A preliminary analysis of UK university websites finds gaps in the practical information on how postgraduate part-time study actually works, combined with inconsistent acknowledgement of the challenges faced by these learners. Ewan Fairweather, Postgraduate Student Recruitment Manager at The University of Edinburgh asks: ‘Should we really be surprised that many universities find it challenging to recruit part-time postgraduate students?’
‘New Year, New You’. It’s January, the month when ambitions and aspirations take shape. Right now, those of us working in university marketing and recruitment are capitalising on this self-improvement trend, targeting potential postgraduate learners and helping them navigate the labyrinth of course choice, affordability and time commitments.
With more than 13,000 part-time Master’s options listed on Findamasters.com, learners are spoiled for choice; there’s a strong chance they’ll find something relevant out there. But can they afford postgraduate study? And crucially, can they find the time to do it?
Busy lives
For those fortunate enough to be able to fund a part-time Master’s, it will require the considerable investment of another increasingly scarce commodity: time. And this is particularly the case among the largest segment of potential domestic postgraduate students, those aged 30+. This mature audience of prospective learners inevitably carries more personal and professional baggage – careers, relationships, families, caring responsibilities, community and volunteering roles, mortgages and loans.
That is why they are more likely to be considering part-time postgraduate study and so need to work out in very practical terms how to balance learning and living; to picture precisely what it will actually mean.
Drilling down into the detail
I know that universities do so much behind the scenes to address the needs of all types of learners, but sadly this does not come across in the following statements, the likes of which I frequently encountered when searching for part-time postgraduate course details online:
As the School timetable changes from year to year and is not finalised until August, we are unable to confirm this information in advance.
Part-time students are strongly advised to wait until the timetable is available before finalising their other commitments.
Classes can be timetabled Monday-Friday between 9am-6pm. We cannot give timetables in advance of enrolment unfortunately.
With such logistical and chronological vagueness, is it realistic to expect busy people to make life-changing decisions? Certainly timetabling is complicated but we need a clearer answer to the question, ‘So I can plan my life, can you give me an idea of what my timetable will look like?’
Postgraduate part-time learning may not generate the short-term financial boost that the sector needs right now, but we have to plan for today and tomorrow, especially if there is, ‘a need for more people with postgraduate skills in the workforce’. And if the largest segment of domestic students is older, we can assume that many will be looking at part-time in all its glorious forms (online, blended, block, burst, evenings, distance) as their preferred study mode. We have to up our game; timetabling challenges may pose us major headaches, but for prospective students, they are less relevant.
What I did
With a view to improving the information and guidance online for prospective part-time postgraduate students considering the University of Edinburgh, I carried out some exploratory analysis. I sought to understand how UK universities articulated the benefits and practicalities of part-time postgraduate study during the traditional core search period of early January. Typing ‘part time masters’ followed by the institution name into Google, I clicked on the most appropriate results, then evaluated these pages according to two categories:
Coverage: Whether part-time study was included, or contextualised, on the page and the extent to which this was done with empathy and understanding.
Specifics: The level of deeper detail provided (the ‘how, where, who and when’ of part-time delivery).
Pockets of best practice
I gathered the information to improve the content on my own institution’s website with a focus on these busy learners who are looking to successfully juggle high-level study with busy lives. It’s clear that collectively we must do better to address their requirements but there are nonetheless pockets of best practice I believe we can learn from:
Leeds: offers a blueprint for the provision of specific timetable information for each part-time course. It may not look beautiful but when you eventually get there, you find the details you need, combined with a helpful disclaimer
Bedfordshire: From a dedicated part-time page, you navigate to a list of what’s available part-time. From here, you find a course schedule and timetable of exactly when and where the units take place presented in a user-friendly format.
Birkbeck, RVC and Brighton provide extensive details of when and where teaching takes place so you can better manage your time.
Birmingham City University, scores strong on empathy, thinking deeply about the profile and specific needs of their prospective part-time learners
The Open University lives and breathes part-time. The ‘how’ section is fabulous, but I was expecting more on the ‘when and how do I study/attend classes?’
Some institutions promise innovative delivery models designed to support part-time learners’ needs, including De Montfort (‘Block Teaching’) and the RCA (‘Burst Mode’)
Kent is launching a new curriculum and a progressive approach to timetabling this year, designed to help busy people manage their lives better.
Universities with high or medium part-time learning coverage and/or specifics on their website
My recommendations
In concluding, here are some (relatively) easy-to-implement recommendations that will give postgraduate part-time students a clearer idea of the time they need to commit to their studies:
Publish sample timetables: definitive times and locations may not be possible, but is there a way of providing a sample timetable or sharing last year’s timetables?
Consolidate information on part-time study: consider bringing together all information on part-time learning into an easily findable resource or section
Provide bespoke part-time course structure details: interrogate the curriculum from a part-time learner’s perspective, then re-write and update
Show that we care: acknowledge that part-time learners have specific needs. Ideally, do this in a warm and welcoming tone.
It is complicated, but let’s aim to do part-time better – we owe it to our learners!
By Professor Graeme Atherton, Director of the National Education Opportunities Network (NEON) and the Vice-Principal of Ruskin College, Oxford.
In the post-levelling up era, the debate about regional inequality and what it constitutes continues. Insofar as higher education progression is concerned, regional differences were a constant theme of widening access work well before levelling up. On an annual basis, we have seen progress in the percentage of younger learners from low-participation neighbourhoods progressing to higher education.
However, the situation regarding those progressing to higher education from free school meal (FSM) backgrounds is more complex. Our new report, ‘Access to Higher Education and Regional Inequality: who is missing out? ’, released today, is our second in-depth analysis of the Department for Education’s annual data set on progression to higher education by those from FSM and non-FSM backgrounds in England.
When these data were published last October, the media focused on the fact that, for the first time since the data were first produced in 2005-06, the percentage of learners from FSM backgrounds progressing to higher education by age 19 fell year on year, from 29.2% in 2021-22 to 29% in 2022-23. But as Figure 1 shows, while the rate has dropped, the number of FSM learners has increased between 2021-22 and 2022-23 by 2,754 (from 19,443 to 22,197). This is the biggest annual increase since 2005-06. The national rate was dragged down by a significant increase in the number of FSM-eligible learners. While more FSM learners are going to higher education, the number of non-FSM learners has increased even more, meaning the national gap has widened.
Looking at these data in detail also reveals considerable variation in progression across regions and areas. A report has already been published in 2025 predicting a gap in graduates between London and other regions of up to 40% by 2035. There is a near-20-percentage point gap in the progression of FSM learners between London and the next region – a gap that has increased over the last 10 years.
