The traditional admissions funnel has long served as a trusty blueprint for ushering prospective students from initial interest to enrollment. But times, they are a-changin’. Technological leaps, shifting student expectations, and newfangled marketing strategies have all conspired to transform this once-straightforward model. So, let’s dive into how the admissions funnel has evolved and what these changes spell out for colleges and universities.
From Linear to Non-Linear Journeys
Gone are the days of the straight-line path from prospect to enrollment. The old funnel—prospect, inquiry, application, admission, acceptance, enrollment—was neat and tidy. Today, the student journey is a lot more like a hopscotch game. Prospective students zigzag through stages, start an application, go back to gathering info, and flip-flop on decisions multiple times before finally enrolling. This behavior calls for admissions teams to be nimble and ready to pivot at a moment’s notice.
The Digital Revolution
The rise of digital tech has turned the admissions process on its head. Now, online platforms, social media, and virtual tours are the main highways for students discovering and engaging with colleges. Virtual events, webinars, and interactive content are must-haves to grab the attention of today’s digital-savvy students. To keep up, institutions need to master digital marketing and create a seamless online experience.
Personalization and Data Analytics
Today’s students expect nothing less than personalized communication and experiences. With advanced data analytics, colleges can track student interactions and preferences, tailoring their outreach and engagement efforts. This means sending targeted messages, recommending specific programs, and offering personalized content that hits home with individual students. Such a personalized approach strengthens connections and boosts conversion rates.
Increased Emphasis on Early Engagement
Early engagement is now a cornerstone of the modern admissions funnel. Building relationships with prospective students well before the application stage is critical. This involves nurturing leads through meaningful interactions from as early as middle school. Colleges are investing in long-term outreach programs, summer camps, and pre-college initiatives to establish and maintain connections throughout the student journey.
Focus on the Student Experience
The student experience has become a pivotal factor in the admissions process. Prospective students are seeking more than academic offerings; they want institutions that align with their values, offer a supportive community, and provide opportunities for personal growth. Colleges need to showcase their unique campus cultures, highlight student success stories, and emphasize holistic support services to attract and retain students.
Adapting to Changing Demographics
Demographic shifts, like increasing diversity and the rise of non-traditional students, demand that colleges adapt their recruitment strategies. Institutions are developing more wide-ranging marketing campaigns and creating pathways for adult learners, transfer students, and international applicants. Understanding and addressing the unique needs of these diverse populations is crucial for staying competitive in today’s landscape.
There you have it—the modern admissions funnel is a dynamic, digital, and personalized journey. Colleges and universities that embrace these changes and adapt their strategies will be the ones that thrive in this new era.
We do NOT recruit and retain students when they understand us (the institution). We recruit and retain when students see we understand who they are.
Mondy Brewer, Ph.D., brings over 30 years of diverse experience in higher education, having held key leadership positions in admissions, marketing communications, and student success. He has also served as an Assistant Professor of Leadership in Business. In addition to his consulting work specializing in enrollment management, he currently serves as AVP – Enrollment Strategy at Liaison. Dr. Brewer holds a Doctorate in Leadership with a focus on higher education administration. His doctoral research explored the engagement of first-generation college students, offering insights into the institutional support mechanisms that promote their success.
By Dr Adrian Gonzalez (@AGonzalez05) Senior Lecturer in Sustainability and Director of Learning and Teaching, Department of Environment and Geography at the University of York.
Climate hypocrisy in Higher Education
The climate crisis and global attempts at strengthening the sustainable and low-carbon transition is arguably the most critical issue we face and there is clear evidence to show strong Higher Education (HE) support for this twin approach. However, HE, particularly in the Global North, faces increasing scrutiny and critique over its implementation of the sustainability agenda. This has led to accusations of greenwashing, in which universities (willingly or perhaps erroneously) overmarket and/or underdeliver their sustainability policies, and climate hypocrisy, where an internationalist agenda frames student recruitment (the drive towards overseas markets), research activities and partnerships. For example, in UK tertiary education (further education and higher education), the largest sources of travel emissions are student flights, but there has been limited focus on the emissions stemming from learning and teaching, particularly fieldtrips, which this post is keen to reflect on.
Destination long haul; Higher Education residential undergraduate student fieldtrips
Outdoor education, particularly fieldtrips, offer a wide array of learner benefits and can be integral to different undergraduate programmes such as Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences (GEES), archaeology, history and classics. However, the competitive UK higher education market has helped generate an internationalisation of undergraduate fieldtrips which are now used as a critical marketing tool to attract prospective students, who as ‘consumers’, are increasingly keen on knowing where these trips go to inform applications. For example, a brief internet search of UK GEES departments shows undergraduate trips heading to exotic locations such as the Amazonia region, Colombia (BSc Environmental Science), Bahamas (BSc Ocean Science and Marine Conservation) and Malawi (BA Human Geography).
Climate hypocrisy is evident here; students are studying programmes that acknowledge and grapple with the climate crisis and the need for transformational structural changes, yet at the same time will be enrolled on degrees that facilitate long-haul international learning opportunities without significant acknowledgement or reflection of the environmental impacts. Whilst there is no reliable publicly available data on the level of carbon emissions generated by GEES and other subject fieldtrips in UK higher education, I can give an indication by drawing on a case study of the department I work in.
Department of Environment and Geography, University of York
The department runs a wide variety of one-day and residential fieldtrips across its undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. It is the undergraduate residential trips that, owing to their design, have particularly significant carbon emissions and were made the focus of the subsequent investigation. Until 2022-2023, the department ran several residential fieldtrips that encompassed both UK and overseas destinations for its four undergraduate programmes (BSc Environmental Science; BSc Physical Geography and Environment; BSc Environment, Economics and Ecology; BA Human Geography and Environment).
I used the University of York’s carbon calculator, which draws upon the UK government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs greenhouse conversion factors to calculate the carbon emissions stemming from travel and accommodation and the offsetting requirements. The table below shows the residential fieldtrips and carbon emissions from travel (including coach and flights where relevant) and accommodation on a per-person and 50-person basis. For four 50-person trips, this generated 108,521.85 kg CO2e (or 109 metric tonnes rounded up), equating to a carbon offsetting cost of £3,437.97 for the Department on an annual basis.
Table 1: Department of Environment and Geography, University of York fieldtrips up to 2022-2023
What does this total figure equate to? A good comparison is the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), an international non-profit that focuses on environment and development challenges and employs 170 staff working across several international regional centres. At the time of these fieldtrips operating, SEI’s 2020 annual report indicated that its air travel emissions were almost 550 metric tonnes CO2e (in 2019). So these department fieldtrips made up the equivalent of almost 20% of the total air travel emissions of a major international research organisation.
Conclusion: a call to action
These figures indicate the scale of the socio-environmental impacts caused and the urgent need for UK higher education learning and teaching operations, particularly in GEES given the subject areas, to be seen as ‘walking the talk.’ There have been recent efforts to address this issue through the work of the RGS-IBG who have developed a list of voluntary principles to guide geography fieldwork, including the adoption of ‘sustainable fieldtrips’ which acknowledge the need to recognise and justify the resulting carbon impacts. Whilst it is positive to see 31 institutions signed up, this is less than half of the UK GEES departments and does not incorporate any wider disciplinary commitments.
