By Sean Brophy (@seanbrofee), Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Decent Work and Productivity, Manchester Metropolitan University.
A persistent challenge in UK higher education is the ethnicity degree awarding gap – the difference between White and ethnic minority students receiving top degrees (firsts or 2:1s). The Office for Students (OfS) aims to entirely eliminate this gap by 2030/31, but what if most of this gap reflects success in widening participation rather than systemic barriers?
Between 2005/6 and 2021/22, university participation grew 21% faster for Asian students and 17% faster for Black students compared to White students. This remarkable success in widening access might paradoxically explain one of the UK’s most persistent higher education challenges.
Figure 1 presents ethnicity gaps over time compared to a White baseline (the grey line constant at zero). The data for 2021/22 shows significant gaps: 21 percentage points for Black students, 9 for Asian students, and 4 for Mixed ethnicity students compared to their White peers. Traditional explanations focus on structural barriers, cultural differences, and potential discrimination, and much of the awarding gap remains unexplained after adjusting for prior attainment and background characteristics. However, a simpler explanation might be hiding in plain sight: the gap may also reflect a statistical effect created by varying participation rates across ethnic groups.
Here is the key insight: ethnic minority groups now participate in higher education at remarkably higher rates than White students, which likely then drives some of the observed ethnicity awarding gaps. Figure 2 presents the over-representation of ethnic groups in UK higher education relative to the White reference group (again, the constant grey line). The participation gap has grown substantially – Asian students were 22 percentage points more likely to attend university than White students in 2021/22, with Black students 18 points higher.
Over-representation of ethnic groups in HE compared to White baseline (2005/6-2021/22)
This difference in participation rates creates an important statistical effect, what economists call ‘compositional effects’. When a much larger proportion of any group enters university, that group may naturally include a broader range of academic ability. Think of it like this: if mainly the top third of White students attend university, but nearly half of ethnic minority students do, we would expect to see differences in degree outcomes – even with completely fair teaching and assessment.
This principle can be illustrated using stylized ability-participation curves for representative ethnic groups in Figure 3. These curves show the theoretical distribution of academic ability for Asian, Black, and White groups, with the red shaded area representing the proportion of students from each group accepted into higher education in 2021/22. It would be surprising if there was no degree awarding gap under these conditions!
Stylized ability-participation curves by ethnic group
This hypothesis suggests the degree awarding gap might largely reflect the success of widening participation policies. Compositional effects like these are difficult to control for in studies, and it is noteworthy that, to date, no studies on the ethnicity awarding gap have adequately controlled for these effects (including one of my recent studies).
While this theory may offer a compelling statistical explanation, future research pursuing this line of inquiry needs to go beyond simply controlling for prior achievement. We need to examine both how individual attainment evolves from early education to university, using richer measures than previous studies, and how the expansion of university participation has changed the composition of student ability over time. This analysis must also account for differences within broad ethnic categories (British Indian students, for example, show different patterns from other Asian groups) and consider how university and subject choices vary across groups.
My argument is not that compositional effects explain everything — rather, understanding their magnitude is crucial for correctly attributing how much of the gap is driven by traditional explanations, such as prior attainment, background characteristics, structural barriers, or discrimination. Only with this fuller picture can we properly target resources and interventions where they’re most needed.
If this hypothesis is proven correct, however, it underscores why the current policy focus on entirely eliminating gaps through teaching quality or support services, while well-intentioned, may be misguided. If gaps are the statistically inevitable result of differing participation patterns among ethnic groups, then institutional interventions cannot entirely eliminate them. This doesn’t mean universities shouldn’t strive to support all students effectively – but it does require us to fundamentally rethink how we measure and address educational disparities.
Rather than treating all gaps as problems to be eliminated, we should:
Fund research which better accounts for these compositional effects.
Develop benchmarks that account for participation rates when measuring degree outcomes.
Contextualize the success of widening participation with acknowledging awarding gaps as an inevitable statistical consequence.
Focus resources on early academic support for students from all backgrounds who might need additional help, particularly in early childhood.
Explore barriers in other post-16 or post-18 pathways that may be contributing to the over-representation of some groups in higher education.
This blog was kindly authored by Annamaria Carusi, Director at Interchange Research. Annamaria recently joined a HEPI/Taylor & Francis roundtable to discuss advancing translational research.
HEPI, together with Taylor & Francis, recently highlighted translational research’s importance in bridging scientific discovery and real-world applications. This is a much-needed part of higher education strategy, especially given Labour’s framing of its policies in terms of missions. If the government is inspired by Mariana Mazzucato’s conception of missions, it needs policies that will ensure the country fully benefits from the substantial investment made by the State into research and development. Finding better connections between knowledge production and application is a key way of doing this.
Often, the focus of attention in translational efforts is bounded within STEM subjects, with the idea of translation originating in the biomedical sciences, with the ‘bench to bedside’ approach. But the creative industries are just as central to the economic well-being of the country – and its people. This is recognised in the establishment of the government’s Creative Industries Taskforce, which had its first meeting in December 2024.
Addressing the tension between the potential of the arts and humanities and the financial pressures they are under is a priority for any policy to build bridges between higher education and real-world impacts. Pre-conceptions about different disciplines’ relation to real-world impacts feed these tensions. Here, I suggest three areas where shifting pre-conceptions would be helpful for better positioning of arts and humanities with respect to real-world impacts.
Secondly, pitting Arts and Humanities and STEM against each other is not only counterproductive, but also creates an obstacle to further benefits of the arts and humanities, beyond those we already see through the creative industries. The need for models of research where different disciplines complement each other is even greater in the mission framework that the Labour government has adopted for its policy.
Crucial for getting the best out of these collaborations – not just for the first goal of research, the peer-reviewed publication, but for those all-important social impacts – is that all disciplines involved should be viewed as equal partners. An anecdote from one of my (many) personal experiences of collaborating as a humanities scholar with scientists shows why: I was invited to be an Arts and Humanities representative in a synthetic biology network, a cross-disciplinary collaboration that, at the time, was required by funders. When I asked what that might entail, I was told: ‘Anything, so long as you don’t put obstacles in the way of our research.’ But maybe disruption sometimes is a useful part of research and innovation? Further, there was nothing in the funding structure of the network that equalised the collaboration or tried to work towards a genuine integration; ultimately all the partners were in a loose network and mostly everyone researched and published in their own pre-set disciplinary journals.
When collaborating across these domains, we must understand that the arts are not secondary vehicles for science and technology. They are not merely communicators of scientific ideas already worked out by the scientists; the humanities are not there only to bring their particular brand of empathy or analytical and critical thinking skills, but also for the substantive content and ideas they bring. As equal partners addressing complex societal challenges together, the outputs and innovations that make their way into society are more likely to be implementable, with fewer unthought-through consequences for society. Additionally, the recognised and incentivised outputs of a collaboration should be broad enough to accommodate research publications, data sets, and products (such as a drug, a device, a policy, or a piece of software) but also the very wide array of direct and indirect outputs of the creative sector.