So strong is London’s performance that it masks some of the challenges across England. At the local authority level, as shown in Figure 2, nearly 70% of areas are below the national average FSM progression rate of 29% and a quarter are at less than 20%.
However, while some of these areas may still be below the national average, over the past 10 years these areas have made the most progress. Understanding more about why they have improved while others with ostensibly similar characteristics have not would be a valuable exercise. In contrast, London, while remaining far ahead of anywhere else, has somewhat plateaued.
As argued above, focusing on geographical differences in higher education participation between different areas of England is not new. This year sees the 21st anniversary of the Aimhigher programme, the first national, locally-focused collaborative outreach initiative for widening access. A string of similar programmes followed, most recently the Uni Connect initiative. Despite the continual chopping and changing of these programmes, they have been effective in contributing to the increases in progression to higher education from low-participation neighbourhoods referred to above, as this is what they have been told to focus on. While FSM as a measure has its well-documented limitations, it is the least worst option when compared to a neighbourhood measure which does not take into account the backgrounds of individual learners. It is now time for a new, rejuvenated collaborative outreach programme that focuses on inequalities in higher education participation as measured by the FSM progression data.
The Office for Students recently announced its support for a new collaborative outreach programme and this is welcome. But any new programme, as well as focusing on the progression of FSM learners, must be sufficiently resourced. This could potentially happen through, at least in part, higher education providers pooling their efforts across a given area at pre-16 and being effectively co-ordinated at the national level, which has not been the case in previous iterations of such programmes. It must also be a part of the government’s forthcoming post-16 education strategy and any shifts to a broader more collaborative, ‘tertiary’ approach with regional dimensions.
Finally, it is already becoming apparent that Labour, while right to jettison levelling up, is lacking a replacement policy agenda to address regional inequality. Levelling up, while a damp squib in terms of impact, voiced what many in the country feel about their lives, where they live and what inequality means to them. It didn’t though include inequalities in access to higher education. This can and must change.
By Professor Aleks Subic, Vice-Chancellor and Chief Executive, Aston University.
Universities have always been at the heart of knowledge and innovation. But in today’s rapidly evolving world, they must transcend their traditional roles to address complex global challenges, harness emerging opportunities and embrace heightened responsibilities. They must become champions of inclusive innovation and drivers of positive socioeconomic transformation, creating thriving innovation ecosystems that deliver sustainable, place-based development and inclusive growth. This is the promise of University 4.0.
From Classical Roots to Transformational Ecosystems
In late 2024, Aston University hosted the Global Federation of Competitiveness Councils (GFCC) University Research and Leadership Forum, marking a pivotal moment in the reimagining of higher education. Leaders, innovators, and visionaries from universities, industry, government, and communities gathered to confront a critical question: How can universities redefine their role in a world that is transforming at an unprecedented pace?
The GFCC, a global multi-stakeholder membership organisation, is dedicated to accelerating productivity, growth, prosperity, and sustainability through best practices. Central to this forum was the exploration of University 4.0 — a bold and transformative vision for the future of higher education in an era of digital disruption, hyper-connectivity, the emergence of powerful technologies like artificial intelligence, social inequities, and sustainability challenges.
The Global Federation of Competitiveness Councils (GFCC) University Forum, which I have had the privilege to lead from Aston University, and Elsevier Fourth Generation University (4GU) Development Group, inspired by the pioneering work of the University of Technology Eindhoven, have independently arrived at remarkably aligned perspectives on the evolution of universities to date. This shared understanding traces the progression through four distinct generations of higher education institutions, culminating in the transformative vision of University 4.0 (or 4GU).
Universities have evolved through several transformative stages to meet the demands of each era:
The Classical University: The first generation focused on teaching, by transmitting knowledge through oral communication and manuscripts. Its primary purpose was education.
The Research University: The second generation emphasised the creation of new knowledge through scientific research, making universities hubs of research and innovation.
The Entrepreneurial University: The third generation saw universities become economic players, commercialising research, fostering start-ups, and forging closer ties with industry. This era marked the rise of the ‘triple-helix’ model, integrating academia, industry, and government.
University 4.0: The fourth generation is a response to a rapidly changing, technology-driven world. It envisions universities that are focused on socio-economic impact, inclusive innovation, and sustainable development goals, interconnected with industry, government, and society. These institutions are engines of innovation and transformation, embracing the ‘quadruple-helix’ model by integrating academic expertise with diverse societal needs to deliver real-world impact.
The University 4.0 model is not about solitary academic pursuits. Instead, it thrives on collaboration, drawing diverse perspectives and inputs to address real-world challenges. Innovation precincts and districts — geographically concentrated hubs of high-tech companies, research institutions, and civic infrastructure — are emerging as the epicentres of economic revitalisation, creating opportunities for skilled workforces and fostering sustainable and high-value growth through place-based innovation.
Universities embedded in such precincts, acting as catalysts of engagement and innovation are emerging as the fourth-generation universities – University 4.0. They are aligned more closely to technological and digital transformations, ensuring greater interconnectivity between the future of work and learning, bringing society along and alleviating the so-called societal pain when education lags behind industrial and digital revolutions.
University 4.0 in Action: Aston University and the Birmingham Innovation Precinct
At Aston University, the University 4.0 vision is central to our Aston 2030 Strategy. We are transforming into a fourth-generation university that is future-ready and aligned with national higher education reform priorities as outlined recently by Secretary of State for Education Bridget Phillipson. Universities must shift from isolated knowledge hubs to active participants in their regional and national ecosystems, embracing transformational business models and their roles as civic anchors.
A flagship example of this vision is the Birmingham Innovation Precinct, part of the West Midlands Investment Zone. This innovation cluster, based on the quadruple-helix model, integrates academia, industry, government, and communities to create a globally significant hub of collaboration and innovation. By co-locating stakeholders, the precinct fosters digital innovation, improves health equity, drives skills development, and accelerates the transition to net-zero emissions.
Key initiatives within the Birmingham Innovation Precinct include:
10 Woodcock Street: A newly acquired 225,000 sq ft facility, set to house Aston Business School, the Aston Integrated Healthcare Hub, the Aston Business Incubator, and the Green Energy Centre delivering sustainable energy solutions to the precinct with net zero emissions.
