This blog was kindly authored by Professor Adrian Wright, Martin Lowe, Dr Mark Wilding and Mary Lawler from the University of Lancashire, authors of Student Working Lives (HEPI report 195).
The cost‑of‑living crisis has reshaped the student experience, but its effects are not felt evenly. For example, commuter and non‑commuter students encounter these pressures differently. The Student Working Lives (HEPI Report 195) project highlights these contrasts, revealing different needs and constraints. We ask a practical question: How can universities support both groups?
The commuter paradox
Commuter students face distinct time pressures, undertaking more paid work and travel per week on average and spending the same amount studying as their non-commuting counterparts.
Table 1: Workload including travel for commuter and non-commuter studentsTable 2: Hours of paid work versus average grade of commuter and non-commuter studentsTable 3: Hours of paid work versus average attendance of commuter and non-commuter students
Despite attending fewer classes, commuters achieved stronger academic results, although for both groups, performance declined once working hours exceeded 10. This suggests that while commuters generally outperform their peers, both groups are susceptible to the effects of increased working hours.
Table 4: Job quality for commuter and non-commuter students
Our research shows that students in higher‑quality work were 20% more likely to achieve stronger academic results, highlighting work experience as a potential lever for improving academic success. We found non-commuters experience marginally tougher conditions. New data shows this extends to stress, anxiety or depression caused by or made worse by work (+5%) and under casual and zero-hour contracts (+4%), while commuters report better access to staff development (+12.2) and career guidance (+ 7.5).
Our data shows disadvantages for both groups, but neither is homogeneous. Background, proximity to campus, work, and institution, also shape their likelihood of success. This is not a simple categorisation; both groups need attention and support to address their specific needs.
Recommendations
Condense and make timetables consistent
Uneven and variable timetabling increases travel costs and can threaten engagement. Universities should condense timetables and offer dedicated campus days to enable students to access support and social opportunities. Publishing schedules in advance helps all students, particularly those with existing work or caring responsibilities, organise regular shift patterns around their studies. Although often framed as a commuter issue, a focused timetable improves belonging for all students.
Consider what matters for students in their context
While further categorisation of student groups may be useful in national policy making, the complexities of each group call for more understanding of what factors are most important in a student’s context, (including work, proximity to university, household type, mode of travel etc.)
Reposition careers services to improve student employment
Universities should rebalance careers services and strengthen regional employer partnerships to expand access to meaningful and fair paid work. This would align student jobs with local skills needs that boost regional growth and graduate retention. Embedding support for workplace rights and expectations ensures all students can participate safely and confidently in the workforce during their studies, better preparing them for graduate roles in the future.
Introduce curriculum interventions to utilise paid work experiences
Credit-bearing paid work interventions support students by aligning existing work commitments with graduate attributes while reducing the need for additional in‑class time, balancing overstretched workloads. By formally valuing paid work and guiding students to articulate these competencies, institutions can help all students use employment as a meaningful part of their university journey, strengthening employability and long‑term prospects.
Conclusion
The findings are nuanced, however, across all groups, one thing is certain: students need paid work. The sector’s role is to ensure that employment supports rather than hinders learning by easing financial and time pressures, improving job quality, and strengthening the connection between work and study.
Google Analytics 4 (GA4) has reshaped how colleges and universities track prospective student behaviour online. With the retirement of Universal Analytics (UA) in 2023, GA4 is now the default analytics platform, and for many higher ed marketers, the transition has been disorienting. Gone are the familiar sessions and pageviews; in their place is an event-based model, a redesigned interface, and new metrics that require a shift in thinking.
But while the learning curve is real, so are the opportunities. GA4 offers deeper insights into student intent, behaviour, and engagement, insights that, when used effectively, can support measurable enrollment growth.
This guide breaks down GA4 in a practical, approachable way. We’ll walk through how to use its core features at each stage of the student recruitment funnel: Discovery, Engagement, Decision-Making, and Enrollment. You’ll learn which reports matter, which metrics to ignore, and how to use GA4’s exploration tools to uncover new conversion opportunities. Throughout, we’ll also highlight how Higher Education Marketing (HEM) can help you make the most of GA4, from free audits to CRM integration support.
Let’s start by shifting our perspective on what analytics can do, and then dive into how GA4 can support every phase of your student journey.
GA4 unlocks powerful enrolment insights.
Turn student journey data into smarter recruitment decisions with HEM.
GA4’s Event-Based Mindset vs. Universal Analytics
The most significant shift from Universal Analytics (UA) to Google Analytics 4 (GA4) is the underlying measurement model. UA was centred on sessions and pageviews, essentially counting a sequence of “hits” during a user’s visit. GA4, by contrast, is entirely event-based. Every interaction, whether it’s a pageview, a button click, a form submission, or a video play, is captured as an event. This model allows for a more flexible, granular view of user behaviour across devices and platforms, reflecting the idea that “everything is an event that signals user intent.”
What makes GA4 different from Universal Analytics for higher ed marketers? Higher ed marketers accustomed to UA’s pageviews and sessions are now confronted with a new event-based model, a slew of unfamiliar reports, and an interface that looks nothing like the old Google Analytics. GA4 offers richer insights into student behaviour and intent, which can directly fuel enrollment growth.
Crucially, GA4 is built for today’s privacy-first, multi-device world. It can track a single user’s journey across devices using User IDs or Google Signals and relies less on cookies, instead using machine learning to fill in data gaps, helping you stay compliant with emerging privacy standards.
For higher ed marketers, this opens up richer insight into the prospective student journey. GA4 for student recruitment automatically tracks many common interactions (like scrolls and file downloads) and lets you define custom events aligned to your goals.
New metrics also reflect this shift. Engagement Rate replaces bounce rate, highlighting sessions that last 10+ seconds, include 2+ pageviews, or trigger a conversion. Other core metrics include Engaged Sessions per User and Average Engagement Time, which are helpful indicators of whether your content holds attention or needs refinement.
GA4 also brings predictive capabilities. With built-in machine learning, it can surface emerging trends or flag anomalies in student behaviour. While some advanced features like Predictive Metrics may feel out of reach initially, knowing they exist helps future-proof your analytics approach.
It’s true, GA4 isn’t just an upgrade, it’s an entirely new platform. Many familiar reports have been retired or redesigned, and the interface now favours customizable dashboards over static reports. But don’t let the overhaul overwhelm you.
The key is to focus on the metrics that support your enrollment goals. In the next section, we’ll show how GA4’s event-based model aligns with each stage of the student journey, from first visit to application.
If you need support getting started, HEM offers a free GA4 audit to help identify top-performing lead sources, evaluate your marketing ROI, and ensure your setup is recruitment-ready.
Mapping GA4 to the Student Journey Stages
Every prospective student moves through distinct phases on the path to enrollment. GA4 can provide actionable insights at each stage if you know where to look. Below, we break down how to use GA4 effectively across the four stages of the student journey: Discovery, Engagement, Decision-Making, and Enrollment. We’ll also highlight key metrics to prioritize and reports you can skip to avoid analysis paralysis.
Stage 1: Discovery: Awareness & Early Interest
What it is: At this stage, prospective students are just beginning to explore postsecondary options. They may land on your site via a Google search, a digital ad, or a social post. They’re not ready to apply yet, but they’re starting to investigate. Your goal is to attract the right audiences and create a strong first impression.
What to use in GA4: Focus on the Acquisition reports under Life cycle > Acquisition:
User Acquisition Report Shows how new users first arrive, by channel, campaign, or source. This answers, “Where are our new prospects coming from?” and helps assess brand awareness performance.
Traffic Acquisition Report Tracks sessions from all users (new and returning). Use it to evaluate which traffic sources deliver engaged sessions and prompt interaction.
Key metrics to monitor:
Engaged Sessions per User: Are visitors exploring more than one page?
Engagement Rate: What percentage of sessions include meaningful interaction?
Event Count per Session: Are users watching videos, downloading brochures, or clicking calls-to-action?
These metrics reflect traffic quality, not just quantity. For example, if organic search traffic has a 75% engagement rate while paid social sits at 25%, that’s a clear sign of where to invest.
Landing Pages: Your Digital First Impression Check Engagement > Pages and Screens to see which pages users land on most. Are your program or admissions pages pulling in traffic? Are they generating long engagement times? That’s a signal they’re working. If top landing pages show low engagement, it’s time to refine content, CTAs, or UX.
What to skip:
Demographics and Tech Reports: Too broad to act on for now.
Real-time Report: Interesting, but not useful for strategic planning.
Pro tip: HEM’s free GA4 assessment can help you identify your highest-quality channels and flag low-performing ones so you can optimize marketing spend and attract better-fit prospects.
Once prospective students are aware of your institution and begin browsing your site in earnest, they enter the engagement or consideration stage. Here, they’re comparing programs, evaluating fit, and building interest, but may not yet be ready to contact you. Your goal is to nurture their intent by providing relevant content, encouraging micro-conversions, and guiding them toward decision-making.