Thirdly, we need to tackle perceptions about employability, beginning with those of students as they make their course and degree choices. The lower numbers of students choosing arts and humanities courses at university goes hand in hand with the lower numbers choosing these subjects for AS and A-levels. In the case of English A-levels, one of the contributing factors is that there is a clearer career pathway for STEM subjects. This is despite the fact that Arts and Humanities are no slouches regarding employment. In 2022, 620 000 workers were employed in the arts sector and a further 350 000 were self-employed. It is often proposed that couching the Arts and Humanities in terms of their employment or economic impacts diminishes their intrinsic value. The intrinsic/extrinsic binary is not helpful, especially when it serves to fuel the perceived differences between arts and humanities, and science and technology. All of these disciplines have intrinsic values: as a researcher who has followed scientists around their labs, I have seen first-hand that often what holds them there is their passion for their subject for its own sake.
The more Arts and Humanities are seen as only one side of a binary between ‘intrinsic’ versus ‘extrinsic’ values, the more they become the precinct of an elite class, who go on to shape the arts sector in their image. Instead, what is needed is a concerted effort to change these perceptions and to show students that they can have both intrinsic and extrinsic values. Whichever model is used for bridging across higher education and real-world impact for the arts and humanities, be it translation or co-creation, should capture the complex relations between these two forms of value. The right forms of career support need to be co-designed with the whole sector and highlighted for prospective students. As we form strategies to realise more fully the direct and indirect benefits of arts and humanities, the economic survival of those practising them cannot be placed on a lower rung than those practising other disciplines.
Today on the HEPI website, Annamaria Carusi challenges the common assumption that translational research is only relevant to STEM fields, making the case for a broader, more integrated approach that fully values the contributions of the arts and humanities. If we want to maximize the real-world impact of research, she argues, it is time to rethink outdated silos and recognize the creative industries as essential players in innovation and economic growth. You can read that piece here.
Below, as the government considers higher education reform, Dr Brooke Storer-Church and Dr Kate Wicklow make the case for specialist higher education institutions and warn against the dangers of homogenisation.
GuildHE represents the most diverse range of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) that are crucial to the prosperity of the sector, the economy, and our global reputation. We therefore argue that in an increasingly complex world, the role of specialist higher education institutions has never been more vital. These institutions, with their deep-rooted expertise and tailored approach, offer a unique and invaluable contribution to the landscape of higher education by providing diverse approaches and pathways to a wide range of students.
Diversity is a necessary ingredient for a successful and sustainable higher education sector, and this is becoming clearer from an analysis of the United States landscape, along with Australia and other large higher education systems. Expert commentators grappling with some of the current challenges for American universities and colleges offer a hypothesis, positing that losing the diversity of mission and distinctiveness, objectives and audiences has been key to its diminishing public support. This homogenisation includes institutional, mission, operational, and aspirational similarities, which see every institution strive to ‘be all things to all people’ and thereby offer ‘the same thing for only some of the people.’
In November, the Secretary of State wrote to the higher education sector outlining five areas for reform. GuildHE has scrutinised these areas and suggested to the Department for Education (DfE) ways to use the strengths of our sector to meet these challenges. However, some of the debate surrounding reform includes calls for consolidation and institutional mergers to offer the best ‘efficiencies’ in the sector.
While GuildHE members drive innovation, enrich communities and ensure access to high-quality education, their impact is often overlooked because they are not traditional, large-scale, multi-faculty universities. Funding and regulatory systems and government policies often fail to recognise institutions that do not fit this conventional university image. We, therefore, argue consolidation in the sector puts institutional diversity and student choice at risk, jeopardises our world-leading status, and undermines the Government’s missions of supporting local communities, equality of opportunity and our national economy.
Overall, we want to see Government reform which champions our diversity, avoids policies that undermine the unique contributions of our diverse institutions, and actively invests to protect them.
A focus on depth and industrial relevance
Unlike their more generalist counterparts, specialist HEIs prioritise depth over breadth. They delve into specific disciplines, professions or industries, providing students with a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of their chosen field. This focused approach fosters a level of knowledge and skills that is often unmatched elsewhere and is increasingly in demand to tackle 21st-century challenges.
Whilst GuildHE is known for representing specialist creative arts institutions, which together train about 40% of all creative HE students in England, we represent a wider range of specialists, including healthcare specialists like Health Sciences University, specialists in the built environment like University College of Estate Management (which is also a specialist in online delivery) and all the land-based specialist universities in the sector. The agri-food sector employs almost 4 million people and is larger than the automotive and aerospace sectors combined. Technological innovations and sustainability and productivity improvements are driven by our specialist land-based institutions, which work closely with industrial partners. This specialist expertise is transforming the future of food production, bringing together disciplines such as robotics and artificial intelligence and contributing to the broader push towards net-zero food and farming. Several agriculture-focused higher education providers have their own farms and industrial research centres for testing and development.
Nationally, our institutions work with the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, right across government and with industry sector bodies; for example, Harper Adams University has advised the government on matters related to food security. Their impact is also international, as agri-food HEIs work with the Department for International Trade to boost the profile of UK agricultural innovation overseas and educational and research and development programmes are forged with international partners from the US and China to Kenya, Australia and the Netherlands.
A culture of innovation
As natural innovators, many specialist institutions know their regions well and will be a critical part of generating economic growth there. They are locally significant as employers and community anchors and active partners in Local Enterprise Partnerships and other local bodies, such as Chambers of Commerce. Below is just a small sample of the innovations delivered by our specialist institutions.
Norwich University of the Arts collaborated with regional businesses to innovate film technology that mid-size regional film production companies use. The project created new jobs in Norfolk, boosted film production for regional, small-scale productions and start-ups, and the insights gained from the project were incorporated into the university curriculum. By equipping students with cutting-edge knowledge and skills, NUA is empowering them to contribute to the region’s growing knowledge-based economy by equipping them with cutting-edge knowledge and skills.
Dyson Institute for Engineering and Technology is training the future workforce of engineers with a particular focus on pioneering new technologies that make intrinsically relevant real-world impacts. Innovation areas include delivering safe, cleaner, energy-efficient batteries, prototyping products in aerodynamics, mechatronics and microbiology and robotics for clinical imaging, navigation technology and machine learning.
Hartpury University is a leading institution for agriculture, agri-tech, animal and veterinary sciences. Its Agri-Tech Centre is a state-of-the-art complex, connecting research, knowledge, data, and people in a real-world and applied setting. Through the Centre, it provides industry-led services for the advancement of agricultural technologies and delivers proven solutions and services to farms and suppliers across the UK. This hub offers a path for innovative agri-tech businesses to trial new products and services to modernise and sustain British farming.
A sense of community
One of the defining characteristics of specialist HEIs is their strong sense of community. Students, staff and alumni often share a common passion for their field, creating a supportive and inspiring environment. This sense of community fosters a deep sense of belonging and can lead to lifelong friendships and professional networks.
Arts University Plymouth’s Young Arts programme was established in 1988. It features the university’s renowned Saturday Arts Clubs and for over 30 years, has worked to bridge the gap in arts provision for young people created by increasingly limited access to creative activity in schools. Young Arts uses art as a catalyst for learning, shaping the artists, makers and creative thinkers of the future, supporting learning and social development, often working with specific widening participation groups.