The Aston Integrated Healthcare Hub: A model for community healthcare that offers preventative health and wellbeing services while showcasing advancements in digital healthcare technology, including remote patient monitoring. Operating as a ‘living lab’, it integrates translational research and inclusive innovation, student placements, and training to address local health inequities.
The Aston Business Incubator: Launching in 2025, the incubator will provide a home to 100 tech startups and innovative businesses. Offering state-of-the-art facilities, collaborative workspaces, and access to academic expertise, mentoring and investment, it will transform ideas into thriving enterprises.
These initiatives are more than projects; they are integral to Aston University’s commitment to place-based innovation, delivering measurable socioeconomic impact for Birmingham, the West Midlands, and beyond.
A Call to Action for the Future of Higher Education
The transition to University 4.0 represents a fundamental shift in how higher education operates, collaborates, and contributes to society. However, to fully realise this vision, systemic change is required—not only within universities but across the funding models and evaluation frameworks that shape them.
The current funding and ranking systems often prioritise traditional metrics that fail to capture the broader socioeconomic contributions of universities, like access and participation, employability, social mobility, digital inclusion, contributions to health outcomes and sustainability, and impacts stemming from knowledge transfer and innovation. To truly support and reward the transformative impact of University 4.0, these systems must evolve to measure and incentivise the right indicators. As we move forward, it is essential to ask not just what we are good at but what we are good for. Only then can universities fulfil their potential as engines of innovation, inclusion, and growth for a better future.
Developing New Year’s resolutions for personal growth is something many of us do. Unfortunately, it is often a set-it and forget-it process that is simply reupped the following year. When done correctly, however, creating a resolution that is developed as a sustained, long-term strategy—and that is regularly returned to and adjusted as needed—seems to be the best way to meet our personal goals.
As enrollment managers, we all have pursued the first approach in our professional lives by evaluating last year’s successes and failures annually, making a few tweaks, and then seeing how it all works out again the following year. The truth of the matter is that this approach was relatively sustainable for a time. Simply buying more names, adjusting the aid-leveraging model annually, or a developing a wider marketing plan often could drive greater enrollments—mostly because those tactics generally were designed to “add more fuel to the fire.” As long as the applications continued to grow, annual tweaks could help to maintain the core enrollments as well as improve on the margins for many institutions.
The Need for More Effective Strategic Enrollment Strategies
Unfortunately, outside of key private and public flagship institutions, headwinds have developed over the past decade that are affecting higher education enrollments in significant ways. Ultimately, they may lead to campus closures for some, and to campus financial distress for many. As outlined in a paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, “Predicting College Closures and Financial Distress,”those pressures include:
Post-pandemic enrollment challenges from traditional students (decreasing 15% from 2010-2021).
Changes among adult learners (“The number of adult students over the age of 25 has fallen by nearly half since the Great Recession”).
Growing competition.
A lack of public support for higher education nationally.
The combination of all these factors has brought about the need for enrollment managers to develop a wider multi-year strategy that includes tools with the ability to enable deeper, more highly data-informed fine tuning throughout any given cycle. A one-size-fits-all approach to creating a nuanced strategy can no longer work in an environment of shrinking applications and increased competition.
Liaison’s Partnership Philosophy
Liaison is uniquely positioned to assist with higher education institutions in a true partnership. With the technology, services, and consultative approach that we provide our partners throughout the nation, we can assist in developing a comprehensive enrollment approach unique to your campus—ranging from single-point to full-enrollment planning solutions that are uniquely tailored to your unique needs. Liaison’s partnership philosophy, technology solutions, and industry knowledge and insights can not only help strengthen your enrollment planning and goals for this year but also set you up for long-term enrollment success.
Craig Cornell is the Vice President for Enrollment Strategy at Liaison. In that capacity, he oversees a team of enrollment strategists and brings best practices, consultation, and data trends to campuses across the country in all things enrollment management. Craig also serves as the dedicated resource to NASH (National Association of Higher Education Systems) and works closely with the higher education system that Liaison supports. Before joining Liaison in 2023, Craig served for over 30 years in multiple higher education executive enrollment management positions. During his tenure, the campuses he served often received national recognition for enrollment growth, effective financial aid leveraging, marketing enhancements, and innovative enrollment strategies.
Nick Gilbert, Chief Information Officer of the London School of Economics and Political Science, shares perspectives on how institutional leaders can work together to deliver strategic change in challenging times.
We in universities face well-reported challenges that have brought long-standing strategic imperatives into sharper focus. While the sector has always needed to evolve and transform, today’s operational and financial pressures have added fresh urgency.
For many, this creates a perceived choice between investing in long-term change and delivering immediate improvements. However, this isn’t an either/or proposition. The priority has to be on today and tomorrow. We cannot afford to focus exclusively on building solutions that will only deliver results in five or fifteen years. Planning for both requires careful navigation from institutional leadership, with the entire leadership team aligned on where we’re going and how we’ll get there.
Leading strategic change together
At the heart of these considerations lies the fundamental purpose of universities: the advancement of knowledge and its dissemination. We must constantly evolve to remain institutions of quality, delivering value to students, fostering impactful research, and building capabilities for the future. This multifaceted purpose shapes how leadership teams approach transformation.
We can no longer afford to simply implement new systems or processes. If our investments aren’t vital to the changes that our organisations need to make to survive and thrive now, we really must be questioning why we’re doing them. These aren’t just operational decisions – they’re strategic choices that require alignment across the leadership team.
Consider student retention, where challenge and opportunity intersect. We need both immediate interventions and long-term solutions. Many of the 6.4% of students who withdrew last year had not changed their goals. But, rather, they were struggling with a particular issue at a particular time. Identifying these crucial moments in a consistent and systematic manner requires sophisticated infrastructure and processes that many institutions are still considering how to build. Supporting our students with the maturity and capability they deserve demands that our academic and professional services leaders work in concert – and shows up in the right conversation at the right time with the right person.
Data as a foundation for change
Data is the cornerstone of the modern university. The development of institutional data capabilities illustrates how organisations can balance immediate value with longer-term transformation. Most universities recognise that they need sophisticated ways to understand and act upon their data – from student engagement patterns to research impact measures. However, achieving this requires careful consideration.
Building comprehensive data capabilities is an undertaking that every institution needs to consider, and the challenge lies in structuring this work to deliver tangible benefits throughout the journey. Success requires the entire leadership team to understand that while the full vision may take years to realise, we can and must deliver meaningful improvements at regular intervals.
“Planning digital transformation is like planning a long car journey. You need to know your destination but also need to plan your stops carefully.”