GA4 Focus: Engagement & Behaviour Reports
In GA4, shift your attention to the Engagement reports under Life cycle > Engagement. These include:
Pages and Screens
Events
Conversions
Landing Pages
As HEM notes, “Engagement reports are all about what prospects do after landing on your site”, whether they go deeper or drop off.
1. Pages and Screens Report
This is your new “Top Pages” view. Use it to identify high-interest pages such as:
Program descriptions
Tuition and aid
Admissions criteria
Campus life
Key metrics:
Average Engagement Time
Conversions per Page
User Navigation Paths (Where users go next)
If your BBA program page has high engagement and links to “Schedule a Tour,” make sure the CTA is prominent and functional. If engagement is low, revise the content or layout.
2. Events Report
GA4 automatically tracks events like:
Scroll depth (90%)
File downloads
Outbound clicks
Video plays
You should also configure custom events for micro-conversions, such as:
“Request Info” form submissions
Brochure downloads
“Schedule a Visit” or “Start Application” clicks
These are the mid-funnel signals that indicate increasing interest. Mark them as Conversions in GA4 to elevate their importance in reporting.
Pro tip: Track 3–5 key events that correlate strongly with application intent.
3. Conversions Report
Once key events are marked as conversions, the report will show:
Total conversions by event type
Event frequency over time
Value (if assigned)
This helps determine which micro-conversions are driving engagement and which campaigns or pages are most effective.
4. Path Exploration
GA4’s Explorations > Path Analysis lets you visualize what users do after key pages or events. For example, if many students visit the “Admissions FAQ” after reading a program page, that suggests rising intent. Use this to improve internal linking and user flow.
What to Skip
Avoid advanced GA4 reports like:
Cohort Analysis
User Lifetime
User Explorer
These are often too detailed or irrelevant for short-term funnel optimization. Also, don’t feel obligated to use every Exploration template; build your own around your specific enrollment steps instead.
HEM Insight: Unsure if your GA4 is tracking these mid-funnel behaviours correctly? HEM offers audits, event configuration, and CRM integration support, ensuring that when a student requests info, that action is tracked, stored, and acted upon.
Ready for the next stage? Let’s move on to how GA4 supports Decision-Making.
Stage 3: Decision-Making: High Intent & Lead Conversion
In the decision-making stage, prospective students move from casual interest to serious consideration. They’re comparing programs, costs, outcomes, and culture. By now, they’ve likely returned to your site several times. The goal here is clear: convert an engaged visitor into a lead or applicant.
GA4 Focus: Conversion Tracking & Funnel Analysis
This is where your earlier GA4 setup pays off. With key conversion events (e.g., “Request Info,” “Submit Application”) defined, you can now analyze how and where those conversions happen. GA4’s Traffic Acquisition, Explorations, and Conversions tools are central at this stage.
Conversions by Source/Medium
To understand which marketing channels drive high-intent actions, use the Traffic Acquisition report and add columns for specific conversions (e.g., “Request Info count” and conversion rate). Alternatively, build an Exploration with source/medium as the dimension and conversion events as metrics.
HEM’s webinar emphasizes looking beyond raw volume: ask “Which sources deliver my highest-intent leads?” For example:
Organic Search: 30 info requests, 10 applications
Paid Social: 5 info requests, 0 applications
This data helps optimize channel strategy. If certain channels underperform in lead quality, revisit targeting, messaging, or landing pages.
Funnel Exploration
GA4’s Funnel Exploration is ideal for visualizing conversion paths. You can define steps like:
View Program Page
Click “Request Info”
Submit RFI Form
Start Application
Submit Application
Example funnel insight:
1,000 users view program pages
200 click “Inquire” (20%)
50 submit forms (25% of clicks)
30 start applications
20 submit applications (67% of starters)
This highlights where friction occurs, perhaps a clunky form (25% completion) or weak CTAs (20% inquiry rate). Use this to improve form UX, reinforce CTAs, or add nurturing touchpoints.
You can also segment student recruitment funnels by device or user type (e.g., international vs. domestic). If drop-off is worse on mobile, consider layout changes; if international students abandon applications, address barriers like unclear visa info.
Path Exploration
GA4’s Path Exploration can show common user journeys leading to conversion. Start with “Application Submitted” and trace backward. If scholarship pages, FAQs, or department overviews frequently appear in these paths, you’ve identified key conversion content.
Conversely, if users loop across pages without converting, that may signal confusion. Use these insights to surface critical info sooner or rework unclear sections.
User Explorer: Qualitative Insights
While not scalable, inspecting User Explorer for select journeys (e.g., converters vs. non-converters) can offer qualitative insight. One user might watch webinars and return five times before applying, proving content value. Others bounce after one visit, highlighting the need for nurturing.
Metrics That Matter
Focus on:
Conversion counts and rates per channel and funnel stage
Engaged sessions per user
Average engagement time for converters
Example: applicants average 5 sessions and 10 engagement minutes; non-converters average 1 session and 2 minutes. Clearly, repeat engagement correlates with conversion, and nurturing campaigns (email, retargeting) are essential.
What to Skip
Avoid getting distracted by:
Cohort Analysis or User Lifetime
Attribution modelling (unless you’re running major ad campaigns)
Default GA4 templates that don’t fit your student recruitment funnel
Stick with the custom funnel and path reports that reflect your application process.
Pro Tip: Not confident in GA4 setup? HEM’s experts can build your funnels, configure conversion tracking, and connect GA4 to your CRM, giving you clear, enrollment-focused dashboards and team training to act on the insights confidently.
Stage 4: Enrollment: Application to Enrollment (Bottom of Funnel)
The enrollment stage is the final stretch, transforming applicants into enrolled students. While much of this process shifts to admissions and offline workflows (e.g., application review, acceptance, deposit), digital analytics still play a critical role. GA4 helps marketing teams identify friction points, evaluate channel performance, and inform efforts that influence yield. It also closes the loop on campaign effectiveness, especially if tied to downstream outcomes.
GA4 Focus: Funnel Completion, Attribution, and Post-Application Insights
Application Funnel Completion
Using Funnel Exploration, ensure your funnel captures key milestones like “Apply Clicked” and “Application Submitted.” If many click “Apply” but few complete the form, GA4 highlights a clear drop-off. For instance, if desktop converts at 30% but mobile only 10%, there may be UX issues on mobile or a third-party form that isn’t optimized. This insight can guide IT discussions or quick fixes (e.g., warning banners or responsive design improvements).
Attribution Paths
GA4’s Advertising > Attribution > Conversion Paths report reveals the sequence of marketing touches that lead to applications. Common patterns in higher ed include:
Organic Search → Direct → Conversion
Paid Search → Organic → Direct → Conversion
Email → Direct → Conversion
These paths underscore that enrollment isn’t a single-touch journey. For instance, Organic Search may start the process, while Direct or Email closes it. If you frequently see Email leading to conversions, it validates your nurture sequences. Also, keep an eye on new referral sources, like “Chat” or “Perplexity”, which may signal traffic from AI tools, as teased in HEM’s presentation.
Post-Application Engagement
Some schools track events beyond submission (e.g., clicking an admitted student portal link, viewing housing or financial aid info). While GA4 may not capture yield or melt directly, it can show post-application interest signals. Continued engagement, like visiting tuition or residence life pages, suggests intent to enroll or lingering questions that marketing content can address.
Benchmarking and Outcomes
Use GA4 to evaluate ROI by channel. For example, if Paid Search generates 10 applications at $5,000, while Organic Search drives 30 at no direct ad cost, that’s a critical insight. While GA4 doesn’t include media spend (unless connected to Google Ads), you can overlay cost data offline to calculate rough efficiency.
You can also segment Applicants vs. Non-Applicants using GA4’s Explorations. Let’s say applicants averaged 8 sessions while non-applicants averaged 2. That suggests high engagement correlates with conversion, reinforcing the value of remarketing, email campaigns, and sticky content.
Research supports this: EAB found that highly engaged users (multiple sessions, longer duration) were significantly more likely to apply.
What to Skip
Once a student applies, most enrollment decisions move to CRM or SIS platforms, not GA4. Don’t expect GA4 to tell you who enrolled, who melted, or who was denied. Similarly, ignore reports like Predictive Metrics, User Lifetime, and Cohort Analysis, which are less actionable for enrollment marketing. Focus instead on your core funnel, attribution, and engagement data.
Final Takeaway
By now, your GA4 setup should illuminate your recruitment funnel: how students find you, how they behave, when they convert, and where they fall off. This data is crucial for optimizing spend, improving user experience, and shaping strategic decisions.
Priority GA4 Reports:
Traffic & User Acquisition (channel quality)
Pages and Screens (top content, engagement)
Events & Conversions (key actions)
Funnel & Path Explorations (journey analysis)
Attribution Paths (multi-touch influence)
Reports to Skip:
Demographics & Tech (unless troubleshooting)
Realtime (not strategic)
Cohorts, LTV, Default Templates (too advanced or unfocused)
Pro tip: HEM can help you build enrollment-specific GA4 funnels, connect data to your CRM, and surface dashboards that show “visits → inquiries → apps → yield” at a glance, so you can finally act on your data with confidence.