Starting in September 2025, Harper Adams University (HAU) will open a suite of undergraduate courses at The Quad, Telford; its first additional site in 124 years and a new base from which the university can extend its collaboration with and connection to its local community. In The Quad, HAU is co-located with Telford College, Invest Telford, and the local MP to broaden access for local learners to future-focused courses like data science, robotics mechatronics and automation, and digital business. HAU is also providing short courses and upskilling for local businesses to support local growth.
Our asks of government
As we argue extensively in our submission to DfE, specialist HEIs offer a diverse range of programmes and courses that meet the needs of a wide range of students and community partners and meet each of the five areas of higher education reform. They are, therefore, the essential threads in the fabric of our diverse, rich and successful higher education landscape; threads that have been regrettably lost in other systems around the world. Their focus on depth, industry partnerships, innovation and community makes them uniquely positioned to prepare students for success in a rapidly changing world. As we look to the future, it is clear that specialist HEIs must continue to play a vital role in shaping the next generation of leaders and innovators.
Global trend analysis has shown that government policies, regulation and academic communities have all contributed to the homogeneity of higher education in other countries. This reduces social mobility by reducing modes of entry and delivery. It also weakens applied research and innovation and the pipeline of experts into the labour market, as it loses its ability to create the growing variety of specialisations needed for economic and social development.
At a time when we, as a sector, are grappling with the twin pressures of making our contributions to wider society clearer and delivering the promise with fewer resources, we must all protect the very diversity within it that ensures we can rise to the 21st-century challenges on our doorstep and retain a world-leading and (possibly) increasingly unique higher education sector.
We have published a summary of our submission to DfE with our various policy asks to protect the diversity of our system here.
Authored by Dr Emma Roberts, Head of Law at the University of Salford.
The loss of a student to suicide is a profound and heartbreaking tragedy, leaving families and loved ones devastated, while exposing critical gaps in the support systems within higher education. Each death is not only a personal tragedy but also a systemic failure, underscoring the urgent need for higher education institutions to strengthen their safeguarding frameworks.
The time for piecemeal solutions has passed. To confront this crisis, bold and systemic reforms are required. One such reform – the introduction of an opt-out consent system for welfare contact – has the potential to transform how universities respond to students in crisis.
An opt-out consent model
At present, universities typically rely on opt-in systems, where students are asked to nominate a contact to be informed in emergencies. This has come to be known as the Bristol consent model. Where this system exists, they are not always invoked when students face severe mental health challenges. The reluctance often stems from concerns about breaching confidentiality laws and the fear of legal repercussions. This hesitancy can result in critical delays in involving a student’s support network at the time when their wellbeing may be most at risk, leaving universities unable to provide timely, life-saving interventions. Moreover, evidence suggests that many students, particularly those experiencing mental health challenges, fail to engage with these systems, leaving institutions unable to notify loved ones when serious concerns arise.
Not all universities have such a system in place. And some universities, while they may have a ‘nominated person’ process, lack the infrastructure to appropriately engage the mechanism of connecting with the emergency contact when most needed.
An opt-out consent model would reverse this default, automatically enrolling students into a system where a trusted individual – such as a parent, guardian or chosen contact – can be notified if their wellbeing raises grave concerns. Inspired by England and Wales’ opt-out system for organ donation, this approach would prioritise safeguarding without undermining student autonomy.
Confidentiality must be balanced with the need to protect life. An opt-out model offers precisely this balance, creating a proactive safety net that supports students while respecting their independence.
Legislative provision
For such a system to succeed, it must be underpinned by robust legislation and practical safeguards. Key measures would include:
Comprehensive communication: universities must clearly explain the purpose and operation of the opt-out system during student onboarding, ensuring that individuals are fully informed of their rights and options.
Defined triggers: criteria for invoking welfare contact must be transparent and consistently applied. This might include extended absences, concerning behavioural patterns or explicit threats of harm.
Regular reviews: students should have opportunities to update or withdraw their consent throughout their studies, ensuring the system remains flexible and respectful of changing personal circumstances.
Privacy protections: institutions must share only essential information with the nominated contact, ensuring the student’s broader confidentiality is preserved.
Staff training: university staff, including academic and professional services personnel, must receive regular training on recognising signs of mental health crises, navigating confidentiality boundaries and ensuring compliance with the opt-out system’s requirements. This training would help ensure interventions are timely, appropriate and aligned with legal and institutional standards.
Reporting and auditing: universities should implement robust reporting and auditing mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of the opt-out system. This should include maintaining records of instances where welfare contact was invoked, monitoring outcomes and conducting periodic audits to identify gaps or areas for improvement. Transparent reporting would not only enhance accountability but also foster trust among stakeholders.
Lessons from the organ donation model
The opt-out system for organ donation introduced in both Wales and England demonstrates the effectiveness of reframing consent to drive societal benefit. Following its implementation, public trust was maintained and the number of registered organ donors increased. A similar approach in higher education could establish a proactive baseline for safeguarding without coercing students into participation.
Addressing legal and cultural barriers
A common barrier to implementing such reforms is the fear of overstepping legal boundaries. Currently, universities are hesitant to breach confidentiality, even in critical situations, for fear of breaching trust and privacy and prompting litigation. Enshrining the opt-out system in law to include the key measures listed above would provide institutions with the clarity and confidence to act decisively, ensuring consistency across the sector. Culturally, universities must address potential scepticism by engaging students, staff and families in dialogue about the system’s goals and safeguards.
The need for legislative action
To ensure the successful implementation of an opt-out consent system, decisive actions are required from both the government and higher education institutions. The government must take the lead by legislating the introduction of this system, creating a consistent, sector-wide approach to safeguarding student wellbeing. Without legislative action, universities will remain hesitant, lacking the legal clarity and confidence needed to adopt such a bold model.
Legislation is the only way to ensure every student, regardless of where they study, receives the same high standard of protection, ending the current postcode lottery in safeguarding practices across the sector.
A call for collective action
Universities, however, must not wait idly for legislation to take shape. They have a moral obligation to begin addressing the gaps in their welfare notification systems now. By expanding or introducing opt-in systems as an interim measure, institutions can begin closing these gaps, gathering critical data and refining their practices in readiness for a sector-wide transition.
Universities should unite under sector bodies to lobby the government for legislative reform, demonstrating their collective commitment to safeguarding students. Furthermore, institutions must engage their communities – students, staff and families – in a transparent dialogue about the benefits and safeguards of the opt-out model, ensuring a broad base of understanding and support for its eventual implementation.
This dual approach of immediate institutional action paired with long-term legislative reform represents a pragmatic and proactive path forward. Universities can begin saving lives today while laying the groundwork for a robust, consistent and legally supported safeguarding framework for the future.
Setting a New Standard for Student Safeguarding
The rising mental health crisis among students demands more than institutional goodwill – it requires systemic change. While the suicide rate among higher education students is lower than in the general population, this should not be a cause for complacency. Each loss is a profound tragedy and a clear signal that systemic improvements are urgently needed to save lives. Higher education institutions have a duty to prioritise student wellbeing and must ensure that their environments offer the highest standards of safety and support. An opt-out consent system for welfare contact is not a panacea, but it represents a critical step towards creating safer and more supportive university environments.
