Almost a third of student complaints received by the National Student Ombudsman (NSO) in its first seven months were related to course changes and design, NSO First Assistant Ombudsman Sarah Bendall said.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
We know a lot about undergraduate student experience and how these students experience life at university, especially when it comes to considering a sense of belonging.
However, our understanding of the postgraduate student experience is arguably lacking compared to what we know about the experiences of their undergraduate counterparts.
Despite growing numbers and increasing strategic importance, postgraduate students remain largely invisible in both published research and institutional strategy.
As Katharine Hubbard recently pointed out on Wonkhe, despite the large and diverse postgraduate population within UK higher education institutions the equity of outcomes conversation rarely extends to consider postgraduates. Amid financial pressures, universities are increasingly market-driven, often prioritising initiatives that enhance the undergraduate experience. Yet, in 2023-24, UK institutions awarded more postgraduate qualifications than undergraduate ones, generating what was (in 2022-23) an estimated £1.7 billion in income. So why aren’t we paying more attention to how they experience university?
There is growing recognition that the postgraduate taught (PGT) student experience is qualitatively distinct from that of undergraduates. Postgraduate taught courses, often one-year-long Master’s degrees, attract students with varying motivations and expectations, who may also be facing challenges in pursuing their studies. For example, PGT students often face compressed timelines, intense academic demands and limited opportunities for social and academic integration due to the short duration of their courses. They often return to study after time in the workforce and may be juggling additional responsibilities such as paid work, caregiving or visa constraints alongside their studies.
A one-size-fits-all student support model applied to all taught students assumes some equivalence across the needs of undergraduate and postgraduate student cohorts, but we know that students are not homogenous. We need to approach the design and delivery of postgraduate courses without the assumptions that postgraduate students are inherently more autonomous or resilient as this can lead to a lack of tailored academic support, limited personal tutoring and underdeveloped community-building initiatives.
This neglect is particularly concerning given the strategic importance of PGT students to institutional and national agendas: the development of skilled employment sectors, and investment in the research pipeline (not to mention the role PGT fees play in supporting) institutional finances. Yet, as has been shown in recent Advance HE-led Postgraduate Taught Experience Surveys, without adequate support, many PGT students report feeling isolated, academically underprepared or unsupported in navigating career pathways post-graduation.
The past decade has seen a boom in research into the undergraduate student experience, but efforts to understand the experience of PGT students is evidently lagging behind. For every single peer-reviewed article published on how postgraduate students experience belonging, thirteen are published on undergraduates. As a sector, what should we do about this?
To address this imbalance, institutions need to recognise that postgraduate students are not undergraduate students; they have different expectations and therefore need to be responded to differently. Institutions need to stop trying to apply an undergraduate student experience lens to postgraduate student cohorts – let’s all look outside the lens.
And we need to stop making assumptions about our postgraduate students and ask better questions. Who are our postgraduate students? How many are alumni? How many commute? How is information like this being used to shape the welcome and induction offering that is given to these students? This is all central to fully understanding the challenge.
There is also a need to think about how information about specific postgraduate cohorts is being disseminated to the staff involved in teaching and supporting these cohorts? Our own surveys of PGT students have identified multiple examples of international students who have spent weeks navigating unfamiliar academic cultures and trying to decipher the “hidden curriculum” of academia.
An example from one institution highlighted multiple international students believing that the institutional virtual learning environment “Blackboard” that they often heard being referred to, was an actual chalk-based blackboard that everyone else knew where it was located, except for them. That is not a failure of the students but of communication with them.
Higher education institutions need to ensure that students experiencing the compressed timescales that many PGT students face, being enrolled on a year-long course, are still able to access equitable opportunities for student support, personal and professional development and career services. Lengthy wait times, drawn-out applications or referral processes are unlikely to meet the needs of students enrolled on the intensive and relatively short courses which reflect many PGT programmes. Postgraduate students still need the wrap around support that undergraduate students need!
