stumbled and thought, “Wow, I’m not sure we can grow this quickly?” Or was it pretty smooth?

    SR: Well, if you ask me, I’d actually answer a different question: Why aren’t we even bigger than we are?

    Because the truth is, we’re online—there are no physical seat limits. Nobody has to stand at the back of the lecture hall. So, in theory, we could double our student body. Why haven’t we?

    The main challenge is that most people in the world haven’t heard of us. Even when I travel and someone asks what I do, and I say, “University of the People,” I’m surprised if they’ve heard of it. Most people haven’t—and especially not the ones who need us most, like refugees or people in remote or underserved regions.

    The second challenge is that even when people do find us, we don’t have enough resources to support everyone. For example, we have 4,300 Afghan women currently hiding and studying with us inside Afghanistan—but we received 20,000 applications from there. So yes, it’s incredible that we can serve over 4,000 women, but we simply can’t accommodate all who apply.

    To go back to your original question about the difficulties we’ve encountered—yes, there are some. For instance, there are countries that still don’t recognize online education. In those places, we’re just waiting for governments to become more open to 21st-century technologies and new models of learning.

    So that’s been one of our biggest challenges: growing awareness and overcoming regulatory barriers.

    AU: In lots of traditional universities, success is measured through things like research output, income, or rankings. How do you measure success at the University of the People?

    SR: Well, the first thing we look at is how many people we’ve given the opportunity to pursue higher education—people who had no other alternatives. That’s a key measure for us.

    I was once interviewed by a student journalist from an Ivy League school, and he said, “You’re setting up competition for my institution.” And I told him, “Anyone who wants to go to your institution should absolutely do so. But we’re here for those who don’t have that option.”

    So one measure of our success is how many doors we open. Another is how many of our students actually graduate—and what they go on to do. We have graduates working at Amazon, Google, Apple, IBM, the World Bank—that’s another sign of success.

    Ultimately, we measure ourselves by whether we’ve helped people build a better life. Are they better off while studying with us? That’s what matters to us.

    We don’t participate in rankings competitions. We don’t try to be the most expensive institution—though in some parts of the sector, it seems the more expensive you are, the better you’re perceived to be. That’s a strange way to measure quality, but it’s common in higher ed.

    We’re proud to be different. We’re changing the model of higher education to make it accessible, affordable, and high-quality.

    AU: A few days ago in The New York Times, there was an article by the Russian writer Masha Gessen. They were talking about the attacks on higher education in the United States and mentioned that the ideal model right now might be the University of the People in Poland—a communist-era, tuition-free university. As I was preparing for this interview, I thought, “Wait a minute, that sounds a lot like your University of the People.” I’m curious what you think about that argument. Given all the challenges in U.S. higher education—even before Trump—are approaches like yours part of the solution?

    SR: I actually read that very article. Believe it or not, we just sent them an email today saying the same thing—basically, “It sounds like you’re talking about the University of the People.” I assume they don’t know about us—otherwise, they probably would have mentioned us directly.

    I truly believe we are the future. Every person should have the right to higher education. Universities should open their gates far wider than they do now. The more people who are educated, the stronger the country: people have better futures, the economy improves, and society benefits from individuals who are well-rounded and capable of critical thinking. That’s what the world needs.

    The American system has created some of the best universities in the world—there’s no question about that. I’m not against those institutions. What I’m against is the lack of opportunity for everyone else. And I think what we’ve demonstrated is that higher education can be accessible and affordable for all.

    That’s part of why we’ve grown so quickly—we want to show that this model works, that it’s sustainable, and that others can follow it, in the U.S. and around the world. The challenges facing higher education aren’t unique to one country; they’re global. And anyone can look at what we’ve done and replicate it—or ask us to help them replicate it. We’d be happy to help.

    AU: So, you’ve been around for just over 15 years. If I ask you to look ahead—what does the University of the People look like in 2040? Will you be twice as big? Even bigger than that? Will you offer different kinds of degrees? How do you see the next decade and a half playing out?

    SR: You know, in 2010, following the earthquake in Haiti, we announced that we would take in 250 Haitian students and teach them for free. What I didn’t realize at the time was that, after the earthquake, many of them were living in tents, without electricity or internet.

    Still, two months later, the first group of 15 or 16 students began studying. I went to Haiti to welcome them, and I met many students while I was there. One of them asked me what the future of University of the People looked like. I gave them the same answer I’d give today:

    We’ll keep growing to serve more and more students—until one day we wake up and realize that all the students in the world who need access to higher education are being served. And then, maybe, we’ll go back to sleep and wake up with another dream.

    Until then, we have a long way to go. So yes, we’ll continue to grow, we’ll continue to serve more people, and hopefully, others will replicate what we’re doing. We don’t need to educate the entire world—just help show that it’s possible.

    AU: Shai, thank you so much for being with us today.

    SR: Thank you very much for this interview. It was fascinating—thank you.

    AU: And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers—Tiffany MacLennan, Sam Pufek—and you, our viewers, listeners, and readers, for joining us. If you have any questions about this podcast or suggestions for future episodes, please don’t hesitate to get in touch at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. Quick request from us: head over to our YouTube page and subscribe to the Higher Education Strategy Associates channel so you never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education.

    Join us next week—my guest will be John Stackhouse. He’s the Senior Vice President at RBC and former Editor-in-Chief of The Globe and Mail. He’ll be joining me to talk about a new post-secondary education initiative that RBC is undertaking, in partnership with the Business + Higher Education Roundtable and us here at Higher Education Strategy Associates. I’ll be asking in particular about the future of Canadian higher education and how better links can be forged between universities and the private sector. See you then.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by KnowMeQ. ArchieCPL is the first AI-enabled tool that massively streamlines credit for prior learning evaluation. Toronto based KnowMeQ makes ethical AI tools that boost and bottom line, achieving new efficiencies in higher ed and workforce upskilling. 

    Source link

  • ICE Reveals How It Targeted International Students

    ICE Reveals How It Targeted International Students

    Federal immigration officials targeted student visa holders by running their names through a federal database of criminal histories, according to court testimony given by Department of Homeland Security officials on Tuesday and reported by Politico.

    As part of the Student Criminal Alien Initiative, as officials dubbed the effort, 20 ICE agents and several federal contractors ran the names of 1.3 million potential student visa holders through the database, searching for those that were both still enrolled in programs and had had some brush with the criminal justice system. Many of those students had only minor criminal infractions on their record like traffic violations, and they often had never been charged. ICE used that information to terminate students’ SEVIS records.

    Officials testified that ICE ultimately flagged around 6,400 Student Exchange and Visitor Information System records for termination and used the data to revoke more than 3,000 student visas—far more than the 1,800 that Inside Higher Ed tracked over the past month. 

    The officials’ testimony came in a hearing for one of many lawsuits filed by international students and immigration attorneys challenging the sudden and unexplained visa terminations; dozens of the cases have been successful so far. Last week the agency restored international students’ visas amid the flurry of court losses and said it would release an updated policy in the near future. 

    On Monday, the Trump administration released a draft of that policy, which vastly expands the prior one and makes visa revocation legal grounds for a student’s legal residency to be terminated as well.