This article raises a call to action for all learned institutions and UK HE departments operating residential fieldtrips to adopt sustainable fieldtrip principles and operations. Without system-wide change, climate hypocrisy remains unchallenged in UK higher education learning and teaching.
To support academic staff and departments, several steps towards sustainable fieldtrips can be taken:
Using this data, consider revising long-haul fieldtrip locations to relevant localised destinations that can be reached through low carbon (i.e. no flights) transport;
Publish the carbon costs on the department or university website to support wider debate and discussion of sustainable fieldtrips;
Implementing sustainable fieldtrips can lead to multiple Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) benefits, particularly around accessibility and inclusivity. Use this opportunity to review and seek to strengthen the EDI agenda.
Disseminate best practice guidance through research and conference outputs;
Lobby learned institutions to adopt sustainable fieldtrip principles that align with those adopted by the RGS-IBG;
Through these steps, UK higher education can begin to create a more holistic, robust and transparent sustainability and decarbonisation agenda.
However, these actions cannot happen in isolation or nullify wider critical discussions around the UK HE sustainability agenda. One of the most significant discussion points is the impact of international students studying in the UK, a country which is the second most popular study destination in the world. Whilst these students provide significant economic benefits to the UK economy (£41.9 billion between 2021/22) and are vital to the UK higher education business model (one in six universities get over a third of their total income from overseas students), the carbon footprint far surpasses the UK higher education fieldtrip contribution. A 2023 report from 21 UK further education and higher education providers concluded that student flights accounted for 2.2 metric tonnes of CO2e or 12% of total emissions, whilst globally, student mobility is estimated to generate at least 14 megatones of Co2e per year (14 million metric tonnes). It is clear therefore that in the UK context, there is an urgent need for a robust policy debate on UK higher education funding and student mobility, otherwise the sector’s decarbonisation agenda will remain only partially addressed through sustainable fieldtrips.
Today’s undergraduate enrollment and recruitment strategies should be data informed and personalized, prioritizing quality over quantity.
“Flipping the funnel” shifts the focus from mass marketing to building meaningful, tailored connections with students, ensuring better matches and higher retention rates.
Student personas and data analytics enable institutions to craft targeted messaging that resonates with individual student goals.
Liaison’s tools empower colleges to use predictive analytics, real-time engagement, and tailored outreach to attract and retain students who are well-suited to their programs.
For today’s higher education institutions, attracting the right students is more important than reaching a high volume of applicants. Traditional enrollment models that rely on casting a wide net and filtering through broad pools of applicants are no longer enough. Colleges and universities must instead adopt data-informed, personalized strategies that focus on quality over quantity.
Liaison’s suite of advanced toolsmakes this possible, offering data-focused insights, real-time engagement capabilities, and tailored outreach options. This approach not only streamlines recruitment but also ensures a stronger match between students and their chosen programs, leading to higher yield and retention rates and ultimately providing a more fulfilling educational journey.
Flipping the Funnel: Moving From Volume to Value
Historically, institutions have used a “funnel” approach to undergraduate admissions and recruitment, beginning with a large pool of prospective students and narrowing the field. But with today’s intensified competition, this model is proving less effective. Rather than expanding the top of the funnel by acquiring more student names, “flipping the funnel” is a strategic approach that begins with the end goal in mind: enrolling and retaining the students who will thrive at your institution.
Flipping the funnel shifts the focus from raw numbers to meaningful connections. Instead of mass marketing, this approach encourages institutions to recruit based on the distinct needs, goals, and interests of each student cohort. Just as each program or field has unique strengths, each student brings unique aspirations and potential. This customized outreach means that a prospective engineering student, for instance, might receive information about hands-on lab opportunities, while a fine arts student sees highlights of campus studios and faculty profiles. Liaison’s Enrollment Marketing and CRM solutions facilitate this tailored approach, allowing schools to reach specific audiences on digital platforms with messages that resonate with individual student interests.
Building Student Personas to Enhance Targeting
Understanding how to recruit undergraduate studentswho are likely to succeed and remain engaged throughout their academic journey requires a clear understanding of those students. Creating detailed student personas—representations of ideal applicants based on real data—lets institutions tailor their outreach with pinpoint accuracy. For example, Liaison’s CRM solutions facilitate this process by analyzing key data points such as academic background, geographic location, and behavioral insights, helping teams identify the students most likely to flourish and stay enrolled.
With clear student personas in mind, institutions can deliver customized messaging that aligns with students’ priorities. For example, a prospective first-generation student may be most interested in affordability and support services, while a STEM-oriented applicant might respond better to information about research facilities and career pathways. Crafting communications based on these personas enhances engagement and strengthens student bonds from the beginning. By sending recruitment messages that truly speak to students’ goals, institutions foster a sense of belonging, which in turn improves retention and satisfaction rates.
Utilizing Data Analytics for Personalized Interactions
Data analytics has become an essential tool for individualizing outreach to connect with the right students with the right message at the right time. Real-time data enables institutions to track student responses, identify prospective students’ preferences, and adapt strategies based on what works best. Liaison’s AI solutions are designed for this agile approach, allowing institutions to monitor interactions and adjust their recruitment efforts dynamically throughout the enrollment cycle.
With predictive and prescriptive analytics, schools can employ advanced tactics like retargeting, which reconnects with students who may have previously shown interest but haven’t yet committed. By capturing students’ attention during “micro-moments” as they browse social media or search online, institutions can stay relevant and timely in their communications. This data-informed approach—using Liaison’s Enrollment Marketing and digital services—increases enrollment numbers and forms trust with students by providing content that aligns with their journeys. The result? Stronger engagement and a greater likelihood of success.
Transforming Enrollment With Data-Informed Precision
In higher education, student recruitment requires a thoughtful, data-centered approach that emphasizes quality over quantity and personalization over generalization. By leveraging tools like Liaison’s Enrollment Marketing, TargetX, Outcomes, Search, and Othot, institutions can move beyond traditional methods and create recruitment strategies that attract students who are well-suited to their programs. By creating tailored recruitment strategies aligned to student cohort needs, you inspire students with a stronger sense of belonging and deeper engagement throughout the enrollment cycle. That, in turn, drives long-term success on your campus.
To discover how Liaison’s technology solutions can transform your recruitment practices, reach out to us today. Our team is ready to help you implement data-backed, individualized outreach strategies that benefit your institution and future students alike. Contact us for a demo or a consultation to see how Liaison’s tools can elevate your enrollment efforts!
About the Author
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.
HEPI Director, Nick Hillman, starts 2025 by looking back at some HEPI controversies from the last decade.
New Year’s Day marked the first day of my twelfth year at HEPI. Over that time, I’ve had a hand in publishing (and writing) over 200 reports. None has stoked controversy for the sake of it, but neither have we shied away from publishing things that people feel need to be said even if they might be deemed by some to be controversial.
Fortunately, just four (that’s under 2%) of these pieces have flared into major rows. That’s about one report every three years or so on average, which doesn’t feel too bad a record for think-tank land. If we were in the business of stoking controversy for the sake of it, then it would be fair to say we are not very good at it.
Most people understand the role of think tanks is to make people think, whether they agree with them or not. Indeed, HEPI was founded as an offshoot of HEFCE in the early 2000s because it was felt there were things that should be said but which an official arms-length body could not easily say, with the overarching goal of speeding up the policymaking process
Some reports we were initially a little nervous about putting out have been accepted at face value without getting anyone too hot under the collar. (A recent one of this ilk looked at the experience of trans and non-binary students.) But more intriguingly, those HEPI reports that have been deemed controversial have not generally been the ones I thought in advance would be.