The higher education sector has long recognised the importance of student wellbeing, yet its current frameworks remain fragmented and reactive. This proposal is both bold and achievable. It aligns with societal trends towards proactive safeguarding, reflects a compassionate approach to student welfare and offers a legally sound mechanism to prevent future tragedies.
The loss of 64 students to suicide in a single academic year is a stark reminder that the status quo is failing. By adopting an opt-out consent system, universities can create a culture of care that saves lives, supports grieving families and fulfils their duty to protect students.
The time to act is now. With legislative backing and sector-wide commitment, this reform could become a cornerstone of a more compassionate and effective national response to student suicide prevention.
By Dr Monika Nangia, Academic Registrar and Director of Student & Academic Services at Durham University.
In a world increasingly aware of the value of diversity, the role of women in leadership is more critical – and undervalued – than ever. Despite encouraging strides, women, particularly women of colour, continue to face systemic barriers to advancement. This is a story of resilience, inequity, and hope.
The conversation around diversity and inclusion is urgent, and storytelling has emerged as one of the most potent tools to address these challenges. It connects us on a human level, fosters empathy, and confronts biases. At its best, storytelling is transformational.
In my career, I have witnessed the transformative power of storytelling in ushering in meaningful change. The stories we carry as women – of resilience, determination, and overcoming barriers – are far more powerful than any statistic or corporate policy. These personal narratives, shared boldly, have the potential to inspire, to challenge, and to reshape how we think about leadership.
Why We Need Women in Leadership
The benefits of gender-diverse leadership are unequivocal. According to Deloitte’s Global Human Capital Trends, organisations with inclusive cultures achieve 2.3 times higher cash flow per employee, 1.4 times more revenue, and are 120% more capable of meeting financial targets. Diverse boards, particularly those with greater gender and ethnic representation, also demonstrate better resilience and crisis management – evident during the COVID-19 pandemic.
But beyond numbers lies the human impact. Women leaders bring ‘cognitive diversity’, which accelerates learning and performance in complex and uncertain situations. Their leadership fosters a sense of belonging, improves employee engagement, and reduces turnover.
The journey to leadership for women is fraught with challenges. The ‘broken rung’ effect—where women are less likely than men to be hired or promoted into entry-level managerial roles – creates a bottleneck that compounds over time. For every 100 men promoted to manager, only 81 women make the same leap, with even fewer opportunities for women of colour.
Racial inequalities exacerbate this gap. McKinsey’s 2020 report highlights that women of colour face the steepest drop-off in career advancement at the transition from middle to senior management. Cultural expectations and resistance to authority further hinder their progress.
These systemic inequities are reflected starkly in higher education. According to the HEPI Report 2020, Mind the Gap: Gender differences in HE, while women now constitute 55% of university staff in the UK, they occupy only 29% of vice-chancellor roles. Among professors, women account for 29.7%, but Black women make up less than 1%.
The Power of Storytelling
Stories have a unique ability to amplify voices, challenge biases, and inspire inclusivity. Neuroscience tells us that engaging narratives release oxytocin in the brain, promoting empathy and altruistic behaviour. More than data or policy, storytelling humanises diverse experiences and catalyses change.
I’ve seen firsthand how storytelling transforms workplaces. Women leaders who share their personal journeys of resilience and ambition inspire others to envision new possibilities. Their stories break down preconceived notions, fostering an inclusive mindset that leads to behavioural change.
One colleague who spoke candidly about her experience being the only woman of colour in a senior leadership team. She described how, despite excelling in her role, her authority was often questioned, and she had to work twice as hard to gain the same respect as her peers.
Her story resonated deeply, not just because of the challenges she faced, but because of the hope and strength she embodied. By sharing her experience, she is creating a ripple effect – encouraging others to speak up, address inequities, and push for change.
Storytelling is also about accountability. In fact, it is far more important to confront the untold stories, the contributions of women whose voices have been silenced or overlooked. This is especially true for women of colour, whose experiences often fall at the intersection of gender and race-based inequities.
Mending the ‘Broken Rung’
A combination of stories like hers, with corresponding datasets as evidence, expose the structural barriers that continue to hold women back. The ‘broken rung’ is a vivid example of this.
Another story that sticks with me is from a woman in higher education, who spoke about being overlooked for a leadership role despite being the most qualified candidate. She later discovered that her ambition had been perceived as ‘sharp-elbowed’ and intimidating – a stark contrast to how her male counterparts were described.
Hearing her story compelled me to reflect on how ambition in women is often misinterpreted, reinforcing stereotypes that undermine their credibility. At a recent workshop, a senior leader shared her journey of overcoming immense personal and professional obstacles to lead a major organisational transformation. Her authenticity and vulnerability moved the room, sparking conversations about resilience, leadership, and the need for systemic change.
Building a Legacy of Inclusive Leadership
The path to inclusive leadership requires intentionality. It means addressing both visible and invisible barriers, from hiring practices to cultural attitudes. The stories we share today will shape the leadership landscape of tomorrow. As women, we have the opportunity – and the responsibility – to use our narratives to drive change.
Organisations with diverse leadership teams outperform their peers not just financially but also in innovation and problem-solving. The evidence is clear: diversity is not just a moral imperative – it is a strategic advantage. But the true value of diversity goes beyond metrics. It’s about creating workplaces where everyone feels they belong, where their contributions are valued, and where they can thrive.
Jack Goodman, Founder of Studiosity, reviews AI Snake Oil: What Artificial Intelligence Can Do, What It Can’t, and How to Tell the Difference by Arvind Narayan and Sayash Kapoor.
Is artificial intelligence (AI) going to transform our universities? Or will it destroy the need for a tertiary education? Right now, it’s impossible to tell.
If you read the media, you’re likely to think things will end up at one extreme or the other. That’s because we are living in an age of AI hype, where exaggerated claims about the technology – both on the plus side from the biggest AI engineering firms, and on the downside from those concerned about a dystopian future – are dominating the conversation.
For those of us who aren’t computer scientists or software engineers with domain expertise, wouldn’t it be helpful to have a guide to help us unpack what’s going on and figure out how to engage with this technology that may prove to be world-altering?
If you’re a head of state or a billionaire, then you probably already have an AI advisor. For the rest of us, Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor, two computer scientists at Princeton University, have kindly written AI Snake Oil as a layman’s roadmap to the current and likely future trajectory of the technology. (Alongside the book the pair have launched a website that’s full of the most current commentary and analysis.)
Narayanan and Kapoor are concerned with the full gamut of AI, not just the ‘generative’ variety that has garnered so much attention since its ‘debut’ with the arrival of ChatGPT. They helpfully separate AI into three main streams: Predictive AI, Generative AI and Content Moderation AI. All three suffer from claims of exaggerated effectiveness, a lack of scientific evidence and fantastic claims about their future capabilities.
For the purposes of a higher education audience, it’s generative AI that’s of most interest, because that’s the technology that can simulate the intellectual output of an educated brain – whether in the form of text or visual imagery. They put genAI into its historical context: most of us don’t know that the neural network theory that underpins genAI goes back to the 1950s, and that it’s been through a series of cycles of hype and disappointment.