    Source link

  • Adjusting to Generative AI in Education Means Getting to the Roots

    Adjusting to Generative AI in Education Means Getting to the Roots

    To help folks think through what we should be considering regarding the impact on education of generative AI tools like large language models, I want to try a thought experiment.

    Imagine if, in November 2022, OpenAI introduced ChatGPT to the world by letting the monster out of the lab for a six-week stroll, long enough to demonstrate its capacities—plausible automated text generation on any subject you can think of—and its shortfalls—making stuff up—and then coaxing the monster back inside before the villagers came after it with their pitchforks.

    Periodically, as new models were developed that showed sufficient shifts in capabilities, the AI companies (OpenAI having been joined by others), would release public demonstrations, audited and certified by independent expert observers who would release reports testifying to the current state of generative AI technology.

    What would be different? What could be different?

    First, to extend the fantasy part of the thought experiment, we have to assume we would actually do stuff to prepare for the eventual full release of the technology, rather than assuming we could stick our heads in the sand until the actual day of its arrival.

    So, imagine you were told, “In three years there will be a device that can create a product/output that will pass muster when graded against your assignment criteria.” What would you do?

    A first impulse might be to “proof” the assignment, to make it so the homework machine could not actually complete it. You would discover fairly quickly that while there are certainly adjustments that can be made to make the work less vulnerable to the machine, given the nature of the student artifacts that we believe are a good way to assess learning—aka writing—it is very difficult to make an invulnerable assignment.

    Or maybe you engaged in a strategic retreat, working out how students can do work in the absence of the machine, perhaps by making everything in class, or adopting some tool (or tools) that track the students’ work.

    Maybe you were convinced these tools are the future and your job was to figure out how they can be productively integrated into every aspect of your and your students’ work.

    Or maybe, being of a certain age and station in life, you saw the writing on the wall and decided it was time to exit stage left.

    Given this time to prepare, let’s now imagine that the generative AI kraken is finally unleashed not in November 2022, but November 2024, meaning at this moment it’s been present for a little under six months, not two and a half years.

    What would be different, as compared to today?

    In my view, if you took any of the above routes, and these seem to be the most common choice, the answer is: not much.

    The reason not much would be different is because each of those approaches—including the decision to skedaddle—accepts that the pre–generative AI status quo was something we should be trying to preserve. Either we’re here to guard against the encroachment of the technology on the status quo, or, in the case of the full embrace, to employ this technology as a tool in maintaining the status quo.

    My hope is that today, given our two and a half years of experience, we recognize that because of the presence of this technology it is, in fact, impossible to preserve the pre–generative AI status quo. At the same time, we have more than info information to question whether or not there is significant utility for this technology when it comes to student learning.

    This recognition was easier to come by for folks like me who were troubled by the status quo already. I’ve been ready to make some radical changes for years (see Why They Can’t Write: Killing the Five-Paragraph Essay and Other Necessities), but I very much understood the caution of those who found continuing value in a status quo that seemed to be mostly stable.

    I don’t think anyone can believe that the status quo is still stable, but this doesn’t mean we should be hopeless. The experiences of the last two and a half years make it clear that some measure of rethinking and reconceiving is necessary. I go back to Marc Watkins’s formulation: “AI is unavoidable, not inevitable.”

    But its unavoidability does not mean we should run wholeheartedly into its embrace. The technology is entirely unproven, and the implications of what is important about the experiences of learning are still being mapped out. The status quo being shaken does not mean that all aspects upon which that status quo was built have been rendered null.

    One thing that is clear to me, something that is central to the message of More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI: Our energies must be focused on creating experiences of learning in order to give students work worth doing.

    This requires us to step back and ask ourselves what we actually value when it comes to learning in our disciplines. There are two key questions which can help us:

    What do I want students to know?

    What do I want students to be able to do?

    For me, for writing, these things are covered by the writer’s practice (the skills, knowledge, attitudes and habits of mind of writers). The root of a writer’s practice is not particularly affected by large language models. A good practice must work in the absence of the tool. Millions of people have developed sound, flexible writing practices in the absence of this technology. We should understand what those practices are before we abandon them to the nonthinking, nonfeeling, unable-to-communicate-with-intention automated syntax generator.

    When the tool is added, it must be purposeful and mindful. When the goal of the experience is to develop one’s practice—where the experience and process matter more than the outcome—my belief is that large language models have very limited, if any, utility.

    We may have occasion to need an automatic syntax generator, but probably not when the goal is learning to write.

    We have another summer in front of us to think through and get at the root of this challenge. You might find it useful to join with a community of other practitioners as part of the Perusall Engage Book Event, featuring More Than Words, now open for registration.

    I’ll be part of the community exploring those questions about what students should know and be able to do.

    Join us!

    Source link

  • Limestone University Announces Closure

    Limestone University Announces Closure

    Limestone University survived the Civil War and the Great Depression, but protracted financial struggles have proven harder to overcome: After nearly 180 years, Limestone will cease operations next week.

    Officials announced the closure Tuesday night.

    “Words cannot fully express the sorrow we feel in having to share this news,” Limestone president Nathan Copeland said in a statement. “Our students, alumni, faculty, staff, and supporters fought tirelessly to save this historic institution. While the outcome is not what we hoped for, we are forever grateful for the passion, loyalty, and prayers of our Saints family.”

    The move follows a tumultuous period for the university. After years of financial challenges, the Board of Trustees was set to decide last week on whether to shift to online-only operations or close altogether. At the last minute it decided to hold off on the decision because a “possible funding source” had emerged.

    Limestone was seeking a $6 million infusion to help facilitate the shift to a fully online model. Though the university was able to secure $2.1 million in pledged commitments from almost 200 donors, according to the closure announcement, it ultimately fell well short of the goal, prompting the board to close the private institution in South Carolina.

    Now 478 employees will lose their jobs.

    The closure comes on the heels of significant enrollment and financial losses. The university enrolled 3,214 students in fall 2014, according to federal data; Limestone recently noted enrollment at around 1,600.

    It has also operated for years with substantial budget deficits. The latest audit for the university noted “significant doubt” about Limestone’s ability to remain open, given that it had “suffered recurring significant negative changes in net assets and cash flows from operations” and had “a net deficiency in [unrestricted] net assets.”

    Limestone’s board also borrowed heavily from the university’s meager endowment in recent years.

    In 2023, the South Carolina attorney general agreed to lift restrictions on Limestone’s endowment to allow the board to increase spending from those funds. As a result, the endowment collapsed in value, falling from $31.5 million at the beginning of fiscal year 2022 to $12.6 million at the end of FY23. Auditors noted that “all endowment funds are underwater” as of last June.

    Auditors also expressed skepticism that Limestone would be able to pay off mounting debts.

    The university had more than $30 million in outstanding debt in the last fiscal year, including $27.2 million owed to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Limestone’s latest audit shows the university listed its buildings and land as collateral for both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and another bank loan.

    Auditors also found that Limestone’s “internal controls over financial reporting are informal and lack formal documentation,” and that the university’s accounting department was understaffed.

    Despite the abrupt nature of the closure, Limestone officials wrote in Tuesday’s announcement that the university “will proceed with an orderly wind-down process” and help students transfer to other institutions and support faculty and staff with more information to come on those efforts.