Real-World Examples: GA4 Insights Driving Enrollment in Higher Ed (from various colleges & universities)
Clemson University (College of Business) Clemson’s Wilbur O. and Ann Powers College of Business leveraged targeted digital campaigns and GA4 event tracking to dramatically increase prospective student engagement.
The college saw a 207% increase in page engagement and a 222% growth in program page views for a key graduate program after the campaign. In just a two-month push, GA4 recorded 498 users requesting information and 44 clicking “Apply” to begin their applications.
University College Dublin (UCD). This university fully transitioned to GA4 and implemented a unified analytics dashboard via a data warehouse for all its websites. The new GA4-powered reporting interface, featuring Overview, Page Performance, and User Engagement reports, loads much faster and retains up to two years of data.
This enables UCD’s faculties and departments to easily track user behaviour across the university’s web presence, gaining insights into what content is engaging visitors and where improvements can be made.
Boise State University. Boise State created a centralized GA4 “Comprehensive Dashboard” accessible to campus stakeholders and paired it with training tutorials on common GA4 tasks. Their web team produced self-paced video guides on how to filter GA4 data to answer specific questions (such as finding top pages, viewing traffic sources, or seeing visitor geolocation).
This approach empowers individual departments to slice the raw GA4 data for their own needs and quickly get answers about user behaviour, for example, identifying the most popular pages or where visitors are coming from, without needing advanced technical skills.
UC Riverside. UC Riverside moved all its many departmental and unit websites to GA4 under a centralized analytics structure. The university’s web team built a curated “Web Analytics for Campus Partners” GA4 dashboard with custom reports, including a Broken Links report and a Top Landing Pages report.
These tailored GA4 dashboards help site owners across campus quickly spot issues (e.g. finding and fixing 404 error pages) and identify content that attracts new traffic. By giving each department actionable insights, such as which pages are bringing in the most new visitors, UCR has improved user experience and informed content strategy across dozens of sites in its domain.
Texas A&M University. Texas A&M established an Analytics Community of Practice that meets monthly, bringing together marketers and communicators from different colleges and units to share GA4 insights and techniques.
In these sessions, participants discuss recent findings (for example, which pages on their sites show unusually high engagement rates, or how referral traffic patterns are shifting) in a collaborative forum. This ongoing knowledge exchange ensures continuous learning and helps cultivate a data-informed culture campus-wide.
Embracing GA4’s event-based, student-centric model can reshape how your team drives recruitment outcomes. By moving beyond vanity metrics like pageviews, GA4 prompts higher ed marketers to focus on real indicators of student intent, such as engaged sessions, application clicks, and program page sequences. Across each funnel stage, GA4 reveals which channels attract interest, what content sustains it, and which actions convert it.
This clarity empowers you to refine campaign targeting, improve website performance, and simplify the inquiry or application path. GA4 also bridges the long-standing gap between marketing and admissions by giving both teams shared metrics and a common funnel narrative. Instead of saying, “We got 10,000 visits,” marketing can report: “We drove 300 info requests and 50 applications, and here’s what influenced them.”
It’s true, GA4 can feel overwhelming at first. But by focusing on core engagement metrics, key conversion events, and simple funnel analyses, you can avoid the noise and surface what truly matters. Start small, then grow into more advanced insights as you gain confidence. What should higher ed marketers avoid focusing on in GA4? Don’t worry if GA4 isn’t tracking beyond the application.
Also, avoid misattributing things to GA4 that it can’t measure – e.g., GA4 won’t tell you ‘admitted vs. denied’ or ‘enrolled vs. melt’ – that’s outside its scope. Focus on what GA4 can concretely tell you about the marketing funnel leading up to enrollment.
Above all, GA4 is most powerful when used collaboratively. Share funnel data with admissions. Highlight high-performing content to your copy team. Use insights to inform international recruitment or retargeting campaigns. And if needed, partner with specialists. At HEM, we help institutions build clear, actionable GA4 setups, from audits and event tracking to CRM integrations, so your analytics directly support enrollment.
GA4 isn’t just an upgrade; it’s a strategic advantage. When aligned with your funnel, it can become your most effective tool for enrollment growth.
GA4 unlocks powerful enrolment insights.
Turn student journey data into smarter recruitment decisions with HEM.
FAQs
What makes GA4 different from Universal Analytics for higher ed marketers? Higher ed marketers accustomed to UA’s pageviews and sessions are now confronted with a new event-based model, a slew of unfamiliar reports, and an interface that looks nothing like the old Google Analytics. GA4 offers richer insights into student behaviour and intent, which can directly fuel enrollment growth.
What should higher ed marketers avoid focusing on in GA4? Don’t worry if GA4 isn’t tracking beyond the application. Also, avoid misattributing things to GA4 that it can’t measure, e.g., GA4 won’t tell you ‘admitted vs. denied’ or ‘enrolled vs. melt’, that’s outside its scope. Focus on what GA4 can concretely tell you about the marketing funnel leading up to enrollment.
Which GA4 reports should we prioritize for enrollment marketing? Focus on the critical reports:
Traffic Acquisition & User Acquisition (for awareness channel quality)
Engagement > Pages and Screens (for top content and engagement per page)
Join HEPI Director Nick Hillman OBE and SUMS Consulting at 11am tomorrow (22nd January 2026) for a webinar based on the report ‘University Lands: Mapping Risks and Opportunities for the HE Sector’. Sign up for the webinar here. Read the blogs HEPI had published on the report here, here and here.
This blog was kindly authored by Beverley Orr-Ewing, Consultant and Student Mobility Lead, Cormack Consulting Group, andProfessor Sally Wheeler, Vice-Chancellor, Birkbeck, University of London.
As the UK edges closer to a return to Erasmus+, attention is turning towards what this might mean for the Turing Scheme. For many universities, particularly those with deep European partnerships and strong Modern Language provision, the prospect of rejoining Erasmus is genuinely welcome. Politically, it is also an attractive signal – a step towards reversing some of the damage caused to relationships by Brexit and restoring a sense of connection with our European partners.
Against that backdrop, our concern is less about a return to Erasmus itself, and more about the assumption that Erasmus can simply take on the role Turing currently plays. The real question, therefore, is not which scheme is better but what we will lose if Turing disappears.
Different schemes, different problems
Erasmus+ and Turing were created to address different policy challenges, at different moments in time and in very different political contexts. Erasmus+ emerged in the late 1980s as part of a broader project of European social integration, designed to support long-term cooperation through reciprocal partnerships between largely publicly funded higher education systems.
By contrast, Turing, was designed in a post-Brexit landscape where the loss of Erasmus made a contraction in outward student mobility all but inevitable unless a new mechanism was put in place. From the outset, it placed greater emphasis on two areas Erasmus historically struggled with: widening participation and global reach. Turing was never intended to be a like-for-like replacement for Erasmus+, and treating it as such risks misunderstanding both its purpose and its value.
What Turing has enabled
A useful starting point is what Turing has enabled, and how it has reshaped and added value to student mobility.
First, a genuinely global approach. The Turing Scheme has supported tens of thousands of UK students each year to undertake study and work placements overseas. In the 2023–24 funding round alone, nearly 23,000 higher-education students were supported, with placements spanning more than 160 countries worldwide. Alongside European destinations, the top host countries also show how non-European mobility has become central to Turing. In 2023–24, six of the ten most common higher-education destination countries were outside the EU (the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea and China), and these non-EU destinations accounted for just over half of learners across the top ten.This reflects a shift away from a primarily Europe-centred model towards mobility that aligns more closely with student interests and the increasingly global outlook of UK higher education.
Second, a more flexible, student-focused funding model. Turing places fewer structural requirements on the form mobility must take, allowing funding to follow the student rather than being shaped by institutional exchange frameworks. This has made it easier to support a wider range of mobility types, including short programmes, work placements and volunteering. While Erasmus also supports work and volunteering, Turing’s design has provided greater flexibility in contexts where traditional exchange models are difficult to sustain or risk excluding particular groups of students.
Third, a clear priority around widening participation. From its inception, Turing was explicitly framed around improving access to mobility for students who have historically been less likely to participate. Funding outcomes for 2023–24 indicate that close to half of higher-education Turing participants were from under-represented or disadvantaged backgrounds, reflecting the scheme’s prioritisation of access. Its support for shorter, more flexible forms of mobility has been particularly important in widening participation, creating opportunities that are more manageable alongside work, family and financial commitments.
This focus reflects purposeful choices shaped by both the diversity of today’s student body and the way UK universities now operate within a competitive global higher education environment.
Equity and access
The question, then, is how well Erasmus can sustain the broader patterns of participation that Turing has helped to establish. While Erasmus offers many strengths, its traditional models work best for students who are already well placed to participate – those who can commit to longer periods abroad, manage higher upfront costs and navigate study in another European language or academic system.
Turing marked a deliberate shift away from that default. It was designed not just to increase the number of students going abroad, but to ensure that students from less financially secure backgrounds could access similar international opportunities to their peers. Removing it risks a return to mobility models that remain open in principle, but are easier to take up for students with greater financial flexibility and fewer competing pressures. If widening participation is to be meaningful, that risk requires careful consideration.