And each one is now seared on my mind.
A UKIP Licence
The first of these, published back in 2015, proposed a National Licence to give everyone with a UK Internet Protocol address access at no upfront charge to past and present academic research. The associated backend costs were designed to be covered by government payments to publishers.
FE lecturers and some health professionals welcomed the idea wholeheartedly, as they tended to think better access to the latest and past research would help them do their jobs. However, the more headbanger-ish element of the open-access world thought it outrageous that free access might be limited, at least initially, only to those in the UK. They also disliked the fact that publishers would continue to receive material payments.
As you would have needed a UK IP address to benefit from the National Licence and as the UK Independence Party was then riding high, the critics amusingly caricatured the paper as a ‘UKIP’ idea. Less amusingly, one academic called for it to be withdrawn, only to rescind this when it was suggested that this might be illiberal – before changing his mind once more and calling again for a ban.
The paper is still available but the National Licence idea has not made any progress and the major challenge of poor access to academic output for those without institutional log-ins (including policymakers, not to mention think-tank staff…) remains.
Boys to Men
The second controversial piece – produced in 2016 – was on the education of boys, who fall far behind girls in our education system. This, sadly, also remains a big problem that no government has gripped (though it’s not too late for the current Government to do so). Our paper was condemned, for example by the then leadership of the National Union of Students (NUS), for emphasising sex rather than class.
At the time, I said the report seemed to have been treated like an embarrassing relative who sits in the corner at family gatherings spouting politically incorrect nonsense.
In response to such condemnation, we pointed out that it is possible to be worried about more than one issue at a time and that, as disadvantaged girls tend to do a little better than disadvantaged boys, sex seems one important factor to consider alongside all the others when assessing outcomes.
The challenges in this area are perhaps a little better understood these days than they were a few years ago – thanks to excellent work from people like Richard Reeves, a Brit who is now the President of the American Institute for Boys and Men and who has written an whole book on the topic and who recently spoke at a really good Bright Blue event on the issue). So when we return to the topic, as we would like to do early in 2025, perhaps it will be less fraught.
This paper (like the one on the National Licence) appeared in HEPI’s Debate Paper series, which is more polemical in its approach than HEPI’s other papers, for we knew it might stoke a row. Yet after publication of Iain’s paper, which had gone through our regular peer-review process as with all full-length HEPI papers, one well-respected expert in the sociology of education working at a Russell Group university declared HEPI should ‘disband’.
However, most of the opposition to Iain’s paper was classier. Unlike other – more ideological – think tanks, we invariably encourage people who disagree with something we have published to write for us too. So we encouraged the critics to gather together under two Oxford academics to produce a strong HEPI paper of their own that responded to Iain’s work in the form of a series of essays.
In their respective pieces, Iain and his critics were largely focusing on different issues – Iain looked mainly at access to selective higher education on leaving grammar school and the collection of essays concentrated mainly on how grammar school systems tend to work against the interests of those who are shut out from them. While the debate was angry in parts, it was properly evidence based and therefore very illuminating.
As someone who lives in part of the country where nearly all children still take the 11+, I found the discussion usefully educational and took something from both sides. Iain as the initial protagonist and someone who thrives on intellectual debate certainly welcomed it.
The paper, written for HEPI by the GW4 group of universities in England and Wales, was based on the personal testimonies of postgraduate parents. It argued that postgraduate parents should become entitled to the same support that is available to undergraduate parents:
the current approach does not provide the right incentives to support social mobility through education. Extending the current undergraduate Childcare Grant to postgraduate students would seem a logical first step to support the most economically disadvantaged.
The paper also explained that the authors knew their proposals would not solve all the problems faced by postgraduate parents:
While GW4 acknowledges that this would not be a panacea for all postgraduates, extending the support to those with the greatest need would be a welcome first step to ensure parity of policy.
So the authors also floated going further:
A future step such as expanding the 30 free hours, so that childcare does not continue to be a barrier to the reskilling and career progression opportunities that postgraduate studies can provide, is worthy of consideration if the ambitions of the R&D People and Culture Strategy are to be delivered.
So we assumed that, if only we could secure engagement with its contents, then the HEPI / GW4 Policy Note calling for modest improvements in the support for postgraduate parents in England would also land on fertile soil. Yet the outcry from a small number of those who read it and who thought it did not go far enough was extraordinary.
Playing the ball not the person
The process for putting a paper of this sort together takes months and, during this time, we had lots of fascinating conversations about whether the proposals should be bolder, whether or not we should argue that England should simply and immediately copy the generous arrangements in Wales (even though Wales is better funded thanks to the Barnett formula) and which arm of the state should have responsibility for childcare support for postgraduates. The wording about better short-term arrangements only being a ‘first step’ reflected these discussions.
Although the Policy Note was not my work, I used my social media channels to help publicise it and so drew much of the ire from academics on X / Twitter. Initially, I was asked why we wanted to block people from ‘feeding our families’. Later, and after I had pointed out this criticism seemed not to be based on a close reading of the actual paper, I was called ‘unhinged’ and accused of ‘misogyny’ and ‘everyday sexism’. One message about the report was tagged with ‘VAWG’, which I learnt stands for ‘violence against women and girls’. Remember, our paper proposed introducing – not restricting or abolishing – childcare support for postgraduate parents, and with a focus (initially) on the poorest ones most in need.
Anyone serious about helping postgraduates should surely avoid the sort of attack that only serves to deter people from becoming involved in policymaking in the first place. At HEPI, we will always have the back of anyone who writes for us (irrespective of whether individual members of HEPI staff personally agree with them or not), but people are still bound to be put off if they find their peers prefer to play the person not the ball the minute they arrive on the pitch.
Put simply, not everyone is able to respond to attacks in the wonderful way that the Cambridge academic Dr Ally Louks has been doing so effectively in recent weeks. Perhaps we could all learn something useful from her.
Policymaking is hard…
Successful policymaking is hard. It relies on lots of people putting their heads above the parapet to light a better way. HEPI wants to encourage debate across the whole range of higher education policy issues, but that needs a conducive environment in which to flourish. If we really are serious about producing a better environment for postgraduate students – and as our work consistently shows, HEPI certainly is – then we need a constant stream of new ideas, persuasive papers and open debate.
At HEPI, we remain committed to encouraging a positive environment and, as a think tank publishing 35+ reports a year plus a daily blog, we rely on sourcing lots of good content, ideally from those at the coalface – and irrespective of whether they have written for policymakers before.
So just as we have encouraged those who want to go further than we proposed in the GW4 / HEPI report on postgraduate parents to write an alternative piece for us (currently without success), we also encourage others to make it their New Year’s Resolution to write for HEPI. If you are even mildly tempted, our Instructions for Bloggers can be found here and our Instructions for Authors are here.
It’s 2025! Now is the perfect time to reevaluate your strategies and set a fresh, bold new vision for your institution’s success. This year, education marketing will continue to evolve rapidly, and staying ahead means adapting to the latest trends, technologies, and audience expectations. Keeping this in mind as you follow the 4 stages of the marketing planning process will help you boost your school’s digital marketing campaign results.