Postgraduate students are so much more than an extension of the undergraduate community. They are purposeful, motivated and diverse and form a vital component of the academic community. We need to ensure that we, as an academic community, are not taking our eyes off this crucial population of students who are essential both for the success of individual institutions and the wider sector as a whole.
Like many university presidents in recent months, Alivisatos pointed to the past eight months of policy disruption under the Trump administration as having “created multiple and significant new uncertainties and strong downward pressure on our finances.”
In that environment, “steps ahead have become much steeper in the face of proximate challenges,” Alivisatos said in a message to staff.
University of Chicago already faced financial pressure from rising expenses before the year began. In fiscal 2024, the institution reported a $193.7 million operating deficit — even as its revenue grew. That shortfall represented an improvement from the year before, when it posted a $201.7 million deficit.
“Despite important progress that all of you worked so hard to contribute to over the last two years, our annual income still falls short of our expenses,” Alivisatos said in a message to faculty. “That is not something that we can allow to persist.”
The university is taking a kitchen sink approach to its budget, reducing spending in multiple areas while also trying to ensure its core operations and services remain strong. But employee compensation remains the university’s largest expense and a major area for cutting.
University of Chicago Provost Katherine Baicker noted Thursday that the latest round of budget cuts will build on previous institutional efforts to reduce costs, which included voluntary retirements, layoffs and hiring freezes.
The staffing cuts will be tied to specific activities and programs that the institution plans to end, rather than an across-the-board cut, the university said in a FAQ on the operational restructuring.
“The aim is to do fewer things well, rather than doing the same things with fewer people,” it said.
The university is not planning any faculty cuts, instead opting to maintain the current number after past years of growth.
However, the University of Chicago will pause Ph.D. enrollment of 19 programs for the 2026-27 academic year — nearly all of them in the liberal arts and humanities, including anthropology, political economics, English, theater, art history and public policy. The move has garnered national attention amid concerns the reduction could harm the academic landscape at the university and beyond.
The University of Chicago is also rethinking its approach to campus construction. The institution can no longer afford to build primarily via debt financing, and newly established rules require philanthropic or other external support for building projects before starting them, according to Alivisatos. The university has “substantially” scaled down plans for a new engineering and science building, Alivisatos said.
House Republicans on Monday proposed a 15% cut to the U.S. Department of Education’s budget for the 2026 fiscal year, in line with President Donald Trump’s own plan to deeply reduce funding to the agency.
The plan would advance several of Trump’s key budget proposals, including deep cuts to the Education Department and certain federal student aid programs. However, the plan would reject some of the Trump administration’s proposals, including by preserving the maximum Pell Grant at $7,395.
House lawmakers will need to eventually square their proposals with the Senate, which is considering a different proposal that would largely maintain the Education Department’s current level of discretionary funding. Lawmakers face a government shutdown if they don’t fund the government or pass a stopgap budget measure by Oct. 1.
The House Appropriations Committee’s education subcommittee will mark up the proposal Tuesday evening. Robert Aderholt, an Alabama Republican who chairs the subcommittee, framed the proposal as being in line with the priorities of the Trump administration. Trump has pitched deep spending cuts at the Education Department with the ultimate goal of closing the agency.
“Even last year, we were dedicated to getting government spending under control,” Aderholt said in a Monday statement. “But now, it’s particularly encouraging to have a partner in the White House that shares this commitment.”
The House panel’s plan would reduce funding for the Education Department to $67 billion. That’s in line with Trump’s own budget proposal, which critics argued would reduce access to college.
Like Trump’s proposal, the House plan would eliminate all funding for the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant program, according to committee Democrats, who have slammed the proposal. FSEOG, which provides need-based financial aid to undergraduate students, was allocated $910 million in fiscal 2025.
It would similarly make deep cuts to the Federal Work-Study program, which provides part-time jobs to college students who demonstrate sufficient financial need. The federal government currently pays up to 75% of students’ wages, while employers pay the remainder.
The plan would reduce funding to the program to $779 million, $451 million less than 2025 levels, according to committee Democrats. The Trump administration has proposed even deeper cuts, calling for the program to receive only $250 million in the 2026 fiscal year.