Global breadth and strategic reach
One of Erasmus’s greatest strengths is its stability secured in long term institutional partnerships, but the flexibility of Turing has enabled UK student mobility well beyond Europe at a time when global competition for talent, partnerships and influence is intensifying.
Erasmus does allow some third-country mobility through KA171, but this remains capped and partnership-led, with limited flexibility and scale. If Erasmus were to become the sole mobility mechanism, the geographic frame and shape of UK student mobility would inevitably narrow, at a time when UK universities are being required to think more globally.
A different operating environment
There is also a more fundamental structural issue at play. UK universities increasingly operate within a funding and policy environment that differs markedly from that of many European counterparts. They are less directly publicly funded, more dependent on international engagement, and therefore more globally oriented in both strategy and outlook. For many institutions, this is not a matter of ambition alone but of long-term sustainability.
Erasmus was designed to support publicly funded systems with strong regional integration. For EU member states, it also sits within a policy framework that they are able to shape and influence over time. Turing, by contrast, aligns more closely with the strategic reality of UK institutions, particularly those seeking to build sustainable engagement in growth regions such as India, Africa and Southeast Asia. In practice, universities were only beginning to realise how Turing could be used as a strategic lever alongside wider international priorities – removing it now risks cutting off that line of development just as it was starting to take shape.
Disruption and uncertainty
There is also a practical reality to consider. Over the past five years, universities have rebuilt systems, processes and partnerships around Turing. Removing it would create partnership instability, impose significant transition costs and erode institutional capacity at a point when resources are already under pressure.
Alongside this sits a wider issue of political volatility. If student mobility funding is subject to repeated policy shifts, institutions are forced into short-term planning, designing programmes that may not survive the next change of government. That environment makes sustained investment, partnership-building and long-term student opportunity much harder to achieve.
Design and delivery: what can be improved
None of this is to deny that Turing has significant shortcomings. Late funding announcements, heavy administrative requirements and a lack of certainty of funding from one year to the next have created real challenges for institutions. They have not been able to embed Turing fully into long-term strategy.
There are also limits that stem from Turing’s underlying design. Most notably, it does not provide funded reciprocal mobility unlike Erasmus, which embeds exchange as a core principle. Turing was deliberately constructed as an outward-only scheme. This has made it harder for institutions to sustain balanced international partnerships but reflects a conscious policy choice.
Challenges around timing, administration and predictability are matters of delivery rather than principle. With clearer commitment, earlier confirmation of funding and greater multi-year certainty – drawing on the planning cycles familiar from Erasmus – many of these could be substantially mitigated. The experience of recent years suggests not that Turing lacks purpose, but that it has not yet been given the conditions it needs to thrive.
A question of balance
The most sustainable outcome is not a choice between Erasmus or Turing, but an approach that recognises the distinct value of both. Together, they support different dimensions of student mobility: European depth alongside global reach; long-standing partnerships alongside flexibility; stability alongside responsiveness.
In a relatively short period of time, Turing has begun to reshape who participates in mobility, where students are able to go, and how international experience fits. It has opened doors to experiences previously beyond the reach of many students, supported more inclusive forms of participation and given UK institutions a tool that better reflects the global realities in which they operate. It would be a loss to see that progress curtailed.
Rejoining Erasmus may be both desirable and beneficial. But allowing it to replace Turing entirely would mean stepping back from gains in widening participation and global engagement that align closely with the strategic direction of UK higher education and with the needs of students.
This blog was kindly authored by Mark Jones, Executive Vice President – Education, TechnologyOne.
Having worked with higher education institutions globally for three decades, I’ve seen policy-driven transformation succeed and fail. The difference comes down to whether institutions treat fundamental change as a strategic and commercial opportunity, or merely as a compliance burden.
Across UK universities, conversations are increasingly centred on what the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) will mean in practice. The LLE fundamentally restructures how higher education is funded and accessed. Learners will be able to study modular provision at levels 4 to 6 in government-prioritised subjects, pay for individual credits, accumulate learning over decades, and transfer credits between providers.
The policy intent – making higher education more accessible – is clear. For institutions built around three-year undergraduate programmes, delivering on that requires more than administrative adjustment. It demands a rethink of curriculum design, digital systems, academic regulations and student support models.
A technology inflection point
The LLE is more than a policy change. It represents a technology inflection point for higher education. For years, institutions have made incremental adjustments to systems designed for cohort-based, September-to-June academic cycles. The LLE exposes the limitations of those systems.
Institutions will need to track lifetime credit accumulation across multiple providers, process granular payments that may be months or years apart, verify external prerequisites in real-time, and maintain learning relationships that span decades rather than discrete degree programmes.
This creates space for innovation. The challenge is not simply to adapt existing platforms, but to reimagine student record systems, finance integration, and learner engagement from the ground up. The technologies that enable personalised digital experiences in sectors such as media streaming or retail banking offer relevant models. International developments – for example, micro-credentials in Australia – provide both cautionary tales and promising precedents.
The question shifts from ‘How do we make current systems cope?’ to ‘What would we build if we designed for modular, lifelong, multi-provider learning from the outset?’
The market waiting to be served
The demand signals are clear. UCAS 2025 data shows UK mature acceptances (aged 21+) have declined 3.3% to 106,120, with steeper drops among those aged 30 and over. Meanwhile, 31% of UK 18-year-olds now intend to live at home while studying (89,510 students, up 6.9% from 2024), driven by affordability constraints.
The Post-16 education and skills white paper explicitly recognises the need for workforce upskilling at scale. Career transitions require targeted learning rather than full degrees and learners need options that fit alongside work and caring responsibilities.
The technology enabling this market – flexible enrolment, credit portability, lifetime learner accounts – represents a fundamental refresh of how higher education operates digitally. The LLE removes the policy barriers. The remaining question is whether institutions can build the infrastructure to deliver on the opportunity.
The curriculum challenge that unlocks it
Serving this market demands more than breaking degrees into smaller units. Each module must function as both a standalone learning experience and as a component that can stack with credits from other providers. Prerequisites must enable learners to navigate pathways independently. Assessment models must work for twelve-week episodes rather than three-year relationships.
Academic regulations designed for continuous programmes need to adapt to episodic engagement over decades. Student services built around sustained relationships must be reimagined for twelve-week presences. These aren’t minor adjustments; they’re fundamental policy framework redesigns.
Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) becomes central rather than peripheral. The issue is not whether institutions can scale existing processes, but whether they can reimagine how learning is valued when it originates elsewhere.
Timeline realism
LLE applications open in September 2026. For institutions targeting January 2027 launches, timelines are extremely tight. Across the sector, universities are planning phased September 2027 launches with limited subject scope, rather than ambitious early rollouts that risk operational failure.
Institutions making meaningful progress are treating LLE as a strategic transformation requiring executive vision. They are testing actual workflows, allocating dedicated resources, and making deliberate scope decisions that acknowledge building capability takes time. Importantly, they’re approaching LLE as an opportunity, not just an obligation.
The transformation ahead
The LLE creates space for institutions to rethink digital infrastructure fundamentally rather than incrementally. The most successful technology transformations occur when external pressure aligns with internal ambition – when ’we have to change’ meets ‘here’s what we could build’.
Institutions approaching this purely as a compliance exercise experience compressed timelines and onerous requirements. Those that view it as an innovation catalyst find that it justifies investments in modern, integrated platforms that have been deferred for years. It enables a more ambitious question: ‘What would a student system designed for lifelong, modular, multi-provider learning actually look like?’
The opportunity to serve learners historically excluded from higher education is genuine. So too is the opportunity to modernise infrastructure that has struggled under incremental adaptation. The sector’s challenge is translating policy ambition into operational reality for institutions, students, and the communities higher education serves. Those that thrive will be the ones that treat the LLE as permission to innovate, not just an obligation to comply.
These implementation challenges and more will be explored at TechnologyOne Showcase London on 25 February at HERE & NOW at Outernet, featuring an executive panel with voices from UCISA, ARC, HEPI, SUMS, and institutional leaders discussing how governance, culture, technology, and commercial strategies need to adapt to this new policy landscape.Register for TechnologyOne Showcase here.
HEPI Director, Nick Hillman, takes a look at the new International Education Strategy, which is out today.
It is a relief to have the paper finally out, as it has been a wait. First, the Coalition had their initial 2013 version (which still reads pretty well, except for its comments about MOOCs, even if it had a rather different list of target countries … ); the subsequent Conservative Governments then had their 2019 Strategy, with its clear targets, and subsequent updates in 2021, 2022 and 2023; and, in October 2024, the newly installed Labour Government promised ‘a review of the International Education Strategy’, which is what has now landed. It is good to have clarity: the new paper provides a comprehensive summary of UK strengths, usefully reinvigorates some tired initiatives (like a ‘reformed’ Education Sector Action Group) and commits to achieving £40 billion of educational exports by 2030. I do not underestimate the challenges involved in getting the paper to this stage, which has been overseen like most of its predecessors by the indefatigable Sir Steve Smith (the UK Government’s International Education Champion to whom the sector owes so much), despite my mixed commentary below – given the general rightwards shift in the country, given the differences of opinion across Whitehall on issues like student migration and given all the other energy-sapping issues on Number 10’s plate.