    Limestone will hold its final commencement on Saturday.

    “Our Limestone spirit will endure through the lives of our students and alumni who carry it forward into the world,” Limestone board chair Randall Richardson said in the closure announcement. “Though our doors may close, the impact of Limestone University will live on.”

    The closure announcement comes less than a week after St. Andrews University, a private institution in North Carolina, made a similar decision to cease operations due to fiscal issues.

    Source link

  • What Online College Students Need

    What Online College Students Need

    It’s been five years since colleges moved their teaching and learning online in response to the COVID pandemic, and Inside Higher Ed’s 2025 Survey of Campus Chief Technology/Information Officers, released today, shows that while online learning may still be adjusting to a new post-pandemic normal, it’s not going anywhere.

    Half of surveyed CTOs indicate that student demand for online and/or hybrid course options has increased substantially year over year at their institution. Nearly the same share say their college has added a substantial number of new online or hybrid course options over the same period. Meanwhile, the most recent Changing Landscape of Online Education Project report found something similar: Nearly half of chief online learning officers surveyed said that enrollment in online degree programs at their institution is now higher than that of on-campus programs—and even more said their college had undergone a strategic shift in response to such demand.

    And even while identifying increased student interest in on-site learning for certain activities, the 2025 Students and Technology Report from Educause also reveals general student appreciation of flexible learning formats and an outright preference for online courses among older learners.

    Amid this growing demand for online and hybrid courses, we surveyed students studying in different modalities to understand how their needs and interests might differ.

    Our annual Student Voice survey of 5,025 two- and four-year learners with Generation Lab polled learners about their study experiences relative to their peers taking all their courses online and those taking a mix of both in-person and online courses, as of spring 2024. We looked for gaps in responses and key overlaps between those groups, along with potentially counterintuitive responses from online-only learners. (The survey asked all students about academic success, health and wellness, involvement in college life, career readiness, and more.)

    Experts say the findings, listed below, have big implications for institutions looking to better serve online learners. One clear takeaway, up front? Online-only students’ sense of belonging—a student success factor linked to academic performance, persistence and mental health—lags that of peers studying in person. But promoting belonging among online learners may look different than it does in other classroom settings.

    “In general, if we want to foster belonging among online learners, we need to stop importing in-person solutions into digital environments,” said Omid Fotuhi, director of learning innovation at WGU Labs and a research associate at the University of Pittsburgh who studies online learners, belonging, motivation and performance. “Belonging online isn’t a watered-down version of the campus quad—it’s a different ecology altogether. And that ecology requires deliberate psychological attunement to the lived realities of today’s increasingly diverse, time-strapped, digitally distributed students.”

    Stephanie L. Moore, associate professor of organization, information and learning sciences at the University of New Mexico and editor in chief of the Journal of Computing in Higher Education, who also reviewed the data for Inside Higher Ed, had a similar take: that it’s a “good impetus for higher education leaders and planners to think about what belonging means beyond extracurricular activities.”

    But first—and to Fotuhi’s point about diversity—who are online learners? Across the U.S., they tend to be older and more likely to be working already than their in-person peers. And the 854 online-only Student Voice respondents are significantly more likely than the 4,000-plus other respondents to be working full-time: Some 45 percent are working 30 or more hours per week, versus 22 percent of the group as a whole.

    Most are first-generation college students, as well, at 59 percent, compared to 33 percent of in-person students and 48 percent of those taking a mix of in-person and online courses.

    Perhaps related to their working status, online-only students are less likely than the group over all to be taking a full-time course load, at 48 percent versus 68 percent. But they’re roughly as likely as the group over all to report a learning disability or difference (14 percent), a physical disability or condition (14 percent), or a mental health condition or illness (35 percent).

    Whatever their characteristics, Moore said online students want to feel that “they are truly part of the university,” viewed by an institution as “our students” versus “those students.” That’s a helpful lens through which to interpret the following findings.

    What We Found

    1. Online-only students rate their sense of academic fit and educational quality highly. Their sense of belonging? Not so much. 

    Online-only students’ perceptions of quality are somewhat lower than those of respondents studying exclusively in person, but a majority of each group still rate their educational quality good or excellent: 67 percent of online students versus 76 percent of in-person learners. Students taking a mix of online and in-person courses split the difference, at 71 percent. And while online-only students’ sense of academic fit at their college approaches that of the group over all, the gap widens on sense of social belonging. Just 31 percent of online-only students rate their sense of belonging as good or excellent, compared to 48 percent of in-person students. Those taking a mix of online and in-person courses again split the difference.

    The responses suggest that colleges and universities over all have work to do on belonging, regardless of modality. But the especially low ratings among online-only students merit particular attention, given that online learners have elsewhere been shown to complete at lower rates. It’s not immediately clear from this survey to what online-only students attribute this lower sense of belonging, as they’re less likely than the group over all to say that professors getting to know them better, study groups and peer learning, and more opportunities for social connection—all factors associated with belonging—would help boost their success. They’re also less likely than in-person-only peers to attribute what’s been called the mental health crisis to increased loneliness, when presented with a list of possible drivers (21 percent versus 33 percent, respectively).

    However, online-only students are significantly less likely to have participated in extracurriculars than other peers: 64 percent say they haven’t participated in any such activities, compared to 35 percent of the group over all. Similarly, 57 percent of online-only learners have attended no events at their college, compared to 26 percent of the group over all. (More on that later.)

    1. Online-only students, like their other peers, want more affordable tuition and fewer high-stakes exams.

    Across the board, students say fewer exams and lower tuition will improve their chances of success. The No. 1 non-classroom-based thing all students—including online-only students—say would boost their academic success, when presented from a list of possibilities, is making tuition more affordable so they can better balance academics with finances and other work. And the No. 1 classroom-based action online students and their other peers say would help is encouraging faculty members to limit high-stakes exams, such as those counting for more than 40 percent of a course grade.

    1. Online-only students tend to prefer online, asynchronous courses.

    Would online students prefer to be studying in person? Many Student Voice respondents studying online say no, supporting other data suggesting that online learners value the modality for its flexibility and convenience. Asked about their preferred modality, the largest share of online-only students, 54 percent, choose online, asynchronous courses. Still, the second-most-popular option for this group—if by a wide margin—is in person, selecting up to two options.

    In-person students, meanwhile, overwhelmingly prefer in-person learning, at 74 percent. Many students taking a mix of in-person and online courses also tend to prefer the in-person setting, with 52 percent choosing this.

    As for their preferred class formats and teaching practices, beyond modality, online-only students and students over all are most likely to prefer interactive lectures, in which the professor delivers a short lecture but punctuates the class with active learning strategies. About a quarter of online students also prefer case studies, which connect course concepts to real-world problems. That’s when selecting up to two options from a longer list.

    One bonus finding: Online-only students are slightly less likely than the group over all to say they consider themselves customers of their institution in some capacity (58 percent versus 65 percent, respectively).