The House Appropriations Committee’s plan would also embrace Trump’s proposal to cut funding to the Office for Civil Rights, which investigates discrimination, harassment and sexual violence complaints on college campuses. Under the proposal, OCR would receive $91 million, a decrease of $49 million.
And it would zero out funding for several grant and fellowship programs administered by the Education Department, including those that support teacher preparation, campus-based childcare for students and foreign language instruction.
However, House Republicans rejected some of the Trump administration’s proposals. For instance, the plan would preserve the maximum Pell Grant, in contrast with the White House’s plan to reduce it by roughly 23% to $5,710.
The plan would also keep funding level for TRIO and Gear Up, two programs that help low-income and other disadvantaged students prepare for and complete college. Trump has proposed eliminating the nearly $1.6 billion in funding allocated for TRIO and Gear Up in fiscal 2025, raising concerns from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.
The House Appropriations Committee would also cut funding to the National Institutes of Health. It would allocate $47.8 billion to the agency, a $456 million drop from 2025 levels, according to committee Democrats. Trump’s plan, in contrast, called for a nearly $18 billion funding reduction to the agency.
Additionally, the plan seeks to rename Workforce Pell Grants, which will provide funding for programs as short as eight weeks, following Republicans’ recent passage of a massive domestic policy bill. Under the proposal, the awards would be renamed Trump Grants “to reflect the President’s commitment to growing the American workforce and expanding opportunities for American workers,” according to a bill summary.
The Senate Appropriations Committee advanced its own budget proposal in July. It would keep funding largely level for the Education Department at $79 billion for fiscal 2026.
That would include maintaining funding levels for TRIO, Gear Up, Federal Work-Study and FSEOG. It would also maintain OCR’s current funding level and provide support for teacher preparation grants.
The Higher Education Inquirer continues to attract readers with investigations into corruption, scandal, and the financial burdens placed on students and families. This week’s most-read articles reflect a strong interest in for-profit institutions, university leadership controversies, and the growing student loan crisis.
Higher ed marketing is changing faster than ever.
From generative AI to shifting student expectations, higher ed marketing in 2025 is a whole new game. And institutions that fail to adapt risk falling behind.
The past few years have brought seismic shifts to the way colleges and universities connect with prospective students. From AI-driven search to heightened public scrutiny of higher education’s value, the marketing landscape looks very different than it did even three years ago.
Institutions now operate in an environment where:
The good news? These changes also open new opportunities for colleges and universities to stand out with authentic storytelling, data-driven strategies, and student-centered engagement.
Keep reading to discover five of the most important higher education marketing trends in today’s landscape — and how institutions can adapt to thrive in this new era.
Before diving into the specifics, it’s important to recognize that these strategies build on one another to reflect today’s most pressing challenges and opportunities in higher ed marketing.
Here’s a closer look at the strategies every institution should be considering today:
Generative AI is redefining how prospective students find information. Zero-click searches — where answers appear directly in AI Overviews like Google’s AI-generated summaries or conversational search tools — now account for the majority of queries. That’s a paradigm shift for higher ed marketing.
Organic traffic has dropped dramatically, in some cases by more than 30%. But while volume is down, conversion rates are rising, as the students who do land on institutional websites are more informed and further along in their decision-making.
Strategic response
To adapt, institutions must embrace Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) and Generative Engine Optimization (GEO). This means:
This is no longer just an SEO shift. It’s a cornerstone of higher education marketing strategy for 2025 and beyond.
AI is now embedded in higher ed marketing workflows, helping generate campaign ideas, personalize messaging, and predict outcomes. But the real competitive edge comes when AI enhances, not replaces, human creativity.
Approach for higher education marketing teams
This approach delivers efficiency while preserving empathy — critical when communicating complex outcomes like institutional ROI or program value. This balance is what separates innovative higher education marketing trends from short-lived tactics.
Public skepticism about the value of higher education is rising. Families are asking: Is the investment worth it? What outcomes can we expect? With the demographic cliff looming, institutions must double down on proving their value.