My first impression was that the paper is shorter than we might have expected – c.50 pages of large text, with lots of ‘throat clearing’ (the Introduction arrives on page 10 and the meat doesn’t start until page 17…). In contrast, the 2019 Strategy was of a similar length but with a much smaller text and included 23 clear ‘Actions’, while the 2021 Update was c.70 pages of dense text, including an update on progress towards the specific actions.
Similarly, the three Ministers put up to front the report are, in government terms, second rank (Minister of State) rather than first rank (Secretary of State) and two sit in the unelected Upper Chamber rather than the elected House of Commons. Along with the lowish word count, this sends a slightly unfortunate signal about the seriousness with which education export issues are taken in government. The 2019 Strategy and the 2021 Update each had two Secretaries of State pen the Foreword, for example.
Perhaps none of this matters. It is better to be concise than wordy. Who cares how many pages there are, what font size has been used and which Ministers have written the inoffensive Foreword? I think it probably does matter a bit as there are no areas of education as competitive as international exports, and it is one of the few areas where the UK can still undeniably claim world-class status. Our main competitors read such UK strategies closely, just as the UK’s own initial 2013 strategy emerged partly as a response to the strategies that had already been adopted in other English-speaking countries. A confident country keen to expand its share of a particular global market tends to project itself as such, whereas a thinner paper that hedges its bets may be regarded, perhaps accurately, as reflecting lukewarm support for educational exports in parts of Whitehall.
More importantly, the new Strategy is keen to emphasise that it is a cross-Government initiative: ‘Leadership of this agenda now sits firmly across the government, with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office joining the Department of Education and the Department of Business and Trade as co-owners of the strategy.’ This is welcome. But the Home Office remain notable by their absence, and it is they that have sole control over things like student visas, post-study work rules and Basic Compliance Assessments. Until the Home Office are forced to share responsibility for international students studying in the UK equally with other parts of government or until the Home Office is overridden by the centre of Whitehall, our higher education institutions will continue to have one arm tied behind their back while trying to expand this important export market.
The Home Office ministers and mandarins will still, however, have had to sign the new paper off and their behind-the-scenes influence is evident. While the paper is full of commitments to ‘leverage’, ‘champion’ and ‘continue’ doing things, it eschews the opportunity to set clear new targets for higher education. The 2013 paper looked to increase the number of international students studying in the UK at higher education ‘by 15-20% over the next five years.’ The 2019 Strategy had a target of increasing students ‘in the UK to 600,000 per year’ by 2030. Now, however, there is an overall goal of increasing all ‘education exports to £40 billion per year’ by the end of this decade but, on higher education students specifically, we only get a commitment to ‘support the sustainable recruitment of higher-quality international students’, warm words about ‘Well-managed and responsible recruitment’ and an objective of ‘building a more resilient, diverse and long-term pipeline of international talent.’ How many more synonyms are there for ‘reducing’ the number of new student arrivals in the UK, I wonder. The Department for Education’s press release suggests TNE (transnational education), with all its challenges and opportunities, has displaced students coming to the UK as the flavour of the month.
As it is a UK-wide document, so the rUK or the ‘rest of the UK’ as it is known in Whitehall get a brief look in. There are nice words about Scotland’s (in truth poor-performing) schools system and the controversial Curriculum for Excellence, which may be rather useful to Scottish policymakers as they look ahead to the 2026 elections to the Scottish Parliament, when education is expected to feature quite heavily.
There are a surprising number of lengthy references to things that are clearly part of modern education but which do not immediately seem directly relevant to establishing a stronger framework for encouraging UK educational exports around the globe, and which are perhaps included to flesh out the text. For example, climate change appears in the very first sentence of the document and page 22 elaborates: ‘the UK Government expects all nurseries, schools and colleges to have a climate action plan, and in collaboration with leading environmental and education organisations, provides direct support through the innovative Sustainability Support Programme. The programme ensures educational settings are inspired to act and supported to plan and deliver meaningful climate action to embed sustainability, climate awareness and connection with nature.’ One can fully subscribe to the idea of man-made climate change and a climate emergency, as well as the need for action to address these, but still be left scratching one’s head at quite what the purpose of such text is in a short paper promoting the UK’s educational exports.
The paper inadvertently reveals a long-standing and tricky issue for policymakers, which is the gap in our general attitudes towards delivering education to people at home and selling UK education to people from overseas. For example, as a nation we are as favourable towards soft power abroad, by making friends in high places through education, as we are opposed to old boys’ networks at home. In England, we tightly regulate who gets to university via Access and Participation Plans, yet when it comes to overseas students, we rely on the very high fees (plus an incoming International Student Levy) that only upper-middle class students can afford and we don’t even worry too much if, on occasion, the extra international students squeeze out home students. (Those attacking Trinity Hall for advertising their outreach work to a handful of UK independent schools tend to ignore that the entire higher education system is propped up by some of the wealthiest people from other countries.)
There is another contradiction illustrated by the new International Education Strategy too: while Ministers block Eton College from working with partners to set up a school for disadvantaged Brits in Middlesborough, the new Strategy celebrates famous independent schools establishing footprints abroad. So Charterhouse Lagos is, we are told, ‘a model for future school partnerships abroad, strengthening bilateral ties and delivering long-term educational and economic benefits.’ It seems to be Floreat Carthusia abroad and Pereat Etona at home (please correct my Latin in the Comments section below … ), which doesn’t in all honesty seem to make much logical sense. At least, there is a German word for it all: realpolitik.
This blog was kindly authored by Professor Ronald Barnett, Emeritus Professor at the Institute of Education, University of London and President Emeritus of the Philosophy and Theory of Higher Education Society, and Secretary of the Global Forum for Re-Humanizing Education.
The gloves have now to come off. I have been too gentle in my critiques over the past 40 years.
We live in a world marked by egregious power wielded in non-educational ways. The term ‘cognitive capitalism’ – much mooted over the past 20 years – barely does justice to the situation.
This plays out in higher education and universities in very many ways, just two of which are (the perniciousness of) learning outcomes and the discourse of skills. Together these exert an iron grip not only on our understanding of higher education but moreover on its practices and the formation of its students. We are moving to a ‘skillification’ of society.
In the 1930s, Critical Theory – in the shadow of advancing Fascism – inveighed against ‘instrumental reason’. Now the situation is much worse – we have instrumentalism without any reason.
For forty years, I have myself pressed these concerns in trying to advance the philosophy and theory of higher education as a field. Some of my early books carried titles such as ‘The Limits of Competence‘, ‘A Will to Learn‘ and ‘Beyond All Reason’.
Now, in a robotic, AI, Trumpian, and ever-controlled, surveilled and measurement-crazy era oriented towards profit and growth, these concerns take on heightened proportions. And the domination of the ‘skills’ agenda is symptomatic. Of the increase of ‘skills’, there shall be no end. It now has a vice-like grip around what is taken for ‘higher education’.
I challenge anyone who is in or around the policy/ managerial/ leadership networks to write even an 800-word article on higher education without using the term ‘skills’. It has become – to use a term of art these days – the dominant ‘imaginary’, a framework, a perspective, an iron cage with totally inflexible bars, that brooks no escape.
Consider the concept of understanding. Fifty years ago, there was talk of higher education being concerned with ‘knowledge and understanding’. It was not enough to know things, for one’s knowing had to be backed up by one’s own appropriations, one’s own insights, one’s own feeling and commitments to that knowing, and so make that knowing authentically one’s own. Then the concept of understanding was dropped, as ‘knowledge and skills’ took over. Then it became ‘skills and knowledge’. And now it is just ‘skills, skills, skills’ and in that order.
For those who continue to believe that these reflections on my part are antique, consider this. When one goes to a piano recital, one wants to be assured that the pianist has many advanced skills, honed over years and even decades. But that is taken for granted. That is not why one goes to hear and to see a particular pianist. One goes to be in the company of a certain kind of humanity, of graciousness, of generosity, of subtlety, of interpretation, of inter-connectiveness with the audience, of a will on their part to communicate. It’s not skills that mark out the great pianists but their human qualities and dispositions; their sheer being as a human being.
And the determination to corral all of this under the rubric of ‘skills’ is testimony to the loss of wisdom, care, concern, and empathy – for others in all their plights and for the whole Earth and all its non-human inhabitants – that is so vital for the whole life of this planet.
Note, too, that those skills on the part of the pianist were honed NOT through skills but through an assemblage of qualities and dispositions. One may have all the skills in the world, but unless they are accompanied by qualities and dispositions – not least the disposition to keep going forward in a difficult world – those skills count for nought. (I have spelt out all this at some length in some of my books.)
It is noticeable that in all the talk of skills, we see nothing of the skills of activism, of demonstration, of counter-insurgency, of contestation, of resistance and so forth – so vividly apparent in many of the student movements across the world. So, for all their apparent breadth in the playing up of skills, it is skills only of a certain kind that are sought; skills that seek to counter the dominant forces of the world are silenced. So there is a major interest structure behind the tilt to skills. It is far from neutral. It acts to serve and to heighten the already dominant interest structures in the world.