What are the 4 stages of the marketing planning process? Follow these steps: Analyze, plan, implement, and control. The advice we’re sharing today is applicable during each of these phases.
As a school marketer or administrator, you have the opportunity to refresh your education marketing plan, making it more dynamic, personalized, and impactful. This guide will walk you through actionable steps to rethink your approach and leverage the tools that will define success in 2025. Let’s get started!
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
Evaluating 2024’s Performance to Shape 2025 Goals
How do you create a marketing plan for education? Any successful education marketing plan involves a data-driven evaluation of the previous year’s performance, an analysis of current digital marketing trends, and a targeted investigation into what your particular audience needs.
To start your school’s reimagined marketing plan, conduct an honest evaluation of the previous year’s performance. Begin by reviewing their analytics from 2024, identifying what strategies brought the most engagement, where the most valuable leads originated, and what channels seemed underutilized. Metrics such as lead-to-enrollment conversion rates, social media engagement trends, and website traffic sources can illuminate what strategies resonated most effectively with prospective students and parents.
To make this evaluation productive, a methodical approach should be applied. Your team can organize findings by categorizing successful campaigns, unexpected successes, and areas where they fell short. This allows you to use data to guide your decisions. This data-driven assessment will form a solid foundation for crafting strategies that are both visionary and practical in 2025.
Source: HEM
Example: Digital marketing audits such as the one we completed for one of our clients are an excellent way to reflect on last year’s performance and enter the new year with a data-informed plan. Our digital marketing audits include traffic insights, keyword rankings, and personalized suggestions for optimizing your school site. This provides a solid starting point to creating a marketing plan that drives results.
Reimagine How You Engage with Prospective Students
In 2025, your audience expects you to meet them where they are. To stay relevant, you need to embrace a digital-first strategy that prioritizes engagement over promotion. Emerging technologies like augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) can bring your campus to life for prospective students, offering immersive experiences that go beyond static images or videos.
Source: University of Western University
Example: This AR campus tour, complete with360º images, audio guidance, and detailed written descriptions of your campus as Western has done is a convenient, immersive way to share your school with prospects. Take full advantage of new technology when creating an education marketing plan. Though not as revolutionary as AR and VR, social media is another tool you should never neglect when creating a school marketing campaign.
Social media is where the most authentic connections happen, especially on platforms like TikTok and Instagram. But the key to standing out in 2025 will be authenticity. Think about how you can use short-form videos to showcase real student experiences, faculty achievements, or day-in-the-life snapshots. Consider hosting live Q&A sessions or interactive events to foster direct engagement. The more you humanize your institution, the stronger the connection you’ll create with your audience.
Leverage Artificial Intelligence for Smarter Marketing
Artificial intelligence (AI) has moved beyond being a buzzword—it’s now a vital part of successful marketing. This year, take advantage of AI to transform how you interact with prospective students. Predictive analytics, powered by AI, can help you understand student behavior and target your campaigns with unprecedented precision. You can predict the types of students most likely to enroll, what they care about, and how they prefer to engage with your school.
Chatbots are another way AI can streamline your communication. Today’s chatbots don’t just answer basic questions—they guide prospective students through complex processes like application submission or program selection. You can also use AI to personalize your outreach efforts, crafting content tailored to each prospect’s unique interests and behaviors. AI provides efficiency and more; it helps you create an experience that feels relevant and meaningful.
Make Accessibility and Inclusivity a Priority
Your prospective students come from diverse backgrounds and circumstances, and they expect your marketing to reflect that. In 2025, it’s more important than ever to create campaigns that are accessible to everyone. Take a close look at your website and digital content. Is it optimized for screen readers? Does it work seamlessly on mobile devices? These small adjustments can make a big difference in how inclusive your institution feels to prospective students.
Inclusivity also means speaking to the values your audience cares about. Highlighting diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives on your campus can help students see themselves as part of your community. International students, in particular, will appreciate content that acknowledges their unique needs, whether it’s visa support, language resources, or cultural events. By showing that you’re committed to creating an inclusive environment, you’ll build trust and strengthen your brand.
Source: Syracuse University | Instagram
Example: Here, Syracuse University demonstrates its commitment to diversity and inclusion with a dedicated office for championing these principles. On its Instagram page dedicated to its Office of Diversity and Inclusion, Syracuse University provides updates on how it fosters acceptance and respect in meaningful, action-oriented ways.
Adapt Your SEO Strategy for the Future of Search
Search engine optimization (SEO) is evolving, and your strategy needs to keep pace. In 2025, the way people search for information is increasingly conversational. With voice search growing in popularity, you need to focus on optimizing for natural language queries. Prospective students are asking questions like, “What’s the best school for me in New York?” or “How can I study abroad in Italy?” Tailoring your content to match these queries will make it easier for them to find you.
Video SEO is also a critical area to watch. Platforms like YouTube and TikTok are now major search engines for younger audiences. By creating engaging video content and optimizing it with descriptive titles, tags, and captions, you can expand your reach significantly. Don’t forget to prioritize user experience—your website should load quickly, look great on mobile, and provide intuitive navigation.
Source: TikTok
Example: As you create your 2025 SEO strategy, don’t underestimate the importance of video SEO on platforms such as TikTok and YouTube. Your young prospects are searching for information about schools in an easy-to-digest, engaging format. This means that video platforms the perfect place for you to make your first impression on them.
Stay Ahead with Innovative Advertising Strategies
If paid advertising is part of your student recruitment strategy, now is the time to rethink how you’re using it. Interactive ads—featuring live polls, quizzes, or even augmented reality filters—can capture attention and drive engagement. Streaming platforms and connected TV are also gaining traction as advertising spaces, giving you new ways to reach prospective students and their families.
Retargeting campaigns will be even smarter in 2025, thanks to AI. Imagine delivering ads that dynamically adjust based on a prospective student’s previous interactions with your website or social media. These personalized ads feel more relevant, increasing the chances of conversion. At the same time, new privacy regulations mean you’ll need to adopt ethical, transparent practices when handling user data. Building trust with your audience will be just as important as getting their attention.
Use Data to Continuously Improve
Marketing isn’t static—it’s an ongoing process of learning and refining. This year, make data-driven decision-making the backbone of your strategy. Use your analytics tools to track key metrics like website traffic, social media engagement, and lead conversions. What’s working? What’s falling flat? By identifying education marketing trends and adjusting your approach in real time, you can ensure that your efforts are always aligned with your goals.
Predictive analytics can help you go even further by forecasting future trends and identifying areas for growth. For example, if your data shows that a specific program is generating high interest but low conversions, you can adjust your messaging to address potential concerns. The more you rely on insights, the more effective your campaigns will be.
Source: Google Analytics
Example: In 2025, analytics tools will continue to be essential for making informed decisions about your school’s digital marketing strategy. As you can see in the example above, Google Analytics provides information about traffic volume and sources, audience demographics, and user behavior for your site.
Showcase Your Brand’s Values Through Partnerships
Students in 2025 want more than just a degree—they want to join a community that aligns with their values. Highlighting your partnerships with industry leaders, alumni, and global institutions can help reinforce your school’s credibility and reach. Think about how you can collaborate with partners to launch new initiatives, co-host events, or create content that appeals to your target audience.
For international students, partnerships with schools abroad or study-abroad programs can be particularly compelling. Promoting these opportunities shows that you’re forward-thinking and globally minded, which can resonate with students looking for diverse and enriching experiences.