This approach reflects proven change management principles: begin with well-defined challenges, demonstrate value quickly, and build incrementally with clear institutional support. The institutions making real progress in this space share a common approach. They identify specific challenges – perhaps understanding patterns in student engagement or tracking research collaboration opportunities – and address these systematically. Each solution helps their communities immediately while contributing to more comprehensive capabilities.
At LSE, I work with colleagues across the institution to ensure this balanced approach delivers results. Like many institutions, we’re exploring how emerging capabilities around data and analytics will reshape research and education. The key is ensuring these forward-looking initiatives also address current needs. When we improve our understanding of student engagement patterns, for instance, we’re simultaneously helping today’s students while building the foundation for more sophisticated support in the future.
Strategic choices in resource-conscious times
Institutions have always faced decisions about what capabilities to develop internally versus where to collaborate or buy solutions. One question I see leadership teams grappling with every day is what makes us distinct, and therefore where we should focus our innovation efforts. While these considerations aren’t new, they take on added significance when resources require careful stewardship.
This calibration extends to decisions about technology investment and development. Whether considering research management systems, student engagement platforms, or data analytics capabilities, institutions must weigh up where to invest in distinctive capabilities versus where to adopt sector-standard approaches. Making the wrong choice doesn’t just affect current operations – it can impact an institution’s transformation journey for years and affect trust between different parts of the organisation. Success requires clear strategic alignment on where distinctive capability matters most.
Aligning the journey with the destination
We need to identify our goals, our destination, but that is not enough. I like to think of planning digital transformation like planning a long car journey. You need to know your destination but also need to plan your stops carefully. Each stop should serve multiple purposes – refuelling, rest, perhaps some strategic sightseeing. What you want to avoid is driving for eight hours straight only to realise you’re headed in the wrong direction. And we certainly don’t want to have to keep everyone in the car interested and excited in the journey for eight full hours without seeing any progress. We must start from where we are, end at our final destination, and, crucially, lay out our way markers.
This means being intentional about both immediate improvements and long-term transformation. As universities, we have a responsibility to push boundaries while ensuring we deliver value to our students and society today. This balance between innovation and operational excellence is something every institution must navigate. Going on that journey as connected leadership teams and being collectively clear where we will see value along the way is vital if we are to be successful.
While the current environment may add complexity to this task, the fundamental approach remains sound: start from where you are, deliver value as you go, and keep your destination clearly in sight. What matters most is taking that first step together, with a shared understanding of both immediate priorities and long-term ambitions.
Nick Gilbert will be speaking at Kortext LIVE in London on 29January 2025. Join Nick and other education and technology expert speakers at a series of three events for HE leaders hosted at Microsoft’s offices in London, Edinburgh and Manchester during late January and early February. Find out more and register your free place here.
By Ian Blenkharn, Director of Education and Student Services at the University of Bath.
Like most institutions across the sector, the University of Bath is carefully considering the potential opportunities, implications and challenges posed by the new Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE).
Bath is somewhat unusual in having both a high proportion of integrated master’s courses and a high proportion of students studying programmes with a placement year (nearly two-thirds of Bath students undertake a placement during their time with us). This means we have a large number of students studying five-year, integrated masters programmes with a year on placement.
This raises important questions for us, as it will for others across the sector. The information so far published about the LLE seems to suggest that we will be able to charge students for the full, five-year integrated-masters-with-placement programme, which has a total of 600 credits under the CATS credit accumulation framework. However, it isn’t yet clear whether students, who are automatically entitled to a ‘digital wallet’ to cover up to 480 credits of higher education study, will be able to pay for the entirety of their programme without access to private funding.
For those programmes offered at Bath, the shortfall would be the cost of the placement year – either 15% or 20% of the maximum regulated fee. Perhaps not a deal-breaker for those with access to the Bank of Mum and Dad. However, it could deter some students for whom the chance to work for a year in industry provides unparalleled opportunities to build social capital, experience and confidence to compete in the graduate jobs market. We know that such opportunities are transformative for our students. The prospect of this becoming the preserve of students who can privately fund their tuition risks not only the viability of the programmes we offer but also the social mobility benefits they afford students from widening participation backgrounds.
The decision by the Labour government to defer the implementation of the LLE to January 2027 means there is some time to clarify the situation for both universities and students. However, we will have students applying in September 2025 for deferred entry in 2027, so the time to clarify the situation is shorter than it first appears.
It is imperative that everyone has clarity on this issue (and many others associated with the LLE) before we enter the 2025/2026 recruitment cycle. This is so universities can appropriately advise students on how much their course will cost and whether their Lifelong Learning Entitlement will be sufficient to cover those costs. At the moment, far too many unanswered questions are swirling around the LLE, as evidenced by the 400+ sector participants who logged on to the Higher Education Strategic Planners Association (HESPA)-organised seminar on the LLE with representatives from the Student Loans Company. The sector, and most importantly the students who will be pioneers of the new LLE system, need these questions answered as soon as possible.
Education marketing is poised for a transformative shift in 2025. As technological innovations accelerate and global competition intensifies, schools, colleges, and universities must adopt strategies that meet the evolving expectations of prospective students.
If you’re new to educational marketing or administration, you may benefit from a working definition of the topic we’re exploring. What is education marketing? Education marketing promotes educational institutions, programs, and services to prospective students, their families, and other stakeholders.
It involves creating targeted campaigns that address the unique needs, aspirations, and challenges of prospective learners. At its core, education marketing is about building trust, showcasing value, and creating meaningful connections that align an institution’s offerings with the goals of its audience.
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
Great Expectations: What Prospects Are Looking for in 2025
Prospective students in 2025 demand education marketing efforts that resonate with their individual aspirations, challenges, and goals. Personalization has become a non-negotiable element of successful marketing, requiring institutions to deliver tailored messages across diverse platforms. Students value authenticity and transparency, seeking honest communication about program costs, outcomes, and career prospects.
Social proof is more influential than ever. Reviews, testimonials, and user-generated content (UGC) have become vital tools in building trust and credibility. Institutions that effectively showcase authentic student experiences on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube can connect with audiences on a deeper level, cutting through generic promotional noise.
With over 70% of initial student engagement occurring online, a robust digital presence is critical. Schools with interactive websites, active accounts, and engaging virtual events stand out in an increasingly competitive global market. The ease of accessing information about institutions worldwide has raised the stakes, emphasizing the need for innovative and standout marketing strategies.
Source: HEM
Are you seeking strategies for a future-oriented education marketing plan? Reach out to learn about our specialized digital marketing services!