    1. Many online-only students, like their other peers, report that stress is impeding their academic success.

    Online-only students report experiencing chronic academic stress (distinct from acute academic stress) at half the rate of in-person students: 13 percent versus 26 percent. This could be related to the fact that relatively fewer online students are taking a full-time course load. But online-only students are more likely to cite balancing academics with personal, family or financial responsibilities as a top stressor (52 percent versus 44 percent of in-person students). And they are about as likely as the group over all to say that stress impacts their ability to focus, learn and do well academically “a great deal,” at 42 percent. This overall finding on stress was one of the most significant of this Student Voice survey cycle, and online-only students’ responses mean that institutions trying to tackle student stress should keep these learners in mind.

    To that point: The top thing all students say their institution could do to boost their overall well-being is rethinking exam schedules and/or encouraging faculty members to limit high-stakes exams: 42 percent of online-only students say this would be a big help, as do 46 percent of respondents over all (when presented with a list of options, selecting up to three).

    1. Most online-only students don’t participate in extracurriculars, and some say they could benefit from more virtual participation options.

    Two in three online-only students say they haven’t participated in any extracurricular activities, much more than the group over all. Online-only students are also less likely than the group over all to believe that participation in extracurriculars and events is important to their overall well-being and success: Just 21 percent of online-only students say this is very important to their success as a college student, while 23 percent say this is true for success after graduation.

    As for what would increase online students’ involvement, the top two factors from a longer list of options are if they lived on or near campus and if there were more virtual attendance options (34 percent each). These numbers don’t necessarily amount to a ringing endorsement of virtual participation options, but they do signal that colleges could be doing more in this area. And beyond virtual participation, while many online learners do not live close to their institutions, many do live within an hour’s drive, according to existing data. This means that institutions might also benefit from including local or semi-local online students in their campus involvement initiatives.

    1. Only-online students are confident in their futures but highlight career support needs.

    Online-only students indicate they’ve interacted with their college career center at comparable rates to their peers. Their perceptions of career-readiness efforts across different dimensions are also comparable to their peers’. For example, 21 percent of online-only students describe their career center as having sufficient online resources, compared to 20 percent of the group over all—a sign that these resources may be lacking across the board. Many online students, like students generally, also say they want more help from their institutions connecting with internships and job opportunities, when presented with a list of career-readiness priorities.

    At the same time, 74 percent of online students are very or somewhat confident that their education and college experiences are preparing them for success postgraduation, however they define it, as are 80 percent of in-person students.

    What Faculty and Institutions Can Do

    Fotuhi, of WGU Labs, said the findings resonate with national trends he and colleagues track in their College Innovation Network research—notably, “the tension between the appeal of flexibility and the risks of isolation” for online learners.

    Fotuhi described what’s been called “the efficiency-belonging dilemma” as when online learning “meets students’ logistical needs, but often falls short on the emotional and relational dimensions of engagement.” Yet if online students (like those in our survey) aren’t demanding engagement in the form of study groups or professor familiarity, what do they want instead—or at least more acutely?

    Fotuhi’s answer: “From our work, we see strong signals that online learners benefit from institutionally scaffolded structures of connection.” These include:

    • Proactive nudges from advisers and coaches, especially those personalized to milestones or struggles
    • Peer mentorship or cohort-based models that operate virtually
    • Role clarity about where (and to whom) to go for academic, emotional and professional support

    Interventions to support students’ digital confidence may also be a “powerful, indirect lever for fostering belonging,” Fotuhi said. Same for virtual participation options for involvement as well as services “that mirror the convenience of their academic experience.” Think asynchronous orientation materials, online student organizations and virtual mentoring.

    Tony Bates, a now-retired online learning expert based in Canada, also highlighted the role of the classroom in promoting belonging in online learning, where there remains much variation in teaching methods: Course activities “are more likely to be the only way online students can bond with other students,” and the “online course environment needs to be designed to encourage such interactivity.”

    Moore, of the University of New Mexico, added that in online learning, students “look for and experience belonging through increased interactions with their fellow learners and their instructors, through seeing themselves represented in examples, cases and readings, and through access to support services and resources.”

    Similar to Fotuhi’s framework for an “ecology” of supports, Moore encouraged institutions to take an “ecosystems” approach to supporting online learners, beyond offering them mere access to courses. This can include health and wellness offerings, librarians who “make support feel more personal,” and career services that are “proactive.”

    When it comes to students’ attitudes toward high-stakes exams, Moore said the Student Voice data point to “continued overreliance on testing, especially high-stakes testing, as a primary assessment method.”

    Adult learners, in particular—many of whom are online learners—“are looking for learning that is relevant to their careers and futures,” she said. And in the realm of assessment, this “is facilitated by different instructional and assessment strategies than tests.”

    Bates argued that online learning “lends itself to continuous assessment,” or frequent, formative assessment, as it’s “much easier to track individual students’ progress through an online course,” where all their learning activities can be monitored and recorded.

    Moore said that shifting assessment away from high-stakes testing has some “added bonuses of increasing learner motivation, decreasing their stress—specifically the kind that might motivate some to cheat—and increasing their learning outcomes.”

    This report benefited from support from the Education Writers Association’s Diving Into Data program. We’re also gearing up for our 2025 Student Voice survey cycle. What would you like to know about student success, from a student’s perspective? Drop us a line here.

    Source link

  • What does our future workforce look like – and how are universities responding?

    What does our future workforce look like – and how are universities responding?

    • By Jamie Roberts, Policy Manager, and Aiste Viduolyte, PhD student intern at the Russell Group.

    To achieve the government’s ambitious aims of increasing growth and productivity, the UK will need a skilled workforce to match.

    All eight high-potential growth sectors identified by the government’s Industrial Strategy green paper will heavily rely on graduate skills – in particular the creative, digital and life sciences sectors, where over 70% of the workforce is made up of graduates. The government’s own forecasts show that the UK will need an additional 11 million graduates across the country by 2035, with 88% of new jobs being graduate-level.

    To meet these needs on both national and local levels, Russell Group universities are building on their existing partnerships with colleges, businesses and local authorities to make sure education remains as relevant and responsive as possible for graduates and employers alike. Our latest briefing paper, Local Partnerships to Deliver Skills, looks in more detail at the ways in which our universities collaborate with industry, local government and education providers.

    Here we explore three key characteristics of the UK future workforce – and how our universities are responding.

    1. Workers’ skills must keep pace with employers’ rapidly evolving needs

    The government is determined to get British business back to full health and has identified several growth-leading sectors in the Industrial Strategy green paper. These are likely to attract the most investment, but to generate productivity and deliver innovation, they will also need a workforce with the right set of skills – and these needs are evolving at speed.

    Not only will we need new graduates with the latest skills and knowledge, but also existing workers who can be upskilled and reskilled to make sure the workforce’s capabilities keep pace with rapidly changing technological developments and industry practices. This is why Russell Group universities partner with industry to shape course content, ensuring education and training are agile and responsive to each sector.

    Increasingly – now at 17 of our 24 universities – this includes degree apprenticeships, which give people opportunities to pivot or upskill at any stage of their career. Apprenticeships have become an essential pathway for delivering skills directly to industry at all levels, and almost 8,000 students enrolled on apprenticeships at Russell Group universities in 2023/24. At Queen’s University Belfast, for example, business partners such as PwC and construction firm Farrans are directly influencing apprenticeship course content and building talent streams in the areas where skills are most urgently needed, from digital software technology to civil engineering and building.