Sadly, the authors aren’t particularly interested in the impact of genAI on higher education, apart from noting off-handedly that the technology appears to be largely undetectable, and that financially-strapped universities that think the technology will deliver endless efficiency dividends may be sadly disappointed. At various points they mention how they encourage active engagement with AI to understand what it can and cannot do, all from the perspective of their lives at Princeton. That’s not particularly helpful given how outlandishly wealthy, privileged, and tiny that university is.
Also, the authors miss an opportunity to explore different types of genAI technologies, particularly those that may be designed to encourage learning versus others that improve human productivity by offloading cognitive effort. No doubt the latter are already transforming human work, but whether they have a place in higher education is a different question.
There is a concept in AI known as ‘alignment’, which refers to the risk that uncontrolled AI may, as it approaches more powerful levels of general intelligence, act against the interests of humans and harm (or even kill) us. It’s controversial, and the authors devote an entire chapter to how we should think about, and respond to, technology companies’ pursuit of artificial general intelligence (AGI).
From the perspective of higher education, our sector may be better served in the immediate term by thinking about alignment in terms of the interests of educational institutions and the (mostly American) technology companies that are at the vanguard of developing genAI. The culture of incrementalism that has traditionally served universities well may not be so effective when dealing with such a rapidly approaching paradigm shift in humans’ relationship with technology.
The conclusion of AI Snake Oil is a little surprising. The authors make clear that humanity’s relationship with AI will be determined by all of us –individuals and institutions, as well as regulators and politicians. No doubt there is an opportunity for universities and their leaders to take a leading role in shaping this conversation, using their institutional resources and cultural authority to help inform the public and guide us all toward a better relationship with ever more powerful computers.
We all need to be educated, informed, and willing to speak up – so that we don’t end up living in a world where AI is dominated by the largest and most powerful corporations the planet has ever seen. That will be the worst of all possible outcomes.
Studiosity is a learning technology company that works with 100+ universities globally and serving 2.2 million university students across the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the Middle East. Jack founded Studiosity in Sydney in 2003 with a vision to make the highest quality academic study support accessible to every student, regardless of their geographic or socio-economic circumstances.
As social action charity Student Hubs closes on 31 January 2025, we have spent the past six months creating resources, toolkits and a report which advocates for growing student social action within universities: we want to share an overview of our case and legacy to the higher education sector.
Student Hubs was developed by students in 2007, growing across England and Wales to deliver volunteering, events, conferences, training programmes and in-curricular activities. We reached 20,000 students across 10 Hub locations, including engaging 1,200 community organisations and over 16,000 community members. In 2023-24 our activities represented over 8,000 hours contributed to social issues across Bristol, Birmingham, Cambridge, London and Southampton. We are keen for universities to step up to meet the vast gap we will be leaving within the sector.
A Government definition in 2016 framed social action as ‘people coming together to help improve their lives and solve the problems that are important in their communities’. Our ‘Case for Social Action’ looks through the lens of Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson’s call to the sector in November 2024 outlining what the Labour Government expects universities to achieve moving forward. We summarise how social action can meet these agendas in practice.
‘Expanding access and improving outcomes for disadvantaged students’
Through social action there are opportunities to meet both the needs of young people and our current students, which we saw through delivering tutoring, school clubs, Saturday activity days, library and community-based activities and in-school workshops. We have seen first-hand how social action activities meet university agendas on access, student employability and civic engagement.
Speaking about Libraries Plus, where students provided tutoring support in libraries in Southampton, our student coordinator Sahiba from the University of Southampton shared:
Libraries Plus is an extremely rewarding and enriching project. At the start of term, a volunteer who is an international student was wary about their English speaking skills: by the end of term, they let me know how much their confidence and social skills had bloomed … parents constantly let me know how pleased they were with the project and how valuable the tutoring had been for their children, who just needed that little bit of extra help to unlock their full potential.
Civic roles and economic growth
Students need to play a much bigger part in universities delivering knowledge exchange, research and civic engagement activities. In our 2022-23 impact data, 71% of partners agreed that working with the Hub had positively changed their perceptions of university students, and 86% agreed that working with the Hub had given them a sense of connection to the student community. In a landscape where ‘only 10% of respondents listed more funding for universities as a priority’ in polling conducted by Public First prior to the 2024 general election, universities need to build stronger relationships with the public and share their expertise and resources.
For students, engaging with local organisations and community members enriches the in-curricular experience. In 2020-21, Dina, an International Business student at Kingston University, took part in a module that Student Hubs delivered in partnership with academics as part of our Community Engaged Learning approach, which embedded real-life briefs with socially impactful organisations. Dina consulted for a local organisation on adapting their marketing, programmes and outreach to engage a wider community of users in the Greater London area. She said:
It has been extremely beneficial, mainly because it has given me practical experience in learning more about different cultures. The fact that in this case my team and I were able to deal with issues related to the module whilst being able to communicate with the client directly helped to make a lot of theories and topics come into practice. It has been very inspirational to work directly with a community partner as it allowed me to actually understand the reality behind how some members of society are being integrated and given me insight into details to take into consideration in a professional environment to communicate with clients with confidence and competence.
Through this module, the partner organisation received research and recommendations they could implement in their local activities: an example of free knowledge exchange and capacity which the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector vitally needs right now. Student social action, facilitating staff volunteering for trusteeships and governorships and partnership activities which fill the funding the VCSE sector is struggling to achieve from elsewhere are all ways in which universities can support their regions to make genuine change. Speaking as a charity ourselves that is closing, we urge universities to do more to support these local organisations and integrate them into the university experience.
University reform
Embedding civic activities and social action, alongside the necessity for universities to reform, presents the opportunity to streamline and prioritise what the university experience means. This includes how the community is integrated into teaching, learning and extracurriculars and how graduate skills are embedded into all facets of university life. Social action should be fun, social and engaging, designed to inspire and develop students into individuals with the skills to make change. Our student and graduate cohorts are facing deep systemic social issues which they are desperate to face, but are struggling to know how to do so amidst balancing their commitments for study, work and making connections with their peers and place.
Social action can provide the space to do this and more for students and communities: what is needed is the long-term investment in our cause by universities themselves, now that Student Hubs are no longer there to champion student social action.
Every leader’s weaknesses are clear before they rise to power if you look in the right places. We knew Gordon Brown’s seriousness could merge into tantrums long before the revelations about throwing phones at staff came to light, and we knew Boris Johnson’s joie de vivre hampered an eye for detail long before he caught the ball ‘from the back of the scrum’ and entered Number 10. If Nigel Farage ever makes it to the top job, as ever more people seem to be predicting, no one will be able to claim his destructive approach to politics was previously hidden.
Similarly, this new biography of Trump written by two New York Times journalists proves the US President’s weaknesses were evident beneath the bluster throughout his long business career in hotels, casinos and golf courses. If the authors are right, Trump has long been prone to taking big risks on a hunch, to acting litigiously and to seeking credit for things that aren’t his doing. The title suggests he was a Lucky Loser, though perhaps that is just an uncharitable way of saying he was a big winner against the odds.
As a businessman, the book shows how Trump began lucky, with ‘the equivalent of half a billion dollars from his father’, and ended lucky, with ‘another half billion as a reality television star’. These allowed him to take on huge debts, aided by paying as little tax as possible and reclaiming what tax he had paid whenever he could (as during Obama’s Great Recession recovery programme).