Source: Instagram | Ivy Campus USA
Example: Partnerships are a highly effective way to demonstrate your institution’s commitment to continuous academic enrichment for students. Here, Ivy Campus USA announces a partnership with Artal International Preparatory School that offers young students unique skills. Try forging partnerships that can provide valuable and unique learning opportunities for your prospects.
Anticipate What Students Will Want in 2025
The next generation of students expects your institution to care about issues that affect them directly such as mental health, career development, and sustainability. Incorporating these priorities into your marketing campaigns can help you stand out. Highlight your mental health resources, career placement rates, and green initiatives. Transparency is key—students and their families want clear, honest information about tuition costs, scholarships, and program outcomes.
By anticipating their needs and addressing them upfront, you can create a marketing plan that not only attracts attention but builds trust.
Create a Seamless Multi-Channel Experience
Your audience moves seamlessly between platforms, and they expect your marketing to do the same. Whether someone is exploring your website, scrolling through Instagram, or attending a virtual open house, they should encounter consistent messaging and visuals that reinforce your brand. In 2025, it’s critical to ensure that all your channels work together to provide a unified experience.
Real-time engagement will also be a game-changer. Live events—like virtual Q&A sessions or webinars—offer opportunities to connect directly with prospective students and answer their questions. By creating these interactive moments, you can leave a lasting impression and strengthen their connection to your school.
By embracing new technologies, prioritizing inclusivity, and building campaigns that reflect the values of modern students, you can create a strategy that resonates deeply and drives real results. The new year is your opportunity to reimagine what’s possible, and with the right approach, you’ll not only meet your goals but exceed them.
We’re here to help!
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
FAQ
What are the 4 stages of the marketing planning process?
Follow these steps: Analyze, plan, implement, and control.
How do you create a marketing plan for education?
Any successful education marketing plan involves a data-driven evaluation of the previous year’s performance, an analysis of current digital marketing trends, and a targeted investigation into what your particular audience needs.
The consultation on the Industrial Strategy Green Paper closed at the end of November. Phil Ward, Director of the Eastern Arc research consortium (which comprises the universities of East Anglia, Essex, Kent and Sussex), welcomes the intentions of the Strategy, but questions some of the details.
Since the last Industrial Strategy was launched in 2017 we have had a dozen strategies and policies seeking to steer the economy and encourage growth. Many of these have had strong research and development elements to them, including the R&D Roadmap (2020), the Plan for Growth (2021), the Integrated Review (2021), the Levelling Up White Paper (2022), and the Science and Technology Framework (2023).
Given this, do we really need another strategy? For the Government, the answer is clear: it wants to put flesh on the bones of its central mission (to ‘secure the highest sustained growth in the G7’), but also to draw a line under the snowdrift of strategies that defined the last seven years.
The resulting green paper is a serious piece of work by a Government that wants to be judged on its seriousness. The authors have clearly done their homework. This is a sensible framework of growth with eight unsurprising ‘growth-driving sectors’ at its heart.
Having said that, there are some surprising omissions and concerning inclusions.
The first omission is an explicit commitment to working with universities in developing and implementing the strategy. Yes, it praises (five times) the UK’s first-class, world-class and global universities, but it doesn’t go as far as to name the sector as stakeholders with whom it will develop the strategy, despite listing others on 10 separate occasions.
It is a small thing, and possibly an oversight – I’ve certainly talked to academics who have been involved in conversations with the authors – but in mentioning business, unions, mayors and experts, it is surprising that universities do not explicitly appear.
Universities are essential to the success of the Industrial Strategy; they contribute more than £265bn to the UK economy, £63bn of which is around research and knowledge exchange, and are a key part of the R&D supply chain, through their symbiotic relationship with commercial research, and their provision of a pipeline of talent to the eight growth sectors.
Other omissions are less surprising. There is a Nelsonian determination not to look at or recognise the positives of the strategies penned under the last Government. It would have been good to at least have acknowledged and ideally built upon the work that was previously undertaken, which provided a lodestar for businesses and universities gearing up to meet the nation’s needs.
It also feels like a trick is being missed: for instance, in proposing a statutory Industrial Strategy Council – a very positive move – there is no reference to the work done by the former (non-statutory) ISC that was captained by Andy Haldane and existed between 2018-21. In dismissing previous strategies as ‘too short-lived’, there is a danger of adding to the churn.
Where the Strategy did adhere to a familiar trope was in framing the greater south east (GSE) as both a poster child and bete noire for regional success. This is too broad a view of a complex region that contains both productivity hotspots and areas of significant and entrenched deprivation. One hides the other: the M4 corridor and the Golden Triangle mask the deprivation of its coastal communities, many of which are in the top 20 in terms of indices of multiple deprivation, and one of which (Jaywick in Essex) is the most deprived in the country. There is a need for a more nuanced and granular understanding of need and potential, and recognising that in parts of the GSE there is as much need for Government investment as elsewhere in the country.
The most concerning inclusion, however, is an explicit commitment to devolve ‘significant powers’ to mayoral combined authorities (MCAs), ‘giving them the tools they need to grow their sectoral clusters and improve the local business environment through ambitious Local Growth Plans.’
MCAs cover less than half the population, and none in the Eastern Arc region. What will happen to those of us outside of MCAs, including universities? Jim McMahon, the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government, is keen to push on ‘determined devolution’, and there is an expectation that the Devolution White Paper, which was due to be published at the end of November but has been pushed back to the end of the year, will include measures to set out a new, more directive framework to speed up devolution deals.
McMahon has been quoted as saying that the Government intends to create ‘foundational combined authorities’ as a precursor to regions moving to MCAs. But what will this mean in practice? The Centre for Cities has concerns that this will create ‘confused’ geographies, and risk adding to bureaucracy rather than removing it. MCAs were intended to meet the specific needs of urban geographies, and are not necessarily appropriate for those regions whose populations are a mix of urban and rural.
Even if this framework is successful, it will take time. For now, how will universities and the 50 percent of the population outside of MCAs be affected, and how should they work to influence and implement the Strategy? As the Devolution Bill makes its way through Parliament, will a two-tier approach emerge?
There is much to like in the IS Green Paper, but its success will rely on ironing out some of these details. I hope that the consultation, which closed at the end of November, will be a serious step in informing this process, and that the resulting white paper will offer a clear, equitable and inclusive way forward, with universities — regardless of their geography — acknowledged and accepted to be a key part of the process, as regional agents for positive change.
Get our updates via email
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Famke Veenstra-Ashmore was an intern at HEPI in the summer of 2024. She previously completed a BA and an MPhil in English at the University of Cambridge and now works as a parliamentary researcher.
My report about the gender awarding gap at Oxbridge has generated a lot of discussion on social media. Though I was astutely warned by HEPI’s Director to expect flak from certain right-wing publications, I was surprised that the only explicit and personal attack came from a female Times columnist.
Melaine McDonagh’s column objected to the report’s suggestion that historic institutions like Oxford and Cambridge ought to consider re-thinking the style and presentation of examinations for certain subjects where large gender awarding gaps exist. McDonagh argued that this suggestion was patronising and underestimated the ability of female students to stand their intellectual ground.
The Times column seemed to pick up on the argumentative threads of much of the discussion about my report online. I noticed a lot of the criticism of the report came from Oxbridge graduates from my parents’ generation, though this view was also held by younger Twitter users, such as Policy Exchange’s Lara Brown.