    More and more, this also means partnering with Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) which form the bedrock of the UK economy. At the University of Liverpool, the careers and employment service works with a network of local SMEs to support graduate recruitment and ensure that the university’s graduates are equipped not only with the specialist and technical know-how, but also essential soft skills to enhance what they can bring to local small businesses.

    2. Local workforces must meet each region’s specific needs, strengths and skills gaps

    Whether it’s fixing cold spots or supporting existing industry clusters, we can’t take a one-size-fits-all approach across the country. Local growth plans will be vital in shaping each region’s workforce needs.

    That’s why universities, as important anchor institutions in their towns, cities and regions, must be at the heart of these plans. Our members are already in active collaboration with local and combined authorities to research, understand and address local workforce needs – as part of City Deals, Civic University Agreements, or university involvement in local skills networks.

    In Manchester, the University has teamed up with Greater Manchester Combined Authority and four other regional university partners to develop the first ever city-region Civic University Agreement (GMCUA) in the UK. This model is transforming the relationship between the university sector and local government, allowing them to work together on mapping skills and opportunities, particularly in green skills, the creative sector, health and social care. Meanwhile in London, UCL’s partnership with the councils of Camden, Islington and Newham enables students to contribute to local research and policy, while granting residents access to data skills and literacy training to improve their employability and career prospects.

    3. Every workforce benefits from multiple educational pathways to build the best combination of skills and experience

    While growing the UK’s graduate workforce, it is important we remain cognisant of the wide variety of educational backgrounds and pathways in our communities, and maximise the strengths that different providers bring. We need to move toward a skills and education system that incentivises true collaboration. Partnerships between higher education and further education are invaluable and should acknowledge that further education colleges are not just feeder institutions. Building on existing collaboration will allow students the best of both worlds, while creating cohesive educational pathways that complement, rather than compete with each other.

    Through a mixture of academic and vocational training, our universities’ partnerships with our further education colleagues offer a broad range of expertise, which can support a variety of career options and cover the multitude of skills needed in each region.

    Working together makes sure we not only fulfil a broader range of skills and sectors but also support greater access to education for all. A co-ordinated system, where further and higher education are aligned, creates clearer pathways for people of all backgrounds and educational experiences to access higher-level qualifications. This generates more mechanisms by which we can upskill our workforce.

    A sustainable, highly skilled workforce is of course reliant on a stable, well-funded university system. which is one of the reasons the sector has been so keen to make government understand the scale and urgency of the financial challenges we’re facing. Simply put, the UK won’t have the right workforce to achieve its growth ambitions without considering the role of its universities.

    Source link

  • What does it mean if students think that AI is more intelligent than they are?

    What does it mean if students think that AI is more intelligent than they are?

    The past couple of years in higher education have been dominated by discussions of generative AI – how to detect it, how to prevent cheating, how to adapt assessment. But we are missing something more fundamental.

    AI isn’t just changing how students approach their work – it’s changing how they see themselves. If universities fail to address this, they risk producing graduates who lack both the knowledge and the confidence to succeed in employment and society. Consequently, the value of a higher education degree will diminish.

    In November, a first-year student asked me if ChatGPT could write their assignment. When I said no, they replied: “But AI is more intelligent than me.” That comment has stayed with me ever since.

    If students no longer trust their own ability to contribute to discussions or produce work of value, the implications stretch far beyond academic misconduct. Confidence is affecting motivation, resilience and self-belief, which, consequently, effects sense of community, assessment grades, and graduate skills.

    I have noticed that few discussions focus on the deeper psychological shift – students’ changing perceptions of their own intelligence and capability. This change is a key antecedent for the erosion of a sense of community, AI use in learning and assessment, and the underdevelopment of graduate skills.

    The erosion of a sense of community

    In 2015 when I began teaching, I would walk into a seminar room and find students talking to one another about how worried they were for the deadline, how boring the lecture was, or how many drinks they had Wednesday night. Yes, they would sit at the back, not always do the pre-reading, and go quiet for the first few weeks when I asked a question – but they were always happy to talk to one another.

    Fast forward to 2025, campus feels empty, and students come into class and sit alone. Even final years who have been together for three years, may sit with a “friend” but not really say anything as they stare at phones. I have a final year student who is achieving first class grades, but admitted he has not been in the library once this academic year and he barely knows anyone to talk to. This may not seem like a big thing, but it illustrates the lack of community and relationships that are formed at university. It is well known that peer-to-peer relationships are one of the biggest influencers on attendance and engagement. So when students fail to form networks, it is unsurprising that motivation declines.

    While professional services, student union, and support staff are continuously offering ways to improve the community, at a time where students are working longer hours and through a cost of living, we cannot expect students to attend extracurricular academic or non-academic activities. Therefore, timetabled lectures and seminars need to be at the heart of building relationships.

    AI in learning and assessment

    While marking first-year marketing assignments – a subject I’ve taught across multiple universities for a decade – I noticed a clear shift. Typically, I expect a broad range of marks, but this year, students clustered at two extremes: either very high or alarmingly low. The feedback was strikingly similar: “too vague,” “too descriptive,” “missing taught content.”

    I knew some of these students were engaged and capable in class, yet their assignments told a different story. I kept returning to that student’s remark and realised: the students who normally land in the middle – your solid 2:2 and 2:1 cohort – had turned to AI. Not necessarily to cheat, but because they lacked confidence in their own ability. They believed AI could articulate their ideas better than they could.

    The rapid integration of AI into education isn’t just changing what students do – it’s changing what they believe they can do. If students don’t think they can write as well as a machine, how can we expect them to take intellectual risks, engage critically, or develop the resilience needed for the workplace?

    Right now, universities are at a crossroads. We can either design assessments as if nothing has changed, pivot back to closed-book exams to preserve “authentic” academic work, or restructure assessment to empower students, build confidence, and provide something of real value to both learners and employers. Only the third option moves higher education forward.

    Deakin University’s Phillip Dawson has recently argued that we must ensure assessment measures what we actually intend to assess. His point resonated with me.

    AI is here to stay, and it can enhance learning and productivity. Instead of treating it primarily as a threat or retreating to closed-book exams, we need to ask: what do we really need to assess? For years, we have moved away from exams because they don’t reflect real-world skills or accurately measure understanding. That reasoning still holds, but the assessment landscape is shifting again. Instead of focusing on how students write about knowledge, we should be assessing how they apply it.

    Underdevelopment of graduate skills

    If we don’t rethink pedagogy and assessment, we risk producing graduates who are highly skilled at facilitating AI rather than using it as a tool for deeper analysis, problem-solving, and creativity. Employers are already telling us they need graduates who can analyse and interpret data, think critically to solve problems, communicate effectively, show resilience and adaptability, demonstrate emotional intelligence, and work collaboratively.

    But students can’t develop these skills if they don’t believe in their own ability.

    Right now, students are using AI tools for most activities, including online searching, proof reading, answering questions, generating examples, and even writing reflective pieces. I am confident that if I asked first years to write a two-minute speech about why they came to university, the majority would use AI in some way. There is no space – or incentive – for them to illustrate their skill development.

    This semester, I trialled a small intervention after getting fed up with looking at heads down in laptops. I asked my final year students to put laptops and phones on the floor for the first two hours of a four-hour workshop.