Trump’s dollars from the TV show ‘The Apprentice’ came not so much from appearance fees as from his right to half the profits from any sponsorship deals and from lending his name to all sorts of businesses attracted by his TV success, from health supplements to early video phones. These enabled him to keep afloat. But there were many lows to Trump’s business career and a number of his big projects declared bankruptcy in the 1990s and 2000s, leading the two authors to conclude, ‘He would have been better off betting on the stock market than on himself.’
If there’s one person responsible for Trump’s rise to the top, it is Mark Burnett, a British Falklands veteran who is now the United States Special Envoy to the UK. Burnett invented the TV programme ‘Survivor’ before creating an urban equivalent in The Apprentice (and later also creating ‘The Voice’). And if there’s one thing responsible for Trump’s rise it seems to be vanilla-and-mint Crest toothpaste as Proctor & Gamble were the first mass consumer company to do serious sponsorship of The Apprentice. They paid $1.1 million to get the contestants to come up with a new toothpaste, thereby drawing attention to the actual new vanilla-and-mint product sitting on shop shelves.
Ostensibly, this all has little to do with higher education. But Trump University (also known as Trump U) is one of the most notable of all the current US President’s past projects and one of the ventures undertaken just before he stood for the Presidency for the first time. Trump not only lent his name to the project, he also invested millions of dollars in return for 93% of the business –like Victor Kiam, he liked it so much he bought the company. But the authors of this book conclude the whole thing was a disaster from start to finish.
Beginning as a way to sell recorded lectures to small and medium-sized businesses, Trump University quickly moved into get-rich-quick in-person seminars. The Trump Elite Gold programme had a fee of $34,995 (about the same as the entire cost of a three-year degree in England or Wales). Prospective learners were told, ‘There are three groups of people … People who make things happen; people who wait for things to happen; and people who wonder, “What happened?”’ If you wanted to be in the first group, you were encouraged to open your wallet or else borrow the necessary fee.
One failed applicant for The Apprentice, Stephen Gilpin, found himself tapped up to work for Trump U but later wrote an exposé that claimed, ‘the focus for Trump University was purely on separating suckers from their money.’ At the time, Trump said he hand-picked the instructors, but he did no such thing. The whole venture ended up in three major lawsuits, which were settled just as Trump became President for the first time.
In the end, the story of Trump University confirms a truism: it is vital to protect the use of the term ‘University’ and to police it actively and in real time. The book serves as a reminder that – as Jo Johnson has argued persuasively on the HEPI blog – pausing new awards for University Title means the Office for Students is giving less attention to this area than it should.
It is ironic that the global leader of right-wing populism should not only have sought to establish his own ‘University’ but that, having done so, it should embody in such exaggerated form all the negatives that populists tend to ascribe to traditional universities: poor value for money; an unoriginal curriculum taught by ill-trained staff; and insufficient personal attention to students. However, if a new book being published today attacking UK and US universities, Bad Education: Why our universities are broken and how we can fix them by Matt Goodwin, is any guide to populism more generally, then the failure of Trump U has not deterred the attacks on places that actually do have the legal right to call themselves a ‘University’.
Goodwin starts with a chapter called ‘Why I decided to speak out’ though it could just have easily been called ‘The grass is always greener’ or ‘Looking back with rose-tinted spectacles’. The book’s core argument is that:
the rapid expansion of the university bureaucracy, the sharp shift to the left among university academics and the politicization of the wider system of higher education have left universities in a perilous state.
As a result, Goodwin argues, ‘our universities are not just letting down but betraying an entire generation of students.’
He notes that, as the number of EDI (Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion) champions has gone up, some types of diversity, such as diversity in academic thought, have gone down. But Goodwin is a political scientist rather than a historian and the problems he identifies are not as new as he makes out. Far-left students used to disrupt Enoch Powell, Keith Joseph and Leon Brittan when they spoke on campus; now they try and block Helen Joyce, Kathleen Stock and Jo Phoenix. The issue of whether such individuals should be allowed to speak even if some people on campus will be ‘offended’ are the same. The recourse to legislation in response is the same too: the rows of the 1980s led to the Education (No. 2) Act (1986) and the rows of today led to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act (2023).
Notably, Goodwin’s views seem to have changed even more over time than the institutions he criticises. Two decades ago, Goodwin was a progressive studying for a PhD under Professor Roger Eatwell, an expert in fascism and populism at the University of Bath, after which he moved to Manchester and Nottingham, where he worked with political scientists like Rob Ford and Philip Cowley, and thereafter to Kent. These days, Goodwin has not only given up his professorship but is found speaking at Reform UK meetings while accepting a job as a GB News presenter.
And while Goodwin says his book has been 20 years in the making, it reads like it was 20 weeks in the writing. That is not meant to be rude for the piece is pacey, personal and polemical – and all the more readable for that. But while it is based in part on others’ research – including pieces of HEPI output – it generally draws from just one well: the place inhabited by Eric Kaufman, Jonathan Haidt and Niall Ferguson. The dust jacket includes endorsements from Douglas Murray, Claire Fox and Nigel Biggar among others.
Goodwin’s pamphleteer-style of writing ensures his text has little in common with the meticulous research on recent university history by Mike Shattock or Roger Brown and Helen Carasso or Steve Jones (who will be writing his own review of the book for HEPI in due course). Nonetheless, whisper it quietly but – whether you like his general approach or not, whether you like his new acquaintances or not and whether you like his writing style or not – Matt Goodwin may have something of a point.
Universities do not always welcome or reflect the full diversity of viewpoints in the way that perhaps they should, given their business is generating and imparting knowledge. It has been said many times before by others, so it is far from original, yet that doesn’t make it false. Goodwin quotes the US economist Thomas Sowell: ‘when you hear university academics talk about diversity, ask them how many conservatives are in their sociology department.’ It seems a fair question.
But grappling with that is not easy. The best answer, Goodwin argues, is a muscular response. Rather than leaving it to the sector to resolve its own issues, he wants to see hard-nosed interventions from policymakers and regulators:
only government action and new legislation, or pressure from outside universities, can change the incentive structures on campus. This means adopting a proactive rather than a passive strategy, making it clear that the individual freedom of scholars and students is, ultimately, more important than the freedom or autonomy of the university.
At the very end, Goodwin even argues someone should ensure ‘all universities be regularly audited for academic freedom and free speech violations’, with fines for any that transgress. Yet that begs more questions than it answers: we don’t know who would do the audit or what the rules for it would be.
So there is a paradox at the heart of Goodwin’s critique. He ascribes the problems he sees to flaws in the ‘system’ whereby the number of university administrators, institutions’ central bureaucracy and the pay of vice-chancellors have all increased rapidly. But such changes have often reflected:
external influences, such as the increase in the regulation of education (in response to scandals of the Trump U variety);
the need to have flattering statistics (such as to present to the Treasury in the battle for public resources); and
recognition that the old ways of working are not going to root out inappropriate behaviours (for example, sexual harassment).
Perhaps making universities more accountable to regulators and policymakers will make them bastions of free speech in the way Goodwin hopes, but might it not just clog up the lives of academics even more?