While debates around the supervision system and examinations are certainly legitimate and acknowledged in the report, the criticism was steeped in a kind of political and institutional nostalgia. A sense that Oxbridge disentangling itself too much from its traditions for the sake of progressive politics.
As a recent graduate of Cambridge, where I spent four years, I understand the urge to herald its unique history and methods of teaching. Personally, I thrived, earned two degrees, and enjoyed both examinations and supervisions. But my report wasn’t about personal experience – it was about systemic flaws which were patently disadvantaging entire groups of students.
Why is it that so many people yearn for the days where women where ‘chewed and spat out’ (to borrow Melanie McDonagh’s phrase) at Oxbridge? David Butterfield’s recent take-down of Cambridge and its ‘infantilising’ approach to teaching also comes to mind when thinking about this surge of ex-Oxbridge students or academics criticising the evolution of institutions in reaction to social change.
From my perspective, this trend of thinking isn’t sincere. It is not rooted in a genuine concern over the way universities operate and how students think and learn and organise. Rather, it stems from a grievance towards the diversification of student cohorts which has caused the uncomfortable recognition, for Oxbridge traditionalists, that as the student body evolves, the manner of teaching and assessing may have to shift accordingly.
Many of these commentators miss this crucial point and their thinking is limited by the belief that all of Oxbridge’s academic traditions should be preserved. Butterfield, for example, claims that the ‘freewheeling process’ of allowing a larger proportion of state school students into Cambridge has ‘placed politics ahead of talent’. With similar logic, McDonagh reasons that adjusting examinations and supervisions to address institutional inequalities would unfairly benefit women, who have done nothing to deserve better outcomes, and should therefore receive no extra consideration when it comes to systemic methods of assessing their academic performance.
Though the comparison between state-school versus private school students and male and female students is limited, I suggest that the arguments offered by Butterfield and McDonagh are motivated by the same emotional basis.
Research by Cambridge Assessment has shown that state school pupils tend to outperform independent school pupils with similar A Level results at university. The study offered two potential explanations for this: that there are simply less incentives for them to perform highly, or they have been ‘coached’ at school to do well in exams but then struggle when left to their own devices.
Are progressive politics, then, getting in the way of talent? Or are they enabling students who have not had the resources in their secondary education to thrive and contribute to an academic community which takes their contributions seriously?
We know that students from academic private schools aren’t entitled to higher marks, nor enjoy higher thresholds of talent, just because of their schooling. In a similar way, we know that Oxbridge was constructed around the education of a very specific, public-school educated, white and able-bodied man. When data suggests there is a problem worthy of addressing, why do ex-students and academics recoil from recognising and addressing this issue?
Many of the detractors of Oxford and Cambridge’s cultural and social modernisation are pushing against the demands of our rapidly shifting present. The desire to keep things the same is not without merit – the supervision system will rightly continue to be lauded by many. Equally, women at Oxbridge, through the criteria by which they are selected, will do well in exams. Change is so incremental at these institutions that I doubt fundamental changes will ever be on the negotiating table.
However, small evidence-based changes, such as the scaffolding of exam questions in specific subjects, can make a huge difference to the experience of female students at Oxbridge. Enabling more women to match their male counter parts will encourage more of them to progress into postgraduate study and strengthen academic departments – not weaken them.
Oxford and Cambridge pride themselves on their reputation for advancing research, technology, and educative practices. In their combined age of around two millennia, why would they stop now?
As a school striving to broaden its reach, you likely already understand the importance of personalized communication to attract and retain students. That may sound like a lot of work because, without the right tools, it certainly can be. Fortunately, our team, with over fifteen years of experience working closely with educational institutions, has developed specialized solutions that address key challenges faced by schools looking to streamline their processes and boost enrollment.
HEM’s custom-built solutions—Mautic by HEM, a powerful Customer Relationship Management (CRM) and marketing automation system, and HEM’s Student Portal, an all-in-one Student Information System (SIS)—offer the tools you need to manage your admissions and student engagement efforts seamlessly. Let’s explore how you can give yourself the gift of efficiency this holiday season with these systems!
Simplify student management and boost recruitment efficiency!
Transform your student portal experience. Get a FREE HEM-SP demo today.
Understanding CRMs and How They Benefit Your Institution
What is a CRM and how can it benefit educational institutions? A CRM, or Customer Relationship Management system, is a platform that helps organizations manage and analyze customer interactions and data throughout the customer lifecycle.
For educational institutions, a CRM is essential in managing prospective student relationships, tracking their progress through the admissions funnel, and keeping detailed records of interactions. At its core, a CRM enables schools to create personalized experiences for prospective students, allowing them to engage in meaningful ways at every stage of their journey.
Mautic by HEM, our tailored CRM for educational institutions leverages the open-source marketing automation platform Mautic to deliver a seamless experience designed specifically for the education sector. With features like lead segmentation, automated workflows, custom reporting, and multichannel marketing, Mautic by HEM empowers schools to enhance their lead management and marketing efficiency.
By segmenting contacts based on their stage in the admissions process, program of interest, or geographical location, your institution can ensure that each prospect receives targeted messages that are more likely to result in conversions.
Reach out to us for a demo to see how Mautic can boost efficiency for your school’s marketing campaign!
Mautic by HEM: Supercharge Your Lead Management and Marketing
Mautic by HEM goes beyond a standard CRM, combining powerful customer relationship management with advanced marketing automation to help you maximize your student recruitment efforts.
Mautic makes it easy to manage a large number of prospective students by allowing you to segment, organize, and follow up with prospects efficiently. By automating workflows and assigning follow-up tasks, your team can manage their workload better, ensuring that each prospect receives timely attention.
Source: Mautic | HEM
Example: Do you see how centralizing prospect information helps you track the effectiveness of your campaigns and determine the next step in the enrollment funnel? Here, prospects are categorized by their current stage in the enrollment process, their program of interest, the channel through which they first interacted with your institution, and what sort of contact they are. That’s all the information you need to craft an appropriate and compelling follow-up message tailored to each unique responsibility. Mautic helps you with that part too!
In addition, Mautic by HEM’s marketing automation tools enable you to scale up your email marketing, create dynamic landing pages, design forms, and automate workflows. This allows your institution to maintain a high level of personalized engagement with prospects across multiple channels, thereby improving your reach and effectiveness in digital recruitment.
The solution’s custom reporting features also give you detailed insights into your admissions pipeline. With Mautic by HEM, you can monitor productivity, track lead progress, and evaluate channel performance, which will help you refine your approach and allocate resources to high-impact activities.
Ensuring timely follow-up is essential for converting leads to students, and Mautic by HEM enables automated SMS and email follow-ups, allowing you to communicate with leads through their preferred channels. Whether it’s sending reminders, booking meetings, or making calls, Mautic by HEM has the tools your team needs to maintain a consistent communication flow.
Source: Mautic | HEM
Example: Viewing the contact history for each prospect lets you know how they prefer to communicate. In addition to other vital data such as name and contact information, you can craft a highly personalized message such as the SMS pictured above.
Finally, Mautic by HEM also helps your team manage their daily tasks and workload. With integrated calendars, workflow assignments, and productivity tracking, your staff can stay organized and focused on what matters most—building relationships and driving enrollments.