This is a desperately serious situation. At just the moment across the world that we need an expansion of human qualities and a recognition of the fundamental dispositions of human and educational life (and ‘qualities’ and ‘dispositions’ differ profoundly – see the arguments in my books – AND both are opposed to skills), we retreat behind technicism, roboticism, and electronic networks (which are totally opaque), which serve the interests of the great powers. (The AI corporations will not reveal the nature of their logarithms, so the whole notion of critical thinking is stymied – one cannot be fully critical of that which lies deliberately hidden.)
By the way, it is wrong to believe that the great powers have no interest in universities and higher education: they are bewitched by universities and higher education and seek to do all they can to corral them in their (the former’s) instrumental interests. This is why we are witnessing the abandonment of ‘critical thinking’ as a trope in higher education ‘debate’. (Just see how little it appears, if at all, in university websites.)
The world is in great difficulties, and higher education and universities are only aiding these movements in the abandonment of a language of qualities, dispositions, care, understanding, criticality, wisdom, carefulness and so on. (Again, ‘higher education’ and ‘university’ are different concepts, although they are treated as synonymous. Both are crucial but in being elided, we neglect the capacity of universities as sites of the formation of criticality in themselves, beyond the students’ study programmes.)
The current movements, if left uncontained, herald a new kind of techno-fascism descending onto higher education. This is a grave moment for the world: some universities are recognising the threat. but the situation is so serious that nothing short of a mass mobilisation of universities across the world – a counter-revolution indeed – is called for. I have been too gentle in my commentaries over the past 40 years – in playing the game, in negotiating, in epistemic ‘diplomacy’, in paying due attention to noises off. Perhaps a new kind of diplomacy, more strident, more assertive, is needed now.
This blog was kindly authored by Caroline Dunne, Leadership Coach, Change Mentor and former Chief of Staff.
For many Vice-Chancellors, the challenge is one of bandwidth. Leading a university today is equivalent to running a major regional employer – complex multi-campus operations, often turning over hundreds of millions of pounds, under intensifying public and political scrutiny. In this environment, strategic support is not a luxury; it is a prerequisite for strong, steady leadership that can hold the line between urgent pressure and long-term ambition.
Within this context, one critical role remains under-recognised in much of the sector: the Chief of Staff.
Drawing on insights from interviews conducted in the first quarter of this academic year with Chiefs of Staff and senior Higher Education leaders across the UK, this piece explores the strategic value of the role and why, in a period of profound turbulence, now could be the right time to put more “Chief” into the Chief of Staff.
An untapped strategic asset
Outside higher education, the Chief of Staff is a well-understood part of modern executive infrastructure: a senior adviser who expands the horizon of the chief executive, drives alignment, absorbs complexity and enables organisational agility.
Inside higher education, the role is far more variable. In some institutions, the role is positioned as a strategic partner to the Vice-Chancellor; in others, it is mistaken for an ‘executive assistant-plus’ or folded into a different portfolio. Reporting lines, authority and remit differ widely, sometimes limiting the role’s ability to deliver its full strategic value.
What emerged consistently from my interviews is this: the absence of a portfolio is the Chief of Staff’s greatest strategic advantage. It enables the role to traverse boundaries, ‘keep things moving in the grey areas’ and view institutional issues through an enterprise lens rather than a single-portfolio perspective.
As one interviewee described it, not having a portfolio makes you:
A free agent with an aerial view.
Greater understanding of this untapped role is overdue. Paradoxically – and perhaps counterintuitively in a resource-constrained sector – it is precisely in this context that a well-positioned Chief of Staff becomes most critical to institutional success.
Five modes of strategic influence
In a sector facing systemic pressures, where, as one respondent put it, “driving change and transformation… is like pushing a boulder uphill”, the Chief of Staff plays an important catalytic role – shaping thinking, absorbing complexity and helping the organisation respond with coherence rather than fragmentation.
I conducted 11 interviews which revealed five modes of strategic influence that a Chief of Staff brings to university leadership:
Sense-making: turning complexity into coherence.
Not being tied to a portfolio gives the Chief of Staff a rare vantage point. They see the connections, gaps and risks that others – focused on their own areas – may miss.
A seat at the top table, even without formal membership, brings influence through insight rather than authority. Chiefs of Staff challenge assumptions, sharpen strategic issues and help Vice-Chancellors translate vision into coordinated action.
One interviewee captured the essence of the role well:
“We help make things happen, but we belong in the background.”
Alignment and flow: moving decisions through the system.
Universities are structurally complex, often siloed and prone to initiatives moving at different speeds in different directions. Chiefs of Staff surface dependencies, shepherd decisions through the right governance bodies, and ensure that decisions, conversations and projects maintain momentum.
As one Chief of Staff noted:
We make sure everyone is rowing in the same direction – even if they’re in separate boats.
Trusted connectivity: the organisational glue
Nearly every interviewee emphasised the relational character of the role. Chiefs of Staff build trust across formal and informal networks, read the room, join dots, create spaces for candid conversations and offer a safe space to rehearse potentially difficult issues.
Much of their impact is intentionally invisible. As one Chief of Staff reflected, the
most significant unseen impact is behind-the-scenes relationship building.
Another colleague added:
Real mastery is knowing when to be visible and when to be invisible… knowing how to master ego.
Influence in universities is exercised as much between meetings as it is within them.
Strategic counsel: second pair of eyes
Vice-Chancellors face relentless external demands. Chiefs of Staff help maintain strategic momentum by offering:
operational realism
political insight
institutional memory
horizon scanning
a safe environment to test ideas
Several described themselves as the “second pair of eyes” – seeing risks early and raising issues before they land.
We clear barriers, trial new approaches, and give leaders the space to act confidently without being swamped by operational detail – enabling principled, well-understood risks.
Steadying influence: calm in a volatile environment
With no portfolio interests and a broad institutional view, Chiefs of Staff help manage tension within senior teams, support leadership transitions and create calm judgement in moments of pressure.
As one interviewee said:
A Chief of Staff can help calm the waters – up and down and sideways.
Another added:
When an institution is facing uncertainty, you need someone with no skin in the game – someone invested in the success of the collective.
“A Chief of Staff takes it to the finish line – but you’re nowhere near the ribbon.”
The point is clear: the role is not about visibility. It is about capacity, coherence, relationships, pace and judgement.
In a sector where senior leaders are stretched, where decisions carry political and human consequences, and where the pace of change is only accelerating, the question for institutions is no longer whether to invest in a Chief of Staff – but how to position the role for maximum effect:
reporting lines that enable influence
clarity of remit
proximity to decision-making
and a mandate that embraces both people and strategy
As the higher education sector faces continued uncertainty, one thing is clear: well-positioned Chief of Staffs are not a luxury. They are a source of resilience, coherence and leadership capacity – precisely when the sector needs it most.
In developing this piece, I am deeply grateful to the colleagues who generously contributed their insights including:
Dr Giles Carden, Chief Strategy Officer and Chief of Staff, University of Southampton
Dr Clare Goudy, Chief of Staff, Office of the President and Provost, UCL
Thomas Hay, Head of Vice-Chancellor’s Office, Cardiff University
Jhumar Johnson, former Chief of Staff to the former Vice-Chancellor at the Open University
Dr. Chris Marshall, Chief of Staff and Head of the Vice-Chancellor’s Office, University of Wales Trinity Saint David
Mark Senior, Chief of Staff (Vice-Chancellor’s Office), University of Birmingham
Rachel Stone, Head of Governance and Vice-Chancellor’s Office, University of Roehampton
Luke Taylor, Chief of Staff to the President & Vice-Chancellor, University of Manchester
Becca Varley, Chief of Staff, Vice-Chancellor’s Office, Sheffield Hallam University
Some say that first impressions are most important. But every professor who finds their students aimlessly filing out of class two-thirds of the way through will say that students’ final impressions of class tend to last longest—what did they get from showing up, if they just breezed out again? Luckily, there’s an established way you can make sure students go out of the door with purpose and accomplishment: exit tickets. Aligning exit tickets with the key concept of the day’s lesson is essential for effective assessment and ensures that you are measuring student understanding of the most important learning objectives. Exit tickets are also used to assess understanding of a specific skill or concept from the day’s lesson, helping instructors identify areas that may need further attention.
Exit tickets are one of the fastest, lowest-commitment types of active learning tools to implement. Essentially, you ask your students to provide a written answer to a question about their learning before they’re “allowed” to leave your class. Students can decide how to respond, such as through writing, drawing, or other formats, to best demonstrate their understanding. Exit tickets should take only a few minutes for students to complete, ensuring students spend their time meaningfully and efficiently at the end of the lesson. This helps students clarify, understand, and recall their learning better. And, if you feel the need, you can tie attendance or participation grades to completion. However, exit tickets are low stakes and are not meant to be graded, which encourages honest self-reflection. Designing effective exit ticket questions takes practice, and providing an example can help educators get started. Teachers design their own exit tickets linked to the objective of the lesson, ensuring alignment with the intended learning outcomes.