Reprinted with permission of ANDREWS MCMEEL SYNDICATION. All rights reserved.
Data analytics has become the cornerstone of effective decision-making across industries, including higher education marketing. As a school administrator or marketer, you’re likely aware that competition for student enrollment is fiercer than ever.
To stand out, leveraging data analytics can transform your marketing strategy, enabling you to make informed decisions, optimize resources, and maximize ROI. But what does data analytics mean in the context of higher education marketing, and how can you apply it to achieve tangible results? Keep reading to understand the impact of data analytics on your school’s marketing campaigns, some benefits you can expect, and how to implement them.
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
The Significance of Data Analytics in Education Marketing
What is the role of data analysis in education marketing? Data analytics involves collecting, processing, and interpreting data to uncover patterns, trends, and actionable insights. In higher education marketing, data analytics enables you to understand your target audience—prospective students, parents, alumni, and other stakeholders—better and craft strategies that resonate with them.
Data analytics goes beyond tracking website visits or social media likes. It involves deep-diving into metrics such as application trends, conversion rates, engagement levels, and even predictive modelling to anticipate future behaviour. For example, analyzing prospective students’ journey from initial interaction with your website to applying can reveal opportunities to refine your marketing campaigns. Data analytics equips you to attract and retain the right students by more effectively addressing their needs.
Source: HEM
Do you need support as you create a more data-driven higher education marketing campaign? Reach out to learn more about our specialized digital marketing services.
Benefits of a Data-Driven Marketing Campaign
What are the benefits of big data analytics in higher education marketing? A data-driven approach to marketing offers several advantages that can elevate your institution’s performance and visibility. First, it enhances decision-making. With access to real-time and historical data, you can base your decisions on evidence rather than assumptions. For example, if you notice that email campaigns targeting a particular geographic region yield a higher application rate, you can allocate more resources to similar efforts.
Second, data analytics in higher education enables personalization. Prospective students now expect tailored experiences that speak to their unique aspirations and challenges. By leveraging data, you can segment your audience and deliver content that resonates deeply with each group. This level of personalization increases engagement and fosters trust and loyalty.
Additionally, data analytics optimizes your budget. In the past, marketing efforts often involved a degree of guesswork, leading to wasted resources. With data, you can pinpoint what works and what doesn’t, ensuring every dollar you spend contributes to your goals. For instance, if a social media ad targeting international students outperforms others, you can reallocate funds to expand that campaign.
Finally, data analytics offers the ability to measure success with precision. By setting key performance indicators (KPIs) and tracking them over time, you clearly understand what’s driving results. Whether the number of inquiries generated by a digital ad or the completion rate of an online application form, data analytics provides you with the tools to evaluate and refine your strategies continuously.
Source: HEM
Example: Our clients have access to our specialized performance-tracking services. The information in the image above, coupled with the school’s specific objectives, allows us to assess what is working and what needs changing. It informs our strategy, provides valuable insights into how new strategies are performing, and offers detailed insights into the changes that can be made for optimal results.
Types of Data Analytics Tools for Higher Education Marketers
The many data analytics tools available can seem overwhelming, but selecting the right ones can significantly improve your marketing efforts. These tools generally fall into a few key categories.
Web analytics platforms, such as Google Analytics, allow you to track user behaviour on your website. From page views to time spent on specific pages, these tools help you understand how prospective students interact with your digital presence. For instance, if many visitors drop off on your application page, it may indicate a need to simplify the process.
Customer relationship management (CRM) systems, like our system, Mautic, help you manage and analyze interactions with prospective and current students. CRMs help you organize your outreach efforts, track the progress of leads through the enrollment funnel, and identify trends in student engagement.
As a higher education institution, a system like our Student Portal will guide your prospects down the enrollment funnel. The Student Portal keeps track of vital student information such as their names, contact information, and relationship with your school. You need these data points to retarget students effectively through ads and email campaigns.
Source: HEM | Student Portal
Example: Here, you see how our SIS (Student Information System) tracks the progress of school applications, complete with insights like each prospect’s program of interest and location. This data is vital for creating and timing marketing materials, such as email campaigns based on each contact’s current needs, guiding them to the next phase of the enrollment funnel.
Social media analytics tools, including platforms like Hootsuite or Sprout Social, provide insights into your social media performance. These tools can reveal which types of content resonate most with your audience, enabling you to fine-tune your messaging.
Source: Sprout Social
Example: Social media is a powerful tool for a higher education institution, particularly when targeting Gen-Z prospects. Like any marketing tactic, optimizing social media platforms requires measuring post-performance. A tool like Sprout Social, pictured above, tracks paid and organic performance, streamlining reports and even offering insights into competitor data.
Predictive analytics platforms, such as Tableau or SAS, take your efforts further by using historical data to forecast future outcomes. These tools can help you identify at-risk students who may not complete the enrollment process or predict which programs are likely to see increased interest based on current trends.
Use These Actionable Tips for Optimizing ROI Using Data Analytics
Clearly define your goals to maximize the impact of data analytics in education marketing campaigns. Whether you aim to increase enrollment in a specific program, boost alumni engagement, or expand your reach internationally, having a clear objective will guide your efforts and help you measure success effectively.
Next, ensure that you’re collecting the right data. Too often, institutions fall into the trap of gathering vast amounts of data without a clear plan for its use. Focus on metrics that align with your goals, such as lead generation, conversion rates, and engagement levels. Regularly audit your data collection processes to ensure they remain relevant and efficient.
Once you’ve gathered your data, prioritize analysis. This step involves identifying patterns and trends that can inform your strategy. For instance, if your data shows that most applications come from mobile devices, optimizing your website for mobile users becomes a top priority. Similarly, if you notice that email open rates are highest on Tuesdays, you can adjust your sending schedule accordingly.
Another key aspect of optimizing ROI is experimentation. Use your data to test different strategies, such as varying your ad copy, targeting different demographics, or experimenting with new platforms. Over time, you’ll better understand what resonates with your audience.
Don’t overlook the importance of collaboration. Data analytics should be integrated across departments. By sharing insights with admissions, student services, and academic departments, you can create a more cohesive and impactful strategy and carve an efficient path toward the desired results. For example, if your analytics reveal a growing interest in STEM programs, your academic team can develop targeted resources to meet that demand.
Finally, invest in ongoing education and training. Data analytics constantly evolves, and staying up-to-date on the latest tools and techniques is essential. Encourage your team to participate in workshops, webinars, and courses to enhance their skills and bring fresh insights to your campaigns.
How We Help Clients to Leverage Data Analytics Solutions: A Case Study with Western University
The transformative potential of data analytics is best illustrated through real-world examples. Western University of Health Sciences, a leading graduate school for health professionals in California, partnered with us to optimize its data analytics strategy. The collaboration highlights how implementing tailored data solutions can drive meaningful results.
HEM began by conducting program—and service-specific interviews with Western University staff to identify the analytics needs of managers across the institution. These discussions revealed unique departmental needs, prompting the creation of tailored analytics profiles and corresponding website objectives. Subsequently, data was segmented and collected in alignment with these tailored profiles, ensuring actionable insights for each group.