Why You Need an SIS for Your School
Now, what is a Student Information System (SIS)?Student Information System software is designed to manage student data from application through graduation. An SIS handles everything from enrollment and class scheduling to academic records and financial management. This centralized database makes it easy for staff to track student progress and streamline administrative tasks.
HEM’s Student Portal integrates CRM and SIS functionalities to provide an all-in-one admissions and student management platform. Tailored to meet the demands of educational institutions, the portal includes tools for application management, payment processing, and student record tracking. This integrated solution enables institutions to centralize and simplify operations, allowing your staff to focus on building meaningful relationships with prospective and current students.
HEM’s Student Portal takes SIS integration to a new level, offering an all-encompassing admissions and student management system designed specifically for educational institutions. The Student Portal simplifies the application process, offering a virtual admissions assistant that guides students from start to finish. Students can inquire, apply, pay, and even enroll through an easy-to-use interface.
Source: Student Portal | HEM
Example: A customized Student Portal will guide students through your application process from initial form submission to payment in a user-friendly format as pictured above.
Customizable forms and a centralized management system make it easy for your staff to track applications, ensuring nothing falls through the cracks. Additionally, the portal seamlessly integrates with Mautic by HEM, allowing you to manage marketing and admissions in one place. By streamlining communication and automating workflows, this system supports your institution’s goals for efficiency and high-quality engagement with prospective students.
The Student Portal allows for comprehensive data management, tracking all aspects of student data from initial inquiry to graduation. With detailed records and customizable reports, your team can monitor application status, manage payment processing, and keep detailed academic records, providing staff with a complete view of each student’s journey.
Source: Student Portal | HEM
Example: Here, you can see our centralized application management system. See all incoming applications and determine which applications were started and not completed. In addition, the Student Portal platform allows you to track prospects based on name, program, whether they’ve been sent an invoice, and whether that invoice has been paid. This information is valuable as it clarifies the next step for each contact.
Furthermore, the portal’s quote builder tool allows prospective students to calculate program costs, offering them a transparent view of financial requirements. This provides clarity and builds trust, making it easier for students and their families to plan for the financial aspects of their education.
Designed to improve efficiency across all departments, the Student Portal facilitates better collaboration by centralizing data and providing tools for managing projects and tracking progress. This comprehensive approach allows staff to work towards strategic institutional goals, fostering a collaborative environment that drives both student success and institutional growth.
Experience the HEM Advantage: Efficiency
Mautic by HEM and the HEM Student Portal offer transformative CRM and SIS solutions that empower educational institutions to work smarter, not harder. By combining lead management, marketing automation, admissions tracking, and student data management, HEM’s tools create a cohesive system designed to meet the unique needs of schools. That’s what we accomplished for Micheal Vincent Academy.
Founded by Tally B. Hajek, a multi-talented recording artist and makeup artist, and her husband Michael Vincent, a renowned celebrity photographer, MVA teaches around 350 students annually. Each student gains expert instruction and builds a professional portfolio, launching them toward successful careers in beauty and media.
MVA sought an organized, streamlined solution to manage its student recruitment efforts, and they found the answer in Mautic by HEM. This customized CRM software, specifically tailored for educational institutions, allows MVA to efficiently automate its marketing efforts and seamlessly follow up with prospective students.
Transformative Results for a Thriving Institution
With Mautic, MVA’s team can now easily track and manage leads. The CRM’s powerful reporting tools give the academy a clear view of each lead’s journey through the admissions process. Staff can track the progress of every prospective student, monitor recruitment team activities, and measure productivity—all crucial for a private institution focused on cost-effective outreach. Furthermore, the lead-scoring feature in Mautic enables the recruitment team to identify and prioritize high-value leads, allowing MVA to concentrate on students who are genuinely interested and likely to succeed within the academy’s creative programs.
As Tally Hajek highlights, the organizational capabilities of Mautic are essential to building meaningful connections with prospective students. “We value connections with prospective students, but connections cannot happen without organization,” she explains. The system enables her team to foster relationships with students who are both committed and well-suited to the academy’s professional and artistic environment.
Moreover, HEM’s attentive and supportive customer service has made the partnership especially rewarding. “We love working with the HEM team,” says Hajek. “We feel like they really understand us and want us to succeed.” With HEM’s customized solutions, MVA has significantly increased staff efficiency in student recruitment, giving their team the tools to excel in a competitive educational market and helping the academy continue to thrive as a leader in beauty and media education.
Imagine a system that handles every step of the student journey—engaging prospective students, nurturing leads, simplifying applications, and supporting students through their academic journey—all from a single platform. HEM is dedicated to providing solutions that help you enhance recruitment, boost enrollment, and offer the seamless digital experience that students expect.
To see how Mautic and the HEM Student Portal can transform your institution, request a demo today and discover the possibilities of giving yourself the gift of efficiency.
Give Yourself the Gift of Efficiency
This holiday season, give your institution the ultimate gift: the power to work smarter, not harder. HEM’s custom-built solutions, including Mautic CRM and the HEM Student Portal, are designed to streamline your operations and boost your team’s effectiveness.
From managing prospective student leads to enhancing engagement and improving communication, these tools empower your staff to focus on what truly matters—building connections and driving success.
Simplify student management and boost recruitment efficiency!
Transform your student portal experience. Get a FREE HEM-SP demo today.
FAQ
Question: What is a CRM and how can it benefit educational institutions?
Answer: A CRM, or Customer Relationship Management system, is a platform that helps organizations manage and analyze customer interactions and data throughout the customer lifecycle.
Question: What is a Student Information System (SIS)?
Answer: Student Information System software is designed to manage student data from application through graduation.
By Golo Henseke (LinkedIn) Associate Professor in Education, Practice and Society at the Institute of Education (IoE), UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society, and Francis Green, Professor of Work and Education Economics, also at the IOE.
A recent report by the Organisation of Economically Developed Countries (OECD) claims that nearly four in ten employees in England are overqualified for their jobs, the highest rate among OECD countries. If accurate, this statistic seems to reflect a substantial waste of human capital and raises questions about the state of the UK labour market and education system. However, closer scrutiny suggests that the figure may be misleading, stemming from methodological quirks specific to the English data rather than an alarming surge in overqualification.
Dubious Comparisons
The OECD findings are based on a once-in-a-decade survey of adult skills, an ambitious international undertaking aiming for comparability across countries and economies. Yet, qualifications are inherently tricky to standardise internationally. For example, how does an English GCSE compare to a US high school diploma? The nuances of national education systems can render such comparisons tenuous.
England’s reported 37% overqualification rate, up from under 30% a decade earlier, is at odds with other data. Our surveys of the British workforce, which employ similar methodologies, show a modest drop in overqualification rates between 2006 and 2017, from 30% to 26%. If the reported OECD figures are to be believed, the rise would imply an extraordinary shift since 2017: approximately 2.5 million additional workers would have been relegated to roles beneath their qualifications within just a few years. This appears implausible. It is also at odds with a decline in graduate overqualification from 34% in 2012 to 30% in 2023, as our independent analysis of OECD’s data shows.
A more likely explanation lies in changes to the OECD’s survey design for England. In 2012, UK respondents were presented with a comprehensive list of nearly 60 qualifications when reporting job requirements and personal attainment. In 2023, this was reduced to just 19 options, with significant alterations to how response options were presented. The switch to a simplified classification may have skewed the responses, particularly below degree level, contributing to the measured overqualification rates.