Strategic levers for higher ed marketing
Trust is now a competitive differentiator. Institutions that clearly communicate value, ROI, and outcomes position themselves for long-term success in a skeptical environment.
Higher education marketing strategy can no longer stop at the inquiry. The student journey is long, nonlinear, and filled with digital touchpoints that extend well past enrollment.
How to approach it
Success isn’t always about clicks or form fills. Sometimes the goal is reassurance, engagement, or retention. Adopting lifecycle-based KPIs ensures institutions are measuring what truly matters.
Bot traffic is a growing challenge for institutions. Automated hits can inflate website visits, distort engagement metrics, and ultimately mislead decision-makers about which campaigns are working. When analytics are clouded by non-human activity, institutions risk allocating resources to the wrong strategies and missing opportunities to connect with real prospective students.
Best practices for higher ed marketing teams
Clean data leads to better decisions and in higher education marketing, clarity is non-negotiable.
The most effective higher education marketing strategies today are those that combine technology with authenticity. AI search and personalization will continue to evolve, but the fundamentals remain constant: institutions must build trust, deliver value, and guide students throughout their entire lifecycle.
Collegis Education partners with institutions to design and deliver data-enabled marketing strategies that drive enrollment, build trust, and support student success. Let’s talk about what that could look like for your campus.
Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.
Title: 2025 U.S. Student Wellbeing Survey
Source: Studiosity in partnership with YouGov
The higher education landscape is undergoing a profound transformation shaped by rapid technological advancements and shifting student expectations. The 2025 U.S. Student Wellbeing Survey, conducted by Studiosity in partnership with YouGov, offers in-depth insights into student behavior, particularly their growing reliance on AI tools for academic support.
The report states that 82 percent of U.S. students have used AI for assignments or study tasks. This trend is even more pronounced among international students, with 40 percent reporting regular AI use compared with 24 percent of domestic students. The findings make clear: AI is no longer emerging—it’s central to the student academic experience.
While student use of AI is high, only 58 percent of respondents feel their universities are adapting quickly enough to provide institution-approved AI tools, a figure that shows minimal improvement from 2024 (57 percent). Furthermore, 55 percent of students now expect their institution to provide AI support, reflecting shifting priorities among students. This year, “confidence” overtook “speed” as the main reason students prefer institution-provided AI tools, underscoring the demand for reliable and ethical solutions.
The data also highlight heightened stress levels linked to AI use, with 66 percent of students reporting some level of anxiety about incorporating AI into their studies. Students voiced concerns about academic integrity, accidental plagiarism, and cognitive offloading. One student said, “AI tools usually need a well-detailed prompt. Most times AI gets outdated data. Most importantly, the more reliable AI tools require payment, which makes things unnecessarily hard.” This highlights an equity issue in AI use, as some students reported paying for a premium AI tool to get better results. Those experiencing constant academic stress were more likely to report regular AI use, suggesting a need for support systems that integrate human connection with technological assistance.
The research emphasizes actionable strategies for universities:
As students navigate an increasingly AI-driven academic environment, universities must step into a leadership role. Providing ethical, institution-approved AI tools isn’t just about keeping pace with technology; it’s about safeguarding learning, reducing stress, and fostering confidence in academic outcomes. The 2025 survey makes one thing clear: students are ready for universities to meet them where they are in their AI use, but they are asking for guidance and assurance in doing so.
To download a copy of the USA report, click here. For global reports and surveys, including cross-institutional meta-analyses and educator surveys, click here.
If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.
Having failed to complete deals to sell the troubled giant for-profit University of Phoenix to major state universities in Arkansas and Idaho — after people in those states got cold feet — the school’s owner, private equity behemoth Apollo Global Management, just before the holiday weekend announced an initial public offering for the school.
Phoenix’s parent company had been publicly traded until AGM and two other firms took the company private in 2017. Now they have gone back to Wall Street to re-sell the school to investors.