    At first, they were visibly uncomfortable – some looked panicked, others bored. But after ten minutes, something changed. They wrote more, spoke more confidently, and showed greater creativity. As soon as they returned to technology, their expressions became blank again. This isn’t about banning AI, but about ensuring students have fun learning and have space to be thinkers, rather than facilitators.

    Confidence-building

    If students’ lack of confidence is driving them to rely on AI to “play it safe”, we need to acknowledge the systemic problem. Confidence is an academic issue. Confidence underpins everything in the student’s experience: classroom engagement, sense of belonging, motivation, resilience, critical thinking, and, of course, assessment quality. Universities know this, investing in mentorship schemes, support services, and initiatives to foster belonging. But confidence-building cannot be left to professional services alone – it must be embedded into curriculum design and assessment.

    Don’t get me wrong, I am fully aware of the pressures of academic staff, and telling them to improve sense of community, assessment, and graduate skills feels like another time-consuming task. Universities need to recognise that without improving workload planning models to allow academics freedom to focus on and explore pedagogic approaches, we fall into the trap of devaluing the degree.

    In addition, universities want to stay relevant, they need agile structures that allow academics to test new approaches and respond quickly, just like the “real world”. Academics should not be creating or modifying assessments today that won’t be implemented for another 18 months. Policies designed to ensure quality must also ensure adaptability. Otherwise, higher education will always be playing catch-up – first with AI, then with whatever comes next.

    Will universities continue producing AI-dependent graduates, or will they equip students with the confidence to lead in an AI-driven world?

    Source link

  • So who says we don’t have post qualification admissions already?

    So who says we don’t have post qualification admissions already?

    In February 2022, then Secretary of State for Education Nadhim Zahawi told Parliament the Johnson government’s decision on post-qualification admissions.

    Clear as a welcome school bell, he stated “we will not be reforming the admissions system to a system of PQA at this time”.

    But who says that we don’t already have PQA?

    Admissions reform by stealth

    The “Decline My Place” button introduced by UCAS instead of Adjustment basically introduced PQA anyway. The only reason we haven’t noticed is that we were not, then, very focused on undergraduate home numbers. How things change.

    Let’s think about JCQ results day 2025. Let’s say I work at an institution in the Russell Group with good recruitment opportunities for UG home and some uncertainties (I enjoy understatement) about postgraduate international numbers. And let’s say I decide to make hundreds more spaces available than previously planned earlier in the cycle.

    But let’s also say that my colleagues further north, west and east do the same. I have a wonderfully smooth confirmation, accepting lots of well qualified and soon-to-be happy young people. I arrive on results day less stressed and tired than usual which is just as well because all hell breaks loose.

    From 8:00am until 1:00pm I am frantically confirming Clearing places and, I’m hitting refresh on our numbers forecast every 5 minutes. My blood pressure is rising as is my cake consumption (the renewable energy of choice for any self-respecting Admissions Office). I am desperately trying to work out if our gains are ahead of our losses.

    That’s because hundreds (more?) of our nurtured, valued and cultivated unconditional firm offer-holders have hit a button at UCAS and declined their place to go elsewhere. On top of this, for the first time in 2025, some who are still conditional have released themselves too. Fine, I hear you say – If you haven’t processed a decision you deserve to lose the student. But several of these students are still awaiting results (excluded from the requirement that Decline My Place is only for those with a complete set of Level 3 results).

    You may well ask where the problem is here.

    A better offer

    Well, these particular students are from schools and colleges where we have a partnership. Several have been on long-term aspiration-raising enrichment programmes with us for over two years. We have invested all we can in their (everyone must have one) journey. It’s just that they’ve had “a better offer”.

    This may be an offer from an institution in London where “our” student has been offered a big financial incentive, and which grew its Clearing intake from zero to 200 in two years. An offer from a delightful campus in the Midlands where “our” student will be very happy and which would not have been an option when only 45 Clearing places were available – but now there are 500. An offer from an exciting and vibrant institution in the north which can take “our” student for Economics – a real surprise as spaces are not often available for a subject like that, but then this university grew its Clearing intake from 200 to 885 over the last two cycles.

    These are all real examples from last year. Companies may well have to say that past performance is no guarantee of future results, but we wouldn’t select on the basis of predicted grades if it wasn’t to some degree – now would we?

    Personally I have always been in favour of PQA in theory. It is just that the jeopardy I enjoy about admissions doesn’t quite extend to the levels of uncertainty I predict for the few days after 14 August 2025. I wonder how many members of the UCAS Board and how many vice chancellors realise that there is, in a theoretical model that may very well be tested this summer, every possibility that every single firm accept that we have all secured, conditional or unconditional, melts on or before Results Day.

    They can all, with absolutely no controls (apart from a quick call to UCAS if you are still conditional) decline their place and go to the pub to celebrate “trading up”. If that isn’t PQA what is? I need another cake.

    Source link

  • HELU’s Wall-to-Wall and Coast-to-Coast Report – April 2025 (Higher Ed Labor United)

    HELU’s Wall-to-Wall and Coast-to-Coast Report – April 2025 (Higher Ed Labor United)

    April 2025 HELU Chair’s Message – May Day Strong

    From Levin Kim, HELU Chair
    Over the first 100 days of the Trump Administration, higher ed workers from coast to coast have been fighting back against attacks on critical lifesaving research, on immigrant workers, on education and research in the public interest. We’re in the fight of our lives, for our work, our communities, and our future. 

    Despite alarming news on the daily—from students and workers removed from our campuses, firings, program closures, government intervention in classroom curriculum, and brazen attacks on academic freedom—we refuse to be immobilised into inaction because we know a better world is possible if we fight for it. We’re standing up for the future of higher ed by building a wall-to-wall, coast-to-coast movement of workers ready to organize, to fight, and to win. Now is the time for coalition-building, for moving your coworkers to take action together, and getting out in the streets. Find and attend a May Day event near you tomorrow, and stay tuned for more ways to take action. 
     

    Source link

  • 2025 Social Media Playbook for Education Marketers

    2025 Social Media Playbook for Education Marketers

    Reading Time: 12 minutes

    The year is 2025, and the influence of a rapidly evolving social media space in shaping education marketing campaigns is as critical as ever. While it has undoubtedly brought up several opportunities for those in the picture, it has also thrown up a few challenges that require the right gears to navigate. The stats are quite interesting: An increasing number of Gen Z users now turn to TikTok and Instagram as search tools, often preferring them over Google for quick information and exploration. This simply means that having a social presence for your school is no longer open to debate, it is an absolute necessity.

    Today’s prospective students spend a lot of time browsing through multiple social media platforms. They make key decisions about their academic future based on what they see on these platforms. This is why an active social media presence is a key part of today’s educational marketing campaigns. However, beyond being active on these platforms, it takes a deliberate and strategic social marketing strategy to curate and create winning margins in this space.

    At Higher Education Marketing Agency, we have several years of experience helping schools navigate the social space, converting interest into enrollment, and producing positive outcomes for many schools. Our personal, tested, and tried social media playbook for education marketers combines insights from leading education marketing experts with real-world examples. This playbook is designed to help your institution not just survive but thrive in today’s digital ecosystem. Read on to find out how.

    Struggling with enrollment?

    Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!

    The New Social Landscape: Multiple Platforms, Multiple Touchpoints

    With social media evolving and becoming even more powerful, it is no longer a good idea to focus all your school’s attention on one platform. Today’s prospective students split most of their time among different platforms, and that’s why schools must be visible everywhere.

    Prospective students might discover your school through a friend’s TikTok, research your programs on Instagram, watch alumni testimonials on YouTube, and check what parents are saying about you on Facebook, all before visiting your website. Your presence on each of these social media platforms will offer you unique opportunities to engage with different audiences.

    Here’s a brief outline of the roles that different social media trends and platforms can play in your education marketing efforts.

    • Instagram: Great for visual storytelling, event promotions, and engaging reels showing student experiences.
    • TikTok: Ideal for short, fun, and informative content that drives brand awareness among younger audiences.
    • YouTube: The best place to show long-form videos, student testimonials, virtual tours, and other educational content.
    • Facebook: Essential for connecting with parents, alums, and local communities.
    • LinkedIn: Great for professional connections and showing academic credibility, targeting parents and graduate prospects.

    While having a presence across key platforms is essential, mastering the content formats that resonate most, particularly short-form video, has become equally critical.

    Example: John Cabot University offers virtual tours of its campuses, some of which you’ll find via its social media pages, YouTube, and straight off its website.

    HEM Image 2HEM Image 2

    Source: John Cabot University 

    Short-Form Video: The Undisputed Champion

    The influence of short-form video in shaping social media trends is at an all-time high today. Gen Z and Gen Alpha consume information fast, they don’t want to watch traditional ads or sit through long videos all day. Prospective students want to see what life at a school looks like in under 60 seconds.

    A large number of these students now turn to TikTok and its bite-sized videos for everything from study tips to campus tours. This is why things like TikTok and Instagram Reels have become key for student recruitment, school branding, and engagement.

    “Your goal is to freeze the thumb,” as one marketing expert puts it, creating content compelling enough to make someone stop scrolling. For best results, it is crucial to create educational short-form videos along these lines:

    • 1. Day-in-the-life glimpses: A student takes viewers through their campus routine
    • 2. Quick tips/educational snippets: A professor explaining a complex concept in 30 seconds
    • 3. Behind-the-scenes peeks: Showing areas of campus rarely seen on official tours
    • 4. Celebration moments: Capturing authentic reactions during events like graduation or move-in day
    • 5. “Did you know” facts about your institution’s unique features or history

    How can schools use short-form video to attract students? The key to creating winning short-form videos is to go for authenticity. Start by identifying what makes your institution stand out, whether it’s a unique program, a beloved campus tradition, or exceptional career outcomes. 

    You can then showcase these elements through quick, visually engaging stories highlighting your unique value proposition.

    The Authenticity Advantage: User-Generated Content

    The content created by your existing community is a powerful tool for building trust and driving engagement. User-generated content (UGC) from students, faculty, and alumni offers authentic perspectives as it comes from a real person, hence its effectiveness. Research shows that 84% of consumers trust UGC more than polished advertisements.

    How can we get user-generated content from students? One proven strategy in this line is to allow a student to manage your school’s Instagram Stories for a day, sharing their authentic campus experience. These glimpses into real student life help prospective students envision themselves at your institution in ways that traditional marketing cannot achieve.

    Here are some ways to incorporate UGC in your education marketing efforts:

    • Find your existing ambassadors: Search your school’s hashtags and location tags to find students already creating content about your institution. These natural enthusiasts often make the best collaborators.
    • Create participation opportunities: Develop challenges, contests, or hashtag campaigns encouraging content creation. For example, a “#MyFirstDayAt[YourSchool]” campaign can generate authentic content while welcoming new students.
    • Feature diverse voices: Ensure your UGC represents various perspectives, undergraduate and graduate students, international students, faculty members, alumni at different career stages, and parents.
    • Provide gentle guidance without controlling: When working with student content creators, provide general themes or questions but allow their authentic voice to shine through. Over-scripting defeats the purpose.
    • Amplify and appreciate contributors: Always credit creators when sharing their content and express genuine appreciation. This encourages continued participation while signaling to others that their contributions are valued.

    Example: Harvey Mudd College frequently posts user-generated content of its students on its social media pages, like this one featuring a day-in-the-life of a sophomore engineering student posted on TikTok.

    HEM Image 3HEM Image 3

    Source: HMC

    Social Media as Search Engines: Optimizing for Discoverability

    Today, social media platforms are increasingly taking on the role of search engines for young people. Two-thirds of Gen Z use social platforms to research topics, including potential schools. A teenager is more likely to find your school by watching videos and posts on TikTok or Instagram than by visiting your website or Googling the school. This brings us to Social SEO, a way to optimize your content to be discoverable via social media platform searches.

    What is social SEO, and why is it important? Social SEO is the practice of optimizing your content to be discoverable through social media platform search functions. It’s important because younger audiences now use platforms like TikTok and Instagram as search engines. Optimizing SEO for visibility on these platforms helps schools reach and engage prospective students where they’re already searching.

    Here are some key steps to improve your school’s visibility in social media searches:

    1. Profile optimization: Treat your social profiles like mini homepages. Use clear, keyword-rich descriptions, consistent branding, and up-to-date contact information across all platforms.
    2. Content that answers questions: Create videos and posts that address common queries, such as “What’s the student-faculty ratio at [Your School]?” or “What’s housing like at [Your School]?” These directly match what prospective students search for.
    3. Strategic hashtags and keywords: Research what terms and keywords your target audience uses when searching for educational content. Incorporate these naturally into your posts, captions, and hashtags.
    4. Geo-tagging: Always tag your location in posts. Many users search by location when researching schools in specific areas.
    5. Consistent posting: Regular activity signals relevance to algorithms, improving your visibility in search results.

    It is important to note that these social platforms have different search algorithms; a hashtag strategy that worked on Instagram may need to be adjusted for TikTok or LinkedIn. To make your school more discoverable, explore and learn what best practices apply to each platform and what topics drive current conversations.  

    Example: Randolph-Macon College frequently posts social media content featuring catchy headlines and hashtags, such as the one seen here promoting its athletics team, the Yellow Jackets.

    HEM Image 4HEM Image 4

    Source: Randolph Macon College

    Platform-Specific Strategies That Drive Results

    Although maintaining a presence across multiple social platforms is great, using a tailored approach for each one is even better. Here’s how you can leverage the strengths of major platforms.

    Facebook

    Often dismissed as an “older person” platform, Facebook continues to be key to reaching parents who double as key decision-makers for many prospective students. It is great for community building and event promotion. Here’s how to successfully use Facebook marketing for schools in your social marketing campaigns:

    • Use Facebook Events for open houses, application deadlines, and virtual info sessions
    • Create targeted ad campaigns using Facebook’s detailed demographic filters
    • Establish groups for admitted students or parents to foster community
    • Share longer-form content like student success stories and program highlights

    Instagram

    Instagram is a predominantly visually driven platform favored by people of different age groups. It is great at showcasing campus aesthetics and student experiences.