Leveraging AI for Personalization and Automation
Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing education marketing by enabling personalized and efficient communication. In 2025, institutions will be using AI-driven tools to deliver highly targeted content and streamline engagement processes.
AI-powered email marketing has proven to boost open rates and increase revenue per email by analyzing prospective student data. Dynamic segmentation, which groups students based on behaviours like website visits and social interactions, allows institutions to craft campaigns aligned with individual journeys.
Example: Putting prospects into groups based on their site usage as pictured below is the first step in dynamic segmentation. What comes next? Program your CRM system to update segments as prospects progress through the enrollment process, and finally, use automation tools (ideally integrated into your CRM program) to send follow-up messages after interactions like webinar attendances or program page visits. Amidst many competitors, you must stay fresh in the minds of your prospective students.
Source: HEM
Chatbots are emerging as indispensable tools for managing routine inquiries. Capable of handling up to 80% of these interactions, chatbots provide instant, tailored responses that improve lead-to-application conversion rates. From guiding students to specific program pages to assisting with application processes, chatbots reduce administrative strain while enhancing user experience. For international students, multi-language support ensures inclusivity and accessibility.
Example: Use Chatbots intentionally like the University of Windsor did below. Site visitors are asked with whom they would like to connect and are sent to a page where they can select the right person to meet their needs. This allows for a customized, self-directed experience.
Source: University of Windsor
Predictive analytics, another AI-driven innovation, enables institutions to anticipate prospective student needs. By analyzing past behaviors, institutions can proactively craft campaigns that address concerns and guide students toward enrollment.
By analyzing historical data such as website interactions, email engagement, and application trends, predictive analytics identifies patterns that signal a prospective student’s likelihood to take specific actions, such as submitting an application or attending an open house.
This technology allows institutions to craft highly targeted campaigns that address common concerns, deliver timely follow-ups, and provide personalized recommendations. Predictive analytics can be applied across various channels, including email marketing, chatbot interactions, and digital advertising platforms, making it a versatile tool for improving enrollment outcomes and optimizing the student journey.
Optimizing Digital Advertising Strategies
Digital advertising is an essential component of education marketing, and in 2025, precision and creativity will define success. Institutions are refining their pay-per-click (PPC) campaigns and leveraging video ads to capture attention and drive conversions.
Precision targeting through platforms like Google Ads and Meta Ads ensures relevance. Long-tail keywords and geo-specific targeting help align campaigns with user intent, making them more effective. For example, phrases like “best nursing programs in Toronto” resonate more with prospective students than generic terms such as ‘nursing programs’ or ‘nursing school’.
Video content continues to dominate as the preferred format for engagement. Authentic, short-form videos featuring user-generated content are especially effective. These videos highlight program features, campus life, and success stories, building trust and fostering emotional connections.
Engaging carousel ad formats are also gaining traction, offering a visually dynamic way to present multiple aspects of an institution in a single advertisement. By showcasing different programs, campus highlights, or student testimonials in a swipeable format, carousel ads keep prospective students engaged longer. These ads are particularly effective on platforms like Instagram and Facebook, where interactive content drives higher click-through rates and engagement.
Example: Static ad images are more likely to be skipped. Carousel ads are an attention-grabbing format that incites curiosity. Valuable, relevant, and short-form copy as pictured below works well as it keeps attention while imparting information your audience cares about.
Source: Concordia University
Remarketing strategies are proving invaluable for re-engaging prospective students. Dynamic ads tailored to past interactions, such as revisiting previously explored programs, help institutions stay top-of-mind and boost conversion rates. Platforms like TikTok provide creative opportunities to connect with younger audiences, further enhancing reach and engagement.
Navigating Changing Search Landscapes
The rise of AI-powered search engines like Google Gemini and ChatGPT is reshaping how users seek information. These tools prioritize conversational content and direct answers, requiring institutions to adapt their SEO strategies to maintain visibility.
Example: Incorporating conversational, question-based phrases as pictured below helps your site show up in search results. This is particularly relevant as AI, which favors concise answers, emerges as one of the most transformative education marketing trends. Try to add relevant, on-topic questions that your prospects are likely pondering into site content seamlessly. Then add the answer to that question. This boosts your chances of being featured in “People Also Ask” and other types of rich results.
Source: Gemini
High-quality, question-based content is essential for meeting the needs of AI-driven search engines and enhancing user experience. Institutions are optimizing FAQ pages to provide comprehensive, conversational answers to prospective students’ most common questions.
For example, detailed FAQ sections that include interactive components, such as collapsible menus or embedded videos, help address a wide range of inquiries efficiently. This approach not only supports AI-driven search tools like Google Gemini (Formerly Bard) and ChatGPT but also caters to user expectations for clear, straightforward information.
Voice search optimization further complements this strategy. With 58% of users relying on voice search daily, content must include natural, long-tail keywords that align with how people speak. For instance, crafting answers to questions like “What’s the cost of a nursing program in Toronto?” ensures visibility in voice and conversational search queries. Together, these strategies create a seamless path for students to access the information they need, whether browsing through AI-enhanced search results or engaging directly with an institution’s website.
Example: AI tools like Copilot pictured below offer user-friendly, well-structured answers to education-related questions, guiding prospective students effectively to your institution.
Source: Copilot
Local SEO remains a powerful driver of inquiries. Enhancing Google Business Profiles, incorporating location-specific keywords, and encouraging positive reviews are key strategies. Schema markup further boosts visibility by creating rich search results, such as event listings and review stars, that attract clicks and engagement.
Practical Strategies for 2025
Content remains central to education marketing success, but its format and delivery are evolving. High-quality, SEO-optimized content that directly addresses student questions is crucial. Institutions are increasingly adopting visual and interactive formats, such as infographics, videos, and quizzes, to create engaging and shareable content.
Marketing technology plays a pivotal role in streamlining operations. CRM systems and automated email tools enable institutions to automate routine communications, such as application reminders and follow-ups. This ensures timely interactions while freeing up resources for strategic initiatives.
Mautic is a cutting-edge CRM and marketing automation solution tailored specifically for the education sector. Built on the robust Mautic platform, HEM has enhanced this system to address the unique challenges and opportunities faced by educational institutions.
By enabling streamlined lead management, Mautic by HEM allows schools to segment, manage, and follow up with prospects efficiently, enhancing both cost-effectiveness and operational efficiency.