But should investors want to buy this operation? The presence of the heavily-advertised University of Phoenix in the college market has been bad for U.S. students, taxpayers, and the economy, because it has led many students to enroll in a school that often deceives people, and often leaves students with heavy debts and without the careers they sought — when they could be using taxpayer support and their own money to enroll in better value programs.
Moral and macro-economic concerns aside, it’s not even clear that buying Phoenix will be good for investor bottom lines.
The University of Phoenix, which has received tens of billions from federal taxpayers for student grants and loans — at times more than $2 billion in a single year — has faced numerous law enforcement investigations and actions for its deceptive recruiting of veterans, military service members, and other students across the country.
Most notably, in 2019, Phoenix reached a record $191 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, which claimed the school had lured students with false claims about partnerships with major employers. Phoenix ran ads falsely indicating that the school had deals with companies including AT&T, Yahoo!, Microsoft, Twitter, and the American Red Cross to create job opportunities for its students and tailor school programs for such jobs, when that was not the case. The deceptive claim went to the heart of prospective students’ motivations for enrolling. Andrew Smith, then the Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said at the time of the agreement, “Students making important decisions about their education need the facts, not fantasy job opportunities that do not exist.”
And last year California’s attorney general reached a settlement with Phoenix to resolve allegations that the school’s aggressive recruitment tactics directed at military students violated consumer protection laws.
The now almost entirely online school did a two-year dance with the University of Idaho that drew immense criticism from lawmakers, executive branch officials, newspaper editorial boards, and others in that state before the deal was finally called off in June.
Bloomberg reported earlier this year that an IPO might value the University of Phoenix operation, which had $810 million in revenue for 2023-24 (81 percent of that from federal taxpayer dollars), at $1.5 billion to $1.7 billion. And the new Trump administration has signaled in multiple ways that it is reducing protections for students against predatory college abuses, a development that may make investors more willing to buy a piece of a school like Phoenix.
But new federal legislation requires schools to provide some financial value for students. Also, state attorneys general, who have curbed and even slayed a number of for-profit giants over a decade, are watching; the media understands this issue, as it did not in the last wild west era fifteen years ago; and more potential students are wary after a generation of abuses.
So it may end up being much tougher to thrive in the predatory college business than some might think.
If you have descriptions you are willing to share, please use this form to submit them for consideration. Thank you for helping us build this valuable resource.
The post Job Description Form appeared first on CUPA-HR.
Insights from three post-COVID presidents on enrollment, financial sustainability, and strategic innovation
September 3, 2025, by Dean Hoke: Small colleges across America face an unprecedented convergence of challenges—demographic shifts, federal policy changes, evolving student expectations, and the lingering effects of COVID-19. In an August 27th Small College America webinar hosted by Dean Hoke and Kent Barnds, three presidents shared how they are navigating these pressures with fresh strategies and resilient leadership: Dr. Anita Gustafson of Presbyterian College, Dr. Andrea Talentino of Augustana College, and Dr. Tarek Sobh of Lawrence Technological University.
Their conversation revealed that while the obstacles are significant, thoughtful leadership and adaptive strategies can position small colleges to not just survive but thrive.
The Enrollment and Financial Sustainability Imperative
Finding Opportunity in Transfers
For Presbyterian College, located in growing South Carolina, President Gustafson has found opportunity amid challenge. “About 60% of our students come from South Carolina, and the state is growing, which helps us,” she noted. However, rather than relying solely on traditional recruitment, the college has pivoted to focus on transfer students—a population they hadn’t previously targeted.
This strategic shift required significant cultural change. “We have very robust general education requirements, and we are working with our faculty to be more transfer-friendly,” Gustafson explained. The result has been a notable enrollment bump, demonstrating how institutional flexibility can open new pathways to growth.
The Four R’s Framework
At Augustana College in Illinois—a state that isn’t growing—President Talentino has developed what she calls the “four R’s” approach: recruitment, retention, revenue, and results. This framework drives their strategic planning and helps the entire campus community understand how their work connects to institutional sustainability.