Access customizable exit ticket templates for ideas to spark conversation and meaningful learning.
Introduction to Exit Tickets
Exit tickets are a simple yet powerful tool that educators can use to check student understanding and student learning at the end of a class period. These quick assessments—sometimes called exit slips—ask students to reflect on the day’s lesson and share their thoughts before leaving the classroom. Exit tickets promote student reflection and give quiet students a voice in expressing their understanding. Whether you teach a science class or any other subject, exit tickets can take many forms, from a sticky note handed in at the door to a digital form submitted online.
Using varied formats for exit tickets, such as written notes or drawings, keeps students engaged and prevents boredom. Because they are low stakes, students feel comfortable sharing what they know and where they might need more help. For educators, exit tickets provide immediate feedback, making it easier to identify student needs and adjust instruction accordingly. Teachers must account for individual student perceptions and needs when reviewing exit ticket responses. By regularly using exit tickets, educators can ensure that every class ends with a clear sense of what students have learned and what concepts may need further attention in future lessons.
Benefits of Using Exit Tickets
Incorporating exit tickets into your teaching routine offers a range of benefits for both students and educators. In a college setting, exit tickets are widely used to foster effective teaching strategies and support educational goals. First and foremost, exit tickets provide a quick snapshot of student understanding, allowing you to identify areas where students may need additional support. By reviewing student responses, you can tailor your instruction to better meet the learning goals of your class and address any gaps in knowledge. Exit tickets also encourage students to reflect on their learning, helping them process and retain new information from the lesson. Because they are low stakes, students feel comfortable sharing what they know and where they might need more help. Maintaining low stakes with exit tickets encourages honest self-reflection and reduces student stress. This reflection not only boosts student engagement but also gives students a voice in their own learning by providing feedback to their teachers.
As a resource, exit tickets make it easier to differentiate instruction and plan future lessons that are responsive to student needs. Exit tickets can be differentiated to meet the diverse needs of students in the classroom. Ultimately, using exit tickets can lead to improved student learning and achievement by ensuring that instruction is always focused on what students need most.
There are a number of different kinds of exit tickets. Here are three examples, each with a different emphasis, to illustrate different approaches to exit tickets and how students respond to prompts.
Minute Paper
The minute paper is one of the favorite tools of James Lang, Professor of Practice at the Kaneb Center for Teaching Excellence at the University of Notre Dame. The minute paper exit ticket idea is particularly helpful in classes that are discussion- or lab-led.
According to Lang, the end of the lecture is “when you want to say, ‘Okay class, we had a great discussion. Last five minutes here, I want everyone to write down in your notebook or index card, what are three key takeaways you had from this discussion, and what’s one question that you still have?’” This exercise helps students focus on the main points of the discussion, track their progress in mastering key skills, and reflect on their understanding. To further explain, this activity helps students consolidate their learning and allows teachers to assess specific skills or concepts covered in the lesson.
If it takes place at the end of a lively class discussion, a minute paper won’t derail your students’ train of thought, but help to connect their ideas with the wider aim of the class. In addition to writing down key takeaways and questions, exit tickets can include specific prompts such as solving a math problem or defining a key term from the lesson. The best class discussions always spill out into the hallway, and a minute paper won’t dampen student enthusiasm.
Muddiest Point
If you are interested in customizing exit tickets to better support student learning, consider using the muddiest point exercise to focus on areas where students need the most clarification.
In the ‘muddiest point’ exercise, students are given index cards and asked to write down what they least understood about that day’s lesson. You could consider making this anonymous in order to encourage honest responses. This method allows teachers to provide feedback and differentiate instruction based on what was taught and what students still find unclear.
You can use this exit ticket to find out your class’s muddiest point by process of elimination. Ask your students to send you topics they feel most in need of clarification, consolidate them into a list, and see if there are any standout issues. Try to pre-dedicate time in the following class to address these issues.
3-2-1 Reflection
The 3-2-1 Reflection is a versatile and straightforward exit ticket idea that encourages students to consolidate their learning and think critically about the day’s lesson. In this exercise, students list three things they learned, two interesting facts or ideas that caught their attention, and one question they still have. This format not only helps students reflect on key concepts but also provides teachers with valuable insights into student understanding and areas that may need further clarification. The 3-2-1 Reflection can be easily adapted for any subject, making it a flexible tool to promote active learning and student engagement at the end of a class period.
Formative Assessment and Student Accountability
Formative assessment plays a crucial role in keeping students accountable for their own learning by encouraging continuous reflection and self-assessment throughout the course. Exit tickets serve as an effective formative assessment tool by prompting students to actively engage with the material and articulate their understanding or challenges. This process fosters a sense of responsibility and ownership over their learning journey, motivating students to identify areas where they need improvement and to connect classroom concepts to real-life contexts.
To enhance student accountability, exit tickets can include reflective questions that encourage deeper thinking and personal connection to the material. Some examples of effective formative assessment questions include:
Describe a connection you can see between today’s material and your life.
What gave you the most difficulty today and why?
In 50 words or less, summarize today’s material.
These prompts not only help students consolidate their learning but also provide teachers with valuable insights into student perspectives and potential obstacles. By regularly incorporating such reflective questions into exit tickets, educators can support a growth mindset and promote active, self-directed learning that extends beyond the classroom.
Using Technology to Enhance Exit Tickets
Technology offers exciting new ways to make exit tickets more engaging, efficient, and insightful. With digital exit ticket templates, teachers can quickly create and distribute exit slips that students can complete on their laptops, tablets, or phones. Digital access to exit tickets through tools like Google Forms or Top Hat makes participation easy and allows for immediate data collection. Using a platform allows students to submit their responses from anywhere, and for educators to collect and review data in real time. Exit tickets can be completed digitally through online polls, surveys, quizzes, and forms. Digital tools also allow for a variety of question types, such as multiple choice, short answer, or even interactive elements like videos or images, making the process more fun and accessible for students.
Incorporating multimedia and creative projects can make exit tickets more enjoyable for students. Educators can use learning management systems, online survey platforms, or educational apps such as Top Hat to create and manage exit tickets, often with features like automatic grading and instant feedback. Digital exit tickets can also supplement online courses and support remote learning, making them a valuable tool for virtual or hybrid classrooms. By leveraging technology, educators can gain deeper insights into student understanding and learning, streamline the assessment process, and create a more dynamic classroom experience. Using digital exit tickets is similar to accessing information in a library—students benefit from the efficiency and breadth of digital resources, enabling more self-directed and effective learning. Digital exit tickets not only save time but also provide valuable analytics that help instructors identify trends, adjust instruction and support student achievement more effectively. Integrating technology into exit tickets reflects the role of technology in modern life and helps prepare students for real-life situations where digital skills are essential.
Using Data to Inform Instruction
One of the most powerful aspects of exit tickets is the wealth of data they provide to inform instruction and enhance student learning. When students submit their exit tickets at the end of a class period, educators gain immediate insight into student understanding of the day’s lesson. By carefully reviewing student responses—whether from multiple choice questions, short written answers, or creative formats—educators can quickly identify which concepts have been mastered and which require further attention.
This real-time feedback allows educators to make informed decisions about how to adjust their teaching strategies to better meet student needs. For example, if exit ticket data reveals that many students struggled with a key concept, teachers can decide to revisit that material in the next class, provide targeted practice, or offer additional resources. Conversely, if students demonstrate strong understanding, instructors might accelerate the pace or introduce more advanced topics, ensuring that learning remains challenging and engaging.
Regularly analyzing exit ticket responses is essential for differentiating instruction. By identifying patterns and trends in student learning, educators can create targeted interventions for those who need extra support and enrichment opportunities for those ready to move ahead. This approach not only supports individual student achievement but also helps the entire class progress more effectively toward learning goals.
In addition to shaping instruction, exit ticket data serves as a valuable tool for providing feedback to students. When instructors review and respond to student answers, they help students reflect on their own progress, recognize areas of strength, and set goals for improvement. This ongoing communication fosters a sense of ownership and agency in learning, encouraging students to take an active role in their educational journey.
To maximize the benefits of exit tickets, educators can use a variety of exit ticket templates and formats—ranging from traditional paper slips to digital forms. Digital tools, in particular, make it easy to collect, organize, and analyze data, allowing teachers to track student progress over time and quickly identify areas for instructional focus. Whether using sticky notes, online surveys, or interactive apps, the key is to create a system that regularly gathers meaningful data and uses it to inform future instruction.
Ultimately, using data from exit tickets is an essential strategy for any educator committed to improving student understanding and achievement. By making exit tickets a routine part of your assessment toolkit, you can ensure that every lesson is responsive to student needs, every student has the opportunity to succeed, and your teaching is always informed by real evidence of learning.
Exit Tickets: Classroom-Ready Examples
Top Hat’s exit ticket template, designed with the help of instructional design experts, contains many helpful printouts. This helpful instructor resource offers four versions with two templates per category. Two of the versions can be used as jumping-off points for minute papers (assessing understanding and asking students to reflect and summarize), and the other two can be used for muddiest point exercises (finding gaps in learning, and what students would want covered the following class). These exit tickets serve not only as formative assessments but also offer additional benefits by supporting a variety of assessment strategies, gathering student feedback and enhancing classroom engagement.