With Mautic, your school can supercharge your marketing efforts through automated email campaigns, customizable forms, and seamless workflows. The platform’s out-of-the-box custom reports provide deep insights into admissions efforts, helping schools track team productivity and the progress of leads through the enrollment funnel.
Tools for automated SMS and email follow-ups, meeting bookings, and calls empower teams to nurture leads effectively, turning prospects into enrolled students. Designed to simplify complex tasks and enhance collaboration, Mautic is the ideal solution for schools looking to elevate their student recruitment strategies.
In an era of rapid technological advancements, agility is essential. Institutions must regularly monitor campaign performance, experiment with new platforms, and stay informed about industry innovations. Being prepared to pivot strategies allows institutions to adapt to changing audience preferences and platform updates.
The Road Ahead
In summary, What will education marketing look like in 2025? In 2025, education marketing will focus on data-driven, personalized, transparent, and multi-channel strategies to engage students effectively. When you embrace AI-driven tools, optimize digital advertising, and adapt to evolving search landscapes, your school can navigate the complexities of a highly competitive market.
As the digital-first generation redefines expectations, educational institutions have a unique opportunity to deliver value and build trust at every stage of the student journey. The strategies outlined here provide a comprehensive roadmap for success, ensuring your school sees results in 2025 and beyond.
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: What is education marketing?
Answer: Education marketing promotes educational institutions, programs, and services to prospective students, their families, and other stakeholders.
Question: What will education marketing look like in 2025?
Answer: In 2025, education marketing will focus on data-driven, personalized, transparent, and multi-channel strategies to engage students effectively.
By Edward Venning, Managing Partner at Six Ravens Consulting.
Not for the first time, an interventionist Secretary of State stands ready to help English universities. Not surprisingly, every item in her agenda – from regional engagement to business models – will place conditions of ‘wide-scale reform’ upon universities.
We should reasonably worry. Not because of Bridget Phillipson, but because we have traded away our self-determination for years.
The debate about autonomy has a certain monotheistic quality. Everyone agrees autonomy is the rock upon which knowledge is built, while vigorously sinning against it. Different governments tie finance to reform, as with Phillipson, or attempt the oxymoron of regulating academic freedom. Meanwhile, universities accept cash with strings attached from government, major donors and international students. Government generally cops the blame for this too, while we appeal to inalienable protections in the Higher Education Reform Act (HERA).
But autonomy is not absolute or inviolable. It is not determined by functional independence or private status. It is a behaviour. It comes from actively managing a complex web of power relationships and trade-offs while protecting our control over key functions. It is built through organisational design, concerned with incentives, accountability and dynamic relationship management. The more robustly we design, the less likely our autonomy will be tested.
As nations have found throughout history, autonomy is far from inalienable. Anton Muscatelli points out that this complex negotiation requires constant attention and re-calibration. It must be promoted through the active management of three forces:
to comply with state direction and societal expectation;
to conform with sector and industrial norms; and
to copy each other’s strategies.
The three forces are not in themselves good or bad for autonomy. A minimal level of regulation protects the student interest. Good standards add value. Some strategies deserve emulation. They are forces for good to the extent to which we use them to improve our engagement with the world. These forces become toxic through neglect, uncritical or anticipatory compliance and inept execution.
And our approach to university autonomy could certainly do with an upgrade. The defensive case is given a thorough outing by James Tooley and John Drew, in Cry Freedom: The regulatory assault on institutional autonomy in England’s universities (2024). In this entertaining beasting of the Office for Students, they draw invidious comparisons between what the regulator is supposed to do and what it actually does. They devastate Susan Lapworth’s claim that institutional autonomy can be overridden. Only a lawyer might improve (or rebut) their analysis of regulatory overreach, even if the reader wonders what, short of class action, would induce DfE and OfS to accept their recommendations.
The sector shackles itself
Equally, a fair-minded judge would accept that the sector’s supine approach to autonomy undermines their case for change. Our surrender of autonomy to the state for money is part of a wider readiness to sell the pass in exchange for benefit.
No one can blame the government (or indeed any major industry or donor) for offering a Faustian pact. It is in their nature to seek control. Nor should universities be blamed for seeking patronage from the state, the market or indeed non-state actors. No one, as Jo Johnson recently argued in his report about the China question, would seriously suggest universities should disengage from the world. Instead, we need a robust, dynamic framework for engagement, exerting maximum self-determination in some areas while accepting constraints in others.
It is worth remembering that HERA busies itself with a single dimension of autonomy. This is founded on the precept of the ‘self-critical, cohesive community of scholars’. While of central importance, academic autonomy is one of four dimensions of autonomy recognised by the European University Association. The other three dimensions (organisational, financial and staffing) represent the soft underbelly of autonomy, absent the legitimacy of the academic.
We lack the toolkit to recognise and manage trade-offs across all four of the EUA’s dimensions. Regulatory interest in academic freedom is a clear-cut incursion on academic autonomy. The same is true of staff and student demands to end relationships with Israeli universities. Pressure on non-academic autonomy is often ostensibly internal. The University and College Union’s (UCU) Four Fights, #MeToo and Black Lives Matter have all successfully targeted the non-academic dimensions of autonomy. In fact, there is almost always a dynamic connection between internal and external forces. After all, the 1968 protests began with the right of male and female students to sleep together and ended by permanently altering university governance.
Away from the academic space, autonomy is lost in less obvious ways.
For example, universities cede considerable organisational autonomy through voluntary commitments to a wide range of charters, benchmarks and league tables. But each external assurance scheme concedes executive room for manoeuvre. Almost worse for a knowledge institution, they concede expertise to a third party. The schemes are regressive because they create a planning burden that small institutions cannot service. And the goalposts move without our input – all assurance schemes ratchet their criteria over time. Sometimes this means that compliance may seem tantamount to wishful thinking. Even critics get confused. At one point, the last government was simultaneously asking universities to leave some schemes (such as Stonewall’s famous Diversity Champions Programme and Athena Swan) and adopt others (such as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-semitism).
Ganging up
Autonomy can be defined as a type of managed interdependence. It is possible to collaborate with third parties and still maintain self-determination. Indeed, this may be the only way most universities can achieve the scale necessary to confront the most monumental tasks.
Active, relational autonomy is central to effective partnership with government, industry and civil society in complex, interconnected challenges. For example, some of the biggest bets in biotech and STEM have been made as joint ventures.
At the operational level, control over admissions and technology is rightly seen as foundational, and yet we are content for UCAS and Jisc to manage critical processes and infrastructure. Meanwhile, numerous universities have spent millions trying to build a proprietary full-stack online learning offer, while Silicon Valley spends billions on the same task. Arguably, our autonomy is weakest when we go it alone.