“We budget actually 11 years out,” Talentino shared, acknowledging that “it’s a little bit like the weather—once you get past day three or four, it could rain when it’s supposed to be sunny.” This long-term perspective allows the college to anticipate challenges and make gradual adjustments rather than reactive cuts.
Both presidents emphasize conservative budgeting practices. As Gustafson put it: “When we build our budget, we build it on conservative numbers so that we’re not trying to overextend our budget. I think that’s really key to sustainability—making sure you’re being realistic.”
Confronting Federal Policy and International Student Challenges
The STEM Advantage and Vulnerability
Lawrence Technological University’s focus on STEM education has provided both advantages and vulnerabilities in the current environment. President Sobh noted that domestic demand for technologically trained professionals has driven significant interest in their programs. “Our programming, given the surge and the need for technological education, has been serving us well from a domestic growth point of view,” he explained.
However, like many engineering-focused institutions, Lawrence Tech has experienced a decline in international student enrollment. Sobh emphasized that this challenge extends beyond individual institutions: “The same statement would probably be true of every single one of the universities in the country that is home to a college of engineering.”
International Student Success Stories
Despite broader challenges, Augustana College achieved remarkable success with international student recruitment. President Talentino reported that they expect to bring in close to 85% of their original international student goal, “probably one of the few places in the country where we’re going to come that close.”
This success resulted from intensive, hands-on communication and their focus on undergraduate rather than graduate international students, who faced fewer visa complications. About 20% of Augustana’s student body consists of international students, making this achievement particularly significant for their financial sustainability.
Managing Financial Aid Changes
The recent changes to federal financial aid programs have created additional complexity. Talentino noted that Augustana has some protection through a generous alumnus who funds a program meeting 100% of the needs of high-achieving, high-need students. However, she acknowledged ongoing challenges: “There’s a lot of folks in the middle where parent loans are being squeezed and caps on borrowing are being squeezed.”
Strategic Technology Investment and AI Integration
The Liberal Arts Approach to AI
President Gustafson acknowledged the challenge of staying current with AI developments at a liberal arts institution. Presbyterian College has taken a pragmatic approach, partnering with external agencies for micro-credentialing programs that will eventually extend to alumni.
“Our graduates need to understand AI. They need to know how to use it in order to be competitive in the job market,” Gustafson emphasized. The college has also established a technology committee with campus-wide representation to develop long-term budgeting strategies for technology infrastructure.
AI as an Institutional Efficiency Tool
At Lawrence Tech, President Sobh described AI integration as both natural and transformative. Beyond curriculum integration, the university has embraced AI for business processes. “Our marketing, branding, and public relations departments are using AI for the development of marketing campaigns, which is 100 times more efficient, faster, cheaper, and more productive than not using AI,” he noted.
This efficiency extends across departments, from budget management to communications, though Sobh acknowledged that implementation remains “work in progress” for non-academic staff who need training and support.
Evolving Student Experience and Support
Becoming “Student Ready”
President Talentino introduced the concept of institutions becoming “student ready” rather than expecting students to be “college ready.” This perspective shift has driven comprehensive changes at Augustana, from streamlining onboarding processes to reconsidering when and how students want to engage with services.
“We can’t take things that we used to take for granted,” Talentino observed, noting that students today have different expectations and needs than previous generations. The college has revamped peer mentor programs, developed success teams for every student, and created specialized support centers like their new STEM center.
Supporting First-Generation Students
Presbyterian College’s focus on first-generation students—about one-third of its population—has led to innovative programming. Their “PresbyFirst Plus” program brings first-gen students to campus two days early and has earned recognition as a “first-gen forward network champion.”
This targeted support reflects broader changes in student demographics. As Gustafson noted: “Students of today don’t have the reading skills and the math skills that previous generations have had.” This reality has required faculty to adapt their approaches, sometimes focusing on foundational skills before advancing to advanced content.
Bold Strategic Moves
Creating New Academic Pathways
Lawrence Tech’s establishment of a fifth college—the College of Health Sciences—represents a significant strategic pivot for the 95-year-old institution. “It was quite a bold move to establish a new college 50 years or so after the last one had been established,” President Sobh noted.