A comprehensive technical audit of Western’s web ecosystem revealed several challenges in implementing analytics tools. HEM recommended and implemented a series of changes through a custom analytics implementation guide. These changes included the university’s web team developing and installing cross- and subdomain tracking codes and creating data filters, such as internal traffic exclusion.
One of the highest priorities was tracking student registration behaviour. HEM developed a custom “apply now” registration funnel that integrated seamlessly with Western’s SunGard Banner registration pages to address this. This funnel provided a clear view of prospect and registrant behaviour across the main website and its subdomains, offering valuable insights into the user journey.
Over three months, HEM implemented these solutions and provided custom monthly reports to program managers. These reports verified the successful integration of changes, including the application of filters and cross-domain tracking. As a result, Western’s managers gained the ability to fully track student registrations, monitor library download behaviour, and make data-informed decisions to enhance student services.
Western University’s Director of Instructional Technology praised HEM’s efforts, noting that the refined tracking capabilities clarified how prospective students navigated the site. The successful collaboration demonstrates the significant impact of data analytics solutions on improving user experience and institutional efficiency.
Source: HEM
HEM continues to build data-driven marketing campaigns for clients, streamlining their workflows, providing deep insights, increasing engagement, and boosting enrollment.
Higher ed data analytics is necessary for building effective marketing campaigns. By understanding its role and potential, you can craft data-driven strategies that elevate your institution’s visibility, improve engagement, and optimize ROI. As you embrace data analytics, remember that its true power lies in its ability to guide informed decision-making and foster continuous improvement. Whether you aim to attract more students, enhance retention, or build stronger alumni relationships, data analytics provides the roadmap to success. Start leveraging its insights today and position your institution as a leader in an increasingly competitive landscape.
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the role of data analysis in education marketing?
Data analytics involves collecting, processing, and interpreting data to uncover patterns, trends, and actionable insights. In higher education marketing, data analytics enables you to better understand your target audience—prospective students, parents, alumni, and other stakeholders—and craft strategies that resonate with them.
What are the benefits of big data analytics in higher education marketing?
A data-driven approach to marketing offers several advantages that can elevate your institution’s performance and visibility, including:
Professor Harriet Dunbar-Morris is Pro Vice-Chancellor Academic and Provost at The University of Buckingham.
Whilst we are still waiting for the government to decide on the operationalisation of the future direction of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE), it is easy to agree that providing all new learners with a tuition fee loan entitlement to the equivalent of four years of post-18 education to use up to the age of 60 is a good thing in principle.
In recent articles, Professor Deborah Johnston and Rose Stephenson have both presented useful positions and summaries on the status quo. For the University of Buckingham, the merits of the LLE are clear, but it is the relationship between the LLE and courses of different lengths that is central to our concern.
At Buckingham, we take pride in our unique approach to education. As a disruptor institution and the only private university in the UK with a Royal Charter, we emphasise our small and independent nature. Our distinctive positioning has enabled us to create a unique learning environment. We have successfully developed ‘accelerated degrees’, including our flagship degree models: the two-year undergraduate degree and the four-and-a-half-year undergraduate medical degree.
Where other institutions have a long summer holiday, at Buckingham we have a fourth term – the same amount of classroom time over a whole degree as in other universities, but a term in the summer which means that students can enter the labour market a year earlier and incur a year’s less accommodation and living expenses as well.
Alternatively, in three years, our students at Buckingham can undertake two qualifications: a foundation plus an undergraduate or an undergraduate plus a postgraduate degree. The year’s shape also more closely resembles the world of work and therefore ably prepares students more authentically for their future careers. We know this approach is working, and adds value. We are in the Top 10 for Graduate Prospects (outcomes) and:
92% of our graduates agree their current activity is meaningful (sector 85%).
88% of our graduates feel their current activity fits with their future plans (sector 78%).
83% of our graduates say they are using what they learn while studying (sector 69%).
97% of our graduates are in work or study (sector 89%).
72% of our graduates are in full-time employment (sector 61%).
Buckingham has been a beacon for accelerated degrees to help students achieve their degrees in a shorter period and get out into the workplace or onto further study sooner. We can also see this model allowing students to interrupt their studies and take their degrees in shorter chunks (each of our terms, for example), which would be possible with the LLE framework once it is implemented. However, there is a fundamental unfairness facing Buckingham and others that needs to be addressed.
To understand this issue, we must first delve into the technical world of registering with the Office for Students (OfS), the regulator for higher education in England. Providers of higher education can (although not at the moment as new registrations are paused) register with the OfS under two categories:
1) Approved (fee cap)
Providers in the Approved (fee cap) category can only charge up to the fee cap of £9,250 (2024/25) / £9,535 (2025/26) for full-time students. Students can take out a tuition fee loan to cover their entire fee (for undergraduate courses). Approved (fee cap) providers can also access teaching and research grant funding. Most institutions are in this category.
2) Approved
Providers in the Approved category, which includes Buckingham, can charge tuition fees above the cap. However, students at these institutions can only access tuition fee loans up to the lower limit (£6,355 per annum for three-year programmes and £7,625 per annum for two-year programmes). Any additional fees charged need to be covered privately. Further, these institutions cannot access teaching and research grants.
Because of our category of registration, students can only get the fee loan for the accelerated (two-year) degree programmes at the lower fee loan limit. Our students study for more of the year, and in each of their two years, yet they are entitled to less of a loan each year to support their learning, meaning that through the current category of registration they are discriminated against, even though our accelerated degrees are clearly better for getting students into the workforce and for the skills agenda being pushed by the new Labour government.
What is also grossly unfair is that despite approved providers being unable to access direct government funding for learning and teaching, research, or capital activity, they remain subject to nearly every aspect of OfS regulation. One exception is the Access and Participation Plan (although we still produce an Access Statement). Yet, re-stating the above, students at approved category institutions cannot benefit from a full loan for the studying they do.
So, as the government considers how to support the skills agenda and deliver on skills shortages, here at Buckingham we make a request on behalf of the sector and the potential students: implement the LLE and remove the disparities.
We are calling for one of two developments:
A government review to address tuition fee loan eligibility (tied to current categorisations). Why should students be disadvantaged for the loan they can apply for by the category of their institution’s registration? In The University of Buckingham’s case, we have a TEF, we meet OfS requirements, and we even directly support the government’s desire to get students into work faster. Should it not be £9,250 (or now £9,535 from 2025/26) for all?
If not that, a change to loans for the credits studied will allow the students studying in that fourth term with us at Buckingham, and completing in two years, to be able to seek loans for the full amount of their two years of full-time study. The point here is that the implementation of the LLE means that the loan is for the credit instead, so this inequity is removed. All students can get a loan for the credit they study. Our students then would, as a bonus, gain the credit quicker, as they would study over two years.
Most students, due to the cost of living and other responsibilities, should now be considered part-time students, and we need to consider ways to help them fit their lives around their studies – something we certainly pride ourselves on. To support those who also need to work during their intensive studies, we timetable differently and teach differently. Ultimately this is about helping every one of our students to study more effectively (and in a shorter timescale), and as presented in The University of Buckingham’s Strategic Plan 2023-28, supporting our students by embedding employability and entrepreneurship within the curriculum.