This will become increasingly pressing as stressed universities contemplate the possibility of forced merger. What mechanisms will sustain their autonomy, identity and distinctiveness in the arms of a bigger institution?
As shown by Gill Evans, much of the sector used to operate within much larger non-academic organisations, such as local government. Even the most autonomous parts of the sector were interdependent. The collegiate traditions of Oxford and Cambridge demonstrate how shared governance protects autonomy while enabling scale. Royal Charters were mostly awarded to institutions which were (then or subsequently) members of a bigger university. Group structures and formal partnerships between institutions provide varying degrees of freedom to their constituent parts, above a critical threshold of autonomy. These arrangements distribute risk and create safety in numbers, mitigating the hierarchy that makes some institutions more vulnerable than others.
Asserting autonomy
The sector needs more muscular collective action. Individual institutions struggle to resist pressure from regulators, funders and other stakeholders. A stronger sector voice could help establish red lines while engaging constructively with reform agendas.
As argued in my recent debate paper, the overall ability of the sector to exert its autonomy is low compared to other sectors. This has several solutions. We need to establish a strong, leadership body across the tertiary ecosystem, robustly managing the big picture on resource distribution and regulatory burden. We need more sophisticated uses of corporate form, not just the blunt instrument of M&A. But above all, we need to recover an assertive self-confidence.
Let’s be inspired by the private sector and our own history. The original English universities were guilds, muscular and monopolistic in behaviour. Commercial autonomy is not abstract or passive, nor does it derive in a mystical way from the capitalist impulse. It is a self-generating, assertive precondition for entering the market. If universities cannot make a positive case for self-determination, and are not inclined to exercise it, we cannot expect the government of the day – or anyone else – to respect our autonomy. Instead, we need dynamic, structured engagement with external and internal forces. Autonomy will be the result.
By Michelle Morgan, Dean of Students at the University of East London.
In the UK, we have a well-established education system across different levels of learning including primary, secondary, further and higher education. For each level, there is a comprehensive structure that is regulated and monitored alongside extensive information. However, at present, they generally function in isolation.
The Government’s recent Curriculum and Assessment Review has asked for suggestions to improve the curriculum and assessment system for the 16-19 year study group. This group includes a range of qualifications including GCSEs, A-levels, BTECs, T Levels and apprenticeships. The main purpose of the Review is to
ensure that the curriculum balances ambition, relevance, flexibility and inclusivity for all children and young people.
However, as part of this review, could it also look at how the different levels of study build on one another? Could the sectors come together and use their extensive knowledge for their level and type of study, to create an integrated road map across secondary, further and higher education where skills, knowledge, competencies and attributes (and how they translate into employability skills) are clearly articulated? We could call this a National Learning Framework. It could align with the learning gain programme led by the Office for Students (OfS).
The benefits of a National Learning Framework
There would be a number of benefits to adopting this approach:
It would provide a clear resource for all stakeholders, including students and staff in educational organisations, policymakers, Government bodies, Regulators and Quality Standard bodies (such as Ofsted, the Office for Students and QAA) and business and industry. It would also help manage the general public perception of higher education.
This approach would join up the regulatory bodies responsible for the different sectors. It would help create a collaborative, consistent learning and teaching approach, by setting and explaining the aims and objectives of the various types of education providers.
It would explain and articulate the differences in learning, teaching and assessment approaches across the array of secondary and further education qualifications that are available and used as progression qualifications into higher education. For example, A-Levels are mainly taught in schools and assessed by end-of-year exams. ‘Other’ qualifications such as BTEC, Access and Other Level 3 qualifications taught in college have more diverse assessments.
It would help universities more effectively bridge the learning and experience transition into higher education across all entry qualifications. We know students from the ‘Other’ qualification groups are often from disadvantaged backgrounds, which can affect retention, progression and success at university as research highlights (see also this NEON report). Students with other qualifications are more likely to withdraw than those with A-Levels. However, as this recent reportPrior learning experience, study expectations of A-Level and BTEC students on entry to universityhighlights, it is not the BTEC qualification per se that is the problem but the transition support into university study that needs improvement.
It would also address assumptions about how learning occurs at each level of study. For example, because young people use media technology to live and socialise, it is assumed the same is the case with learning. Accessing teaching and learning material, especially in schools, remains largely traditional: the main sources of information are course textbooks and handwritten notes, although since the Covid-19 Pandemic, the use of coursework submission and basic virtual learning environments (VLEs) is on the increase.
If we clearly communicate to students the learning that occurs throughout each level of their study, and what skills, knowledge, competencies and attributes they should obtain as a result, this can help with their confidence levels and their employability opportunities as they can better articulate what they have achieved.
What could an integrated learning approach across all levels of study via a NationalLearning Framework look like?
The Employability Skills Pyramid created for levels 4 to 7 in higher education with colleagues in a previous university where I worked could be extended to include Levels 2/3 and apprenticeships to create a National Learning Framework. The language used to construct the knowledge, skills and attribute grids used by course leaders purposely integrated the QAA statements for degrees (see accompanying document Appendix 1) .
By adding Levels 2 and 3, including apprenticeship qualifications and articulating the differences between each qualification, the education sector could understand what is achieved within and between different levels of study and qualifications (see Figure 1).
Key stakeholders could come together from across all levels of study to map out and agree on the language to adopt for consistency across the various levels and qualifications.
Integrated National Learning Framework across Secondary, Further andHigher Education
Alongside the National Learning Framework, a common transition approach drawing on the same definitions across all levels of study would be valuable. Students and staff could gain the understanding required to foster successful transitions between phases. An example is provided below.
Supporting transitions across the National Learning Framework using similar terminology
The Student Experience Transitions (SET) Model was designed to support courses of various lengths and make the different stages of a course clearer. It was originally designed for higher education but the principles are the same across all levels of study (see Figure 2). Students need to progress through each stage which has general rules of engagement. The definitions of each stage and the mapping of each stage by length of course are in the accompanying document in Appendix 2.
Figure 2: The Student Experience Transitions Model. Source: Morgan 2012
The benefits for students are consistency and understanding what is expected for their course. At each key transition stage, students would understand what is expected by reflecting on what they have previously learnt, how the coming year builds on what they already know and what they will achieve at the end.