An exit ticket is a short formative assessment that students complete at the end of a class to demonstrate what they learned. Exit tickets typically consist of one to three questions and help instructors quickly assess understanding, identify misconceptions, and adjust future instruction.
2. What are the benefits of using exit tickets?
Exit tickets help instructors check for understanding in real time, encourage student reflection, and provide actionable feedback without adding significant grading time. When used consistently, exit tickets can improve student engagement, support data-informed teaching decisions, and increase retention of key concepts.
3. What are some effective exit ticket ideas for the classroom?
Effective exit ticket ideas include asking students to summarize the key concept in one sentence, identify the “muddiest point” from the lesson, answer a quick multiple-choice question, apply what they learned to a real-world example, or predict how the concept will be used in a future lesson or exam. These prompts encourage reflection and help instructors quickly assess student understanding.
This blog was kindly authored by Professor Amanda Broderick, Vice-Chancellor & President of the University of East London.
Across higher education, there is a growing realisation that no cavalry is coming over the hill. Government support arrives with one hand while being withdrawn with the other, and universities are being asked to do more, for more people, with fewer resources. The choice facing the sector is stark: we must transform, or be transformed.
At the University of East London (UEL), we have been on this journey for some time. In many ways, it was almost serendipitous that the University reached a point of existential pressure years before similar headwinds struck the rest of the sector. That early crisis forced us to confront difficult truths, make bold decisions, and learn quickly what genuinely works. As we approach the final quarter of our ten-year strategy, Vision 2028, our transformation is evident. We have seen a 25 percentage point improvement in positive graduate outcomes (the largest in England), an unparalleled rise in NSS rankings, a move from 90th to 2nd in the country for annual student start-ups, and a financial sustainability strategy which now places us as one of only 15 universities in the country without any external borrowing, whilst delivering a £350m investment programme.
One area underpins each of these elements of our transformation: digital.
When we launched Vision 2028, digital transformation sat at its core – not as a technology programme, but as a strategic enabler. Our ‘Digital First’ approach was designed to ensure that the entire UEL community has the tools, confidence and freedom to innovate and develop continuously. That philosophy has shaped everything we have done since.
We have migrated from on-premises data centres to a cloud infrastructure, becoming the first UK university to be fully cloud-based in 2019. This has improved resilience, reduced environmental impact, and transformed how we use big data, from student retention predictive modelling to generative AI personal learning assistance to business intelligence and management information. We have invested in innovation spaces that allow students to build their own compute environments, redesigned our website to offer a more personalised browsing experience, and strengthened our digital architecture to mitigate downtime.
Sustainability has been a constant consideration – reducing data centre usage and re-using compatible hardware wherever possible. We have also made key software available anytime, anywhere, and consolidated multiple CRM-type environments into a single solution.
But digital transformation only matters if it serves a purpose. At UEL, that purpose is careers.
How can we prepare students for future careers if we do not embed digital skills throughout their education? That question underpins our Mental Wealth and Professional Fitness curriculum, co-designed with employers to ensure students develop future-ready digital capabilities alongside cultural capital, confidence and professional inter-personal behaviours. Introductory modules are paired with sector-specific specialisation depending on course, with Level 3 and 4 modules already covering AI and digital tools for industry, digital identity and professional networks, data literacy, visualisation, and data ethics. Employability is not an add-on at UEL; it is embedded throughout the learner journey – which means that in-demand digital skills are too.
Our ambition extends beyond our enrolled students. We want to spread transformation across our communities so that opportunity is not confined to campus. Click Start, delivered by Be the Business and the University of East London in partnership with the Institute of Coding, is a powerful example. This four-week course equips young Londoners aged 18–30 with digital marketing and data analysis skills, delivering more than 90 hours of teaching alongside industry-recognised certificates from Google and Microsoft. Since June 2023, more than 230 young people have completed the programme – 41% women, 88% from ethnic minority backgrounds, and 70% from East London. Graduates have progressed into jobs, apprenticeships and further study, with some joining UEL itself and others using the programme as a springboard to transform their lives elsewhere.
This ethos of applied, inclusive innovation is reflected across our courses and underpinned by active research centres and innovation hubs, from our UK Centre for AI in the Public Sector and Centre for FinTech, to our Child Online Harms Policy Think Tank and Intelligent Technologies Research Group. Alongside our industry partnerships, this cutting-edge research ensures that what students learn remains relevant, responsible, and future-focussed.
When a student’s whole experience is designed as digital first, technology stops being a blocker and becomes an enabler. It supports our shift from a ‘university-ready student’ model to becoming a ‘student-ready university’. UEL’s Track My Future app exemplifies this approach, bringing academic, careers, and support services into a single personalised platform. Putting students’ own data into their own hands and providing a digital route-map to university life, daily active use regularly exceeds 40,000 interactions – clear evidence that digital tools can strengthen engagement and belonging.
Compared with when I joined UEL in 2018, the scale of the digital transformation today is unmistakable. This is what purposeful digital transformation looks like: not technology for its own sake, but a platform for inclusion, resilience and impact. In a sector facing relentless pressure, that is not optional – it is essential.
This blog was kindly authored by Dr Antonios Kelarakis, Reader in Polymers and Nanomaterials, University of Lancashire
UK universities increasingly reward size, visibility and institutional influence. Yet many of the discoveries that underpin scientific progress come from researchers whose work is slow, specialist and largely invisible – the academic karateka, whose precision contrasts sharply with the highly visible, institution-shaping sumo wrestler. With reforms to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) for 2029 confirmed in December 2025, there is now an opportunity to rebalance what we value in research leadership and to better align institutional incentives with how knowledge is actually produced.
In today’s academic world, two very different research styles are stepping onto the mat.
The karateka is defined by focus and precision. They dedicate themselves to mastering a single research field, refining a theory, improving a method or laying the foundations for a new diagnostic or experimental technique. Every publication is carefully considered, every contribution is incremental but cumulative. Their ambition is depth rather than scale, and they aim to reach previously inaccessible insights. These researchers often form the invisible engine of scientific progress. Their work may attract little attention beyond specialist communities, yet its influence is long-lasting and foundational.
The sumo wrestler, by contrast, plays a broader game. Their strength lies in size, coordination and visibility. They lead large research groups, oversee multiple interdisciplinary projects and accumulate titles, affiliations and advisory roles. Their calendars are filled with conferences, policy briefings and media engagement. They shape research agendas as much as individual ideas and act as the public face of modern academia. While the karateka advances knowledge through precision, the sumo wrestler moves institutions through mass and momentum.
A shifting balance of power
For much of scientific history, the karateka was the primary driver of discovery. The laws of physics, advances in chemistry and the development of new materials and analytical techniques have typically emerged from decades of focused work by scholars deeply embedded in a single domain.
In recent years, however, the balance in UK academia has tilted. Universities increasingly reward visibility, scale, collaboration and institutional contribution – metrics that naturally favour the sumo wrestler. Funding requirements emphasise partnerships, pathways to impact and the management of large consortia. Universities respond rationally by supporting researchers who can deliver coordination, profile and strategic alignment.
The karateka, meanwhile, often struggles to justify slow, methodical work in systems dominated by short-term indicators. Their contributions are essential, but they are not always easily captured by institutional performance metrics or institutional narratives.
Why REF matters now
The REF has always been a powerful signal of what universities should value. Decisions taken as part of the REF 2029 reforms strengthen the emphasis on research culture, long-term contribution and the environments that sustain excellence, alongside continued recognition of impact.
Under the revised framework, assessment is weighted across three elements: Contribution to Knowledge and Understanding (55%), Engagement and Impact (25%) and Strategy, People and Research Environment (20%), assessed at both disciplinary and institutional levels. This represents a clear shift from REF 2021, where the role of environment was more limited.
This change matters. By strengthening the role of research environment and contribution, REF 2029 creates an opening for universities to recognise how excellence is actually sustained; through deep expertise, stable methods, supportive cultures and long-term institutional investment. Research outputs remain central, but they no longer crowd out other forms of contribution to the same extent.
Karateka-style scholarship has often struggled to fit neatly into REF narratives. Breakthroughs take time, develop incrementally and may not translate into demonstrable impact within a single cycle. Yet many celebrated impact case studies ultimately rest on foundational research generated by specialist researchers whose work is less visible and harder to narrate.
From critique to policy
The reforms give universities greater scope and responsibility to act differently. REF 2029 does not dictate outcomes, but it reshapes the conditions under which institutions define excellence.
In practical terms, universities can now use the framework to reaffirm the value of:
deep, specialist expertise, even when audiences are narrow
long-term, foundational inquiry that underpins later impact
precision scholarship that strengthens methods and disciplines
small, focused teams that are often more intellectually productive than large consortia
REF 2029 offers a chance to rebalance the contest without lowering the bar for excellence. Protecting space for karateka-style research is not a retreat from impact; it is a precondition for it. When depth is preserved, leadership has something genuinely worth amplifying: impact that endures rather than merely dazzles.