This expansion into health sciences aligns with the growing demand for technologically trained healthcare professionals. The college now offers programs in nursing, physician assistant studies, and cardiovascular perfusion, and more programs are planned.
Community Development as Institutional Strategy
Perhaps the most innovative approach comes from Augustana College’s creation of a community development corporation (CDC). President Talentino explained that the condition of the surrounding neighborhood had become a recruiting challenge, with prospective students and families expressing concerns about the area.
Rather than simply hoping for external improvement, Augustana committed to an active partnership with the city of Rock Island. The CDC purchases and renovates properties to create mixed-use developments with retail on the first floor and housing above. “We really committed to putting our money where our mouth is,” Talentino said.
This initiative aligns with Lutheran principles of service to neighbor while addressing a practical institutional need. The city has become an enthusiastic partner, and the project has energized both campus and community.
Leadership Principles for Uncertain Times
Transparency and Partnership
President Gustafson’s leadership philosophy centers on transparency and symbiotic relationships. Her first-year theme, “Symbiosis—stronger together,” emphasized that the academic community functions best when operating collaboratively rather than in silos.
Her second-year pivot to “don’t panic, navigate”—borrowed from the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities—has helped the leadership team manage multiple simultaneous challenges. This approach emphasizes thoughtful response over reactive decision-making.
Cultural Understanding and Patience
President Sobh, who transitioned from provost to president at the same institution, emphasized the importance of cultural understanding. Despite the temptation to implement changes quickly, he spent his first semester meeting with every colleague on campus—”literally hundreds” of people—to understand institutional culture and aspirations.
“The tendency of leaders to effect changes immediately is, in my opinion, the wrong decision,” Sobh reflected. “Waiting and listening to the culture of the institution, understanding the aspiration and history, and how my own interests can be integrated into that vision is absolutely worthwhile.”
Institutional vs. Individual Focus
President Talentino identified a key leadership challenge: helping people understand institutional needs beyond their individual or departmental perspectives. She noted that this represents one of her biggest adjustments from faculty and provost roles to the presidency.
“Focus on self and focus on own department rather than institutional-wide awareness was a little bit of a surprise to me,” she admitted, “but I guess that’s what makes it challenging and never boring.”
The Value Proposition Message
All three presidents emphasized the importance of clearly articulating their institutions’ value propositions to various constituencies. President Sobh stressed the power of concrete outcomes: “Being able to say 97% of my students continue on and are employed at this level and they are guaranteed a job and 85% live locally—that’s an incredibly powerful statement.”
President Gustafson focused on framing liberal arts education in terms of workforce development and democratic leadership: “All of us are important contributors to workforce development. If we can shape our message around workforce development, economic development, and providing leaders for a democratic society, that’s very helpful.”
Looking Forward
These three presidents demonstrate that successful leadership during uncertain times requires a combination of strategic thinking, cultural sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Their approaches vary based on institutional type and regional context, but common themes emerge: the importance of transparency, the need for long-term planning with short-term flexibility, and the value of viewing challenges as opportunities for innovation.
As small colleges continue to navigate demographic shifts, policy changes, and evolving student needs, these leadership insights offer practical guidance for presidents, boards, and stakeholders committed to the distinctive mission of small college education.
The conversation reveals that while the challenges facing small colleges are significant, innovative leadership and strategic adaptation can position these institutions not just to survive, but to thrive in serving their communities and students.
The complete webinar is available on the Small College America YouTube Channel at https://youtu.be/ya1FBu9eS5Q, and the audio podcast can be accessed at https://smallcollegeamerica.transistor.fm/19
Small College America is a podcast series that presents critical discussions at the forefront by interviewing small college higher education leaders, policy experts, and innovators. The podcast will delve into the evolving role of small colleges, their economic impact, innovative strategies for sustainability, and how they can continue to provide a highly personalized educational experience. The series is co-hosted by Dean Hoke and Kent Barnds.