Taking the opportunity to integrate
The Curriculum Review provides a real opportunity to join up each level of study and provide clarity for all stakeholders. Importantly, a National Learning Framework could provide and help with the Government’s aims of balancing ambition, relevance, flexibility and inclusivity for all learners regardless of level of study.
Welcome back. The HEPI blog is now up and running again on a daily basis, landing in your inbox at 6:30am. (The pieces we ran over the break are available here.) If you are not already subscribed, you can sign up at the bottom of this page.
Spaces are still open for our in-person Symposium with CBDU on Thursday 16th January: you can register here.
Today’s piece is by Jane Embley, Chief People Officer, Northumbria University and Professor Tom Lawson, Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Provost, Northumbria University.
The end of the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) pensions dispute in the summer of 2023 was the source of much relief in the sector. University employees in the scheme saw both their pension benefits restored to the levels they had been before the USS valuation of 2017 and a reduction in their contributions (from January 2024) from 9.8% to 6.1%. Employers could reverse the significant liabilities that had previously been skewing their financial statements and their contributions to USS were reduced from 21.6% to 14.5%. The Financial Times declared that ‘the cost to UK universities of providing pensions for employees is poised to fall by hundreds of millions of pounds after the sector’s main retirement plan swung into surplus after more than a decade of being in deficit’.
But for many institutions the great pensions crisis was not over: indeed it had only just begun. For at least 80 universities, USS is not their main pension scheme, because those that gained university status through the 1992 Higher Education Act are required to offer Teachers Pension Scheme (TPS) to their academic staff. This includes institutions like Northumbria University, which has significantly developed its research intensity over the last decade and seeks to compete with other research intensives. The disparity in the costs of TPS and USS means that competition is no longer on a level playing field.
Northumbria has more than 200 staff who are members of USS, but all of those have joined the university as existing members of that scheme. All other academic colleagues must be enrolled in TPS and cannot, at present, voluntarily become members of USS. Indeed those who join as members of USS also retain a right to be enrolled in TPS if they wish. Around 50 modern institutions employ some members of USS however the underlying requirement to make TPS available to university-employed academic staff is the same.
Since 2023 the cost of TPS to both employees and employers has significantly diverged from USS. While employers’ contributions to the two schemes tracked one another closely until October 2019, they then began to diverge radically when TPS employer contributions rose to 23.68% while USS was at 21.1%. But in April 2024 the gulf between the two schemes became a chasm – TPS contributions rose by 5% to 28.68% as USS employer contributions went down to 14.5%.
The difference in percentage terms is stark. But when you start to think about the financial cost for institutions it is all the more so. The pension cost (to employers) for a typical academic salary of £57,500 is £8,300 per annum for USS. For a TPS employee, it is £16,500. At an institutional level that means that for every 1000 staff earning this salary in TPS, the annual cost is £8.2 million greater than if those same employees were members of USS. For a professor earning £85,000 the difference is as much as £12,000 per full-time colleague. As Northumbria’s experience shows, these are additional costs being carried in one part of the sector for essentially the same staff.
The situation is compounded by the nature of TPS as a scheme. Unlike USS, employers have no say in how the TPS is run and have no levers to keep employer (and indeed employee) contributions down. This is simply a cost handed down to universities by the Treasury. But unlike schools, to which the Treasury through the Department for Education provides additional funding to cover TPS cost increases, universities receive no relief and simply have to absorb these costs into their already stretched budgets. And unlike schools in the independent sector, which were permitted to stop offering TPS to new staff, universities are obliged to continue to offer TPS – whatever alternatives they can develop for their staff.
The impact of this is extraordinary. It essentially means that in one part of the sector, it costs employers the same amount in on-costs to employ 503 staff as it costs to employ 1000 staff elsewhere. Quite apart from the burden this places on institutions, it is deeply anti-competitive.
What then is to be done? The path forward is beset by problems. Unless there is legislative change, modern universities will be required to continue to make TPS available to all academic colleagues and, it bears repeating, will continue to have no say at all in the running of the scheme.
Of course, one option is to do nothing, but the finances of the sector mean the status quo is extraordinarily difficult to justify. Doing nothing embeds an unfairness that makes the government’s stated priorities for university reform more difficult to achieve. To put it crudely, it costs more for some institutions than others to employ academic staff, and as that resource is derived (at least in part) from student fee income then those institutions will require more students to fund the salaries of staff. For every 1000 staff earning £57,500 it would require all of the fees from 859 additional UK undergraduate students just to fund the difference in employer pension contributions.
Institutions can employ new colleagues via subsidiary companies in order to give themselves the freedom to offer more affordable pensions to new employees. But this approach has many potential pitfalls. It would not help to reduce the costs in relation to existing staff, so would be slow to have any impact, and in any case it remains unclear what the status of such employees is according to HESA – which could among other things impact the ability of individuals to make a contribution to future REF exercises with the attendant implications for future funding. Employment through a subsidiary, even with all terms and conditions being the same but being out of scope for recognition within the REF, is also likely to be a less attractive prospect for employees.
It seems likely that until solutions are found, many institutions might find themselves having to rethink their ability to participate in national collective pay bargaining. With higher pension costs and higher National Insurance contributions, it may be necessary, for now at least, for institutions to take control of salary increases to contain the total costs of employment. This is not an attractive option, but it is hard to think of any others that would be as swift and effective in containing cost increases, although of course it would come with its own industrial relations challenges.
Ultimately all institutions value their academic staff immensely and we want to provide access to attractive pension schemes. However, the lack of institutional control over which pension scheme can be offered, and the high, fixed nature of the employer contribution to TPS (which is not directly linked to any improvement in benefits for the individual) cannot be sustained. The timing of the current challenge could also not be worse. Institutions are grappling with a whole range of financial pressures, and as a consequence dealing with TPS remains in the ‘too hard’ box for many, not least because we genuinely cannot find the solutions without some form of intervention. But as the sustainability of institutions becomes all the more scrutinised, and as the sector needs to find financial efficiencies to address the concerns expressed by the Secretary of State for Education earlier in 2024, we do urgently need to find a way forward.
Obliging institutions to continue to offer TPS places greater financial constraints on precisely those universities that might do the most to widen access and give greater opportunity to those from disadvantaged backgrounds as per the government’s priorities. It is an obvious unfairness that some of students will go to institutions where it is substantially more expensive to employ staff than in other institutions that are more traditionally regarded as elite. The time is now to remove this inbuilt, and presumably unintended, unfairness and end the obligation upon modern universities to offer TPS. If that happens individual institutions and the sector as a whole can begin to chart a path to a more sustainable position in the future.