    • Post high-quality photos showcasing campus beauty and student life
    • Use Stories for day-in-the-life content, quick announcements, and behind-the-scenes glimpses
    • Create highlight collections for key topics (Admissions, Student Life, Athletics)
    • Utilize Reels for short-form video marketing
    • Leverage the Explore page for discovery by new audiences

    TikTok

    TikTok, the fast-growing epicenter of youth engagement and viral content, is important for reaching Gen Z. Some students now select schools based on how the schools will look on TikTok.

    • Create authentic, entertaining content that aligns with platform trends
    • Feature charismatic students or faculty who connect naturally with viewers
    • Participate in challenges relevant to education (with your institutional twist)
    • Use TikTok’s native editing tools and popular sounds to boost algorithm visibility
    • Don’t be afraid of humor and personality. TikTok rewards authenticity over polish

    YouTube

    YouTube for education favors long-form content and resources that can be searched.

    • Create structured playlists organized by topic (Campus Tours, Student Stories, etc.)
    • Produce both longer videos (3-10 minutes) and YouTube Shorts
    • Optimize video titles and descriptions with relevant keywords
    • Use cards and end screens to guide viewers to related content
    • Consider hosting live Q&A sessions during key decision periods

    LinkedIn

    LinkedIn is an underutilized tool that can help shape your education marketing. It is great for engaging parents, graduate prospects, and professionals.

    • Share thought leadership from faculty and administrators
    • Highlight alum success stories and career outcomes
    • Post about research innovations and academic achievements
    • Engage in industry conversations relevant to your programs
    • Encourage faculty and alumni to mention your institution in their profiles

    Example: The University of Connecticut regularly posts news about its recent graduates, alumni, and students on its LinkedIn page. The LinkedIn post below highlights the success of its recent graduates.

    HEM Image 5HEM Image 5

    Source: University of Connecticut

    Making Engagement Fun: The Gamification Advantage

    Education marketing should be serious and informative, but serious does not mean bland and uninspiring. This is where gamification comes in, for fun and engaging learning. With gamification, you incorporate game-like elements and interactive content into your school’s content, effectively turning passive scrolling into active participation. Here are some gamification content and approaches:

    • Instagram Story quizzes about campus facts or traditions
    • TikTok challenges that showcase student creativity
    • Digital scavenger hunts across your website and social platforms
    • “Day in the life” simulation content where viewers “choose their adventure”
    • Trivia contests showcasing interesting institutional facts

    Tapping Cultural Currents: Trends Worth Embracing

    Trends are the main driver of conversations across social media. Connecting your content to a broader cultural conversation can give your school more relevance in the social space. Follow these three trends to place your institution in a position of opportunity.

    • Nostalgia Marketing: For institutions with some history to draw from, using content that brings back some memories of the past can provoke nostalgic feelings and add value to social marketing campaigns. This is nostalgia marketing. For best results, share throwback campus photos, compare “then and now” scenes, or invite alumni to submit memories. This content typically generates high engagement and shares.
    • Values and Social Impact: Today’s students care deeply about the position their schools take on issues of social and environmental relevance. To leverage this situation, highlight your school’s sustainability initiatives, community service programs, or research contributions. Point students to recycling initiatives and green campus programs via your social media videos and blogs.
    • Wellness and Mental Health: Any content that addresses student well-being will resonate strongly with prospects and parents concerned about support systems. This is why you must ensure you share resources from your counseling center and feature student wellness initiatives in your content. Also, create content acknowledging the stresses of academic life and how your institution helps students manage them. A student testimonial about how a mentor or counselor helped them thrive can help humanize your brand, so consider it.

    Example: The University of Illinois runs a mental health and awareness program with a full complement of staff and resources committed to student and staff welfare on campus.

    HEM Image 6HEM Image 6

    Source: University of Illinois

    Be Data-Driven and Adaptive

    Successful social media marketing calls for consistency in learning and adaptation. Platform algorithms are subject to regular changes that affect content visibility and engagement. Here’s what you can do to stay visible and ahead of the curve:. 

    • Monitor metrics to identify which content types perform best
    • A/B test different formats and approaches
    • Stay alert to algorithm changes and platform updates
    • Focus on generating quality engagement (comments, shares)
    • Adopt new platform features early for visibility boosts
    • Use AI tools for social media marketing thoughtfully to enhance (not replace) your creativity

    From Likes to Links: Driving Website Conversions

    Although social engagement is key to positive brand building, it’s not the ultimate goal. That would be converting interest into action, from website visits to inquiries or applications.

    To effectively bridge the gap between interest and action, here are a few tips worth considering:

    • Optimize your social profiles: Link every platform you’re active on to relevant landing pages. Consider using “link in bio” tools that offer multiple destination options (Apply Now, Virtual Tour, Financial Aid, etc.).
    • Strategic calls to action: Not every post needs a CTA, but regularly include invitations to learn more, especially on high-interest content. For example, after sharing a student success story, add something like “Discover how you can follow in Sarah’s footsteps—check out our Business program (link in bio).”
    • Track and analyze traffic sources: Find out which social platforms and specific posts drive the most valuable traffic using resources like UTM parameters. With this information in hand, you can refine your strategy toward what converts.
    • Amplify high-performing content: When a post generates strong engagement organically, extend its reach to similar audiences by allocating an ad budget to it. By putting out content that resonates with your existing community, you can reach prospects who share similar interests and achieve the desired engagement result.
    • Align social and search strategies: While many prospects might discover your school on social media, they often go on to later search your name on Google. This is why you must ensure that your search engine marketing complements your social strategy for a seamless user journey.

    Building Your School’s Social Media Playbook 

    As social media continues to evolve and draw more prospective students, today’s schools have to target it with intentional and strategic content. The most successful education marketers approach social media as conversations with future students, current community members, parents, and alumni.

    The goal of these conversations goes beyond promoting your institution, it involves bringing its unique culture and value to life in ways that traditional marketing can not achieve. This is why schools must develop an effective social media marketing strategy that factors in all the essentials and adds some extras. While at it, remember a few things: authenticity resonates, visual content engages, and genuine connection converts.

    By embracing short-form video, leveraging user-generated content, optimizing for social search, and maintaining a strategic presence across platforms, you create multiple pathways for meaningful connection. Add gamification elements and cultural relevance, and you have a formula for visibility and genuine engagement that drives enrollment outcomes.

    See the full Webinar here:

    YouTube videoYouTube video

    Struggling with enrollment?

    Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Question: What is social SEO, and why is it important? 

    Answer: Social SEO is the practice of optimizing your content to be discoverable through social media platform search functions. It’s important because younger audiences now use platforms like TikTok and Instagram as search engines. Optimizing for visibility on these platforms helps schools reach and engage prospective students where they’re already searching.

    Question: How can we get user-generated content from students? 

    Answer: One proven strategy in this line is to allow a student to manage your school’s Instagram Stories for a day, sharing their authentic campus experience. These glimpses into real student life help prospective students envision themselves at your institution in ways that traditional marketing cannot achieve.

    Question: How can schools use short-form video to attract students? 

    Answer: The key to creating winning short-form videos is to go for authenticity. Start by identifying what makes your institution stand out, whether it’s a unique program, a beloved campus tradition, or exceptional career outcomes. 

    You can then showcase these elements through quick, visually engaging stories highlighting your unique value proposition.



    Source link