This issue is not confined to England. A similar methodological shift occurred in France, where the reported overqualification rate fell from 30% to 19%. Conversely, in the US, where questionnaires remained broadly consistent, the reported increase was a more credible five percentage points.
A Structural Issue, Not a Graduate Problem
Apart from this problem of potentially inconsistent measurement over time, the rush to attribute England’s supposed peculiar problem of overqualification to an oversupply of graduates is misplaced. Our re-examination of OECD’s survey data shows that, in England, graduates face lower risks of overqualification than non-graduates: the overqualification rate among non-graduates is 17 percentage points higher than among those with a degree. This gap between graduates and non-graduates broadly aligns with our own data from the British Skills and Employment Surveys.
The Director for Education and Skills at the OECD, Andreas Schleicher, has been quoted saying that the UK’s higher education sector is “overextending” itself, with universities offering credentials that lack substantive value. However, with this oversimplified reaction, he is surely aiming at the wrong part of our education system.
A Misguided Narrative
In addition, he is almost certainly targeting the wrong side of the labour market. Overqualification in the UK is likely driven, not so much by an oversupply of graduates as by a failure to create enough middle-skill jobs and robust vocational pathways outside universities.
Overqualification is indeed a pressing issue. Even at a rate nearer 3 in 10, overqualification in England is higher than in most other advanced economies in the OECD. Overqualification depresses wages, diminishes job satisfaction, and undermines long-term productivity as underutilised skills atrophy. But this knee-jerk pinning of blame just on education, particularly on higher education, misses the mark, and forgets about the external benefits that education brings for society and the economy. Instead, England’s policymakers must address the structural deficiencies in the labour market, particularly the lack of opportunities for those with intermediate qualifications.
Simplistic diagnoses risk distracting from the real challenges. England’s education system is not producing “too many” graduates. Instead, its economy and further education system fail to provide sufficient opportunities to harness the potential of those not bound for higher education. To strengthen qualification pathways outside universities, a targeted strategy to foster middle-skill employment (while addressing skill shortages) is urgently needed. Without some recognition of these complexities, public discourse about overqualification will continue to generate more heat than light as university fees are set to surpass £10,000.
Today’s weekend reading is by Zeenat Fayaz, Director of Brand & Strategy at The Brand Education, and Brian MacDonald, Chief Creative Officer and a co-founder at Zillion.
Pandemics, enrolment cliffs, budgets, student mental health, social media disinformation: higher education in crisis, globally, and it sometimes feels like crises are the new normal. This article explores these challenges in three key markets – the US, the UK and Canada – and proposes a change in the way universities think about communications to overcome such hardships.
The Challenge
Universities develop institutional strategies for growth and sometimes invest in brand strategies for perception management. However, when crisis communications are not integrated into these strategies, they can become distractions from them. Often when crises arise, neither institutional nor brand strategies are equipped to address them effectively. Nor does addressing them support either strategy.
With crises seemingly becoming more frequent, this is an unsustainable model – the longer crises continue, the longer the distraction from institutional and brand strategies.
The Opportunity: From Survive to Thrive
With crisis management becoming a continual need, universities need a crisis strategy that doesn’t indefinitely distract from institutional and brand initiatives – one that allows universities to address all the audiences of the crisis with messages and media relevant to each. If this sounds like a brand, that’s because it is! We propose a new approach, a “thrive mode,” in which brand strategy elevated to equal status with institutional strategy, and crisis management is integrated into both.
This approach transforms crises from distractions into opportunities to clarify the institution’s distinctive position and enhance its reputation.
Survive versus Thrive: A Deeper Look
Survive mode is a reactive approach to crises, treating each as a unique, temporary problem. It focuses on short-term damage control with transactional communication, often disconnected from overall institutional and brand strategies. Success in this mode is merely the survival of the institution and its brand reputation.
Thrive mode, conversely, is proactive, viewing crises as opportunities to reinforce institutional and brand strategies. It aims for long-term reputation enhancement through brand-based communication that leverages institutional expertise and core values. Success is defined as emerging from crises with an enhanced reputation and stakeholder understanding, measurable by existing brand performance indicators.
The change from survive to thrive offers numerous advantages. It allows for pre-crisis planning and offers efficiency by integrating with existing strategies. It allows for quicker, more coherent responses that align with overall brand and institutional messaging using existing brand communication tools. It involves broader stakeholder groups and leverages institutional expertise to provide a more valued response, resulting in trust and enhanced reputation beyond the immediate crisis.
Case Studies: Putting Thrive Mode Into Action
Survive mode has been displayed across headlines and news sites around the world since the inception of encampments and campus protests around the world since the advent of the Israel/Gaza conflict. Numerous university presidents provided testimony in front of Congressional hearings that reflected badly on their institutions. And the universities did survive, albeit with varying degrees of damaged brands, dismissed presidents, irate donors and declining applications.
With thrive mode responses, instead of preparing, as in some cases, to offer legal testimony, consider the many different outcomes that could have been achieved by placing university experts in Middle Eastern studies, philosophy and ethics, comparative religions, history, or many other relevant fields at centre stage. Thrive mode would have prompted a response about higher education’s and individual institutions’ leadership in education on Middle Eastern issues, or how they are preparing students to participate in civil discussion and achieve breakthroughs in understanding. Such discussions would have haloed positively on these institutions by reinforcing their brand values with audiences outside the university, and by clarifying their roles in supporting dialogue, tolerance and understanding.
Issues around academic freedom have been increasingly roiling universities in the UK, with the Academic Freedom Index (AFI) recording declines in each of the last nine years. The assessments measure interference by politicians, externally appointed management, and activists. Numerous crises have arisen involving scholarly censorship, the mainstreaming of racism and transphobia, and the stifling of academic pursuits that do not demonstrate profitable impact. The universities’ responses focused much negative attention on higher education, as a whole, and individual universities, in particular, in government, news media, and public opinion. And the responses allowed these negative stories to effectively lead the conversation, placing the universities in a reactive position. Survive mode squandered the opportunity to highlight universities’ research successes and student outcomes as well as to demonstrate leadership on important topics.
Thrive-mode responses could have allowed institutions to talk about important discoveries that would not be possible under recent restrictions on academic freedom. About alumni who have made important contributions to the economy or society who would not qualify for student support today. About the universities’ missions and their historical relationships to government and society. About brand values that the universities rely on to drive their results. These responses would allow the universities to participate in, guide, and lead these conversations, putting their brands in positions to make an impact on important external audiences.
With ongoing budget crises and newly imposed restrictions on the number of foreign student visas, universities in the UK and Canada are in uncharted territory. It’s not merely threatening many institutions with declines in funding, hard choices, and in some cases closure, but potentially reforming the entire higher education landscape. In a leaderless crisis where nobody knows what it will look like in the end, acting on coordinated institutional, brand, and crisis strategies effectively demonstrates leadership: with students, faculty, staff, alumni, and most importantly with the government. The opportunity is to talk about the budget crisis as a new lens through which to view the institutional strategy. A budget crisis does not change objectives like entering The Russell Group or becoming Canada’s premiere STEM educator. It may change the process of how an institution gets there – the timeline for milestones, the need for partners, the establishment of fundraising goals, etc. And brand strategy lays out ways to discuss how the crisis will affect its implementation with key audiences. This is what thriving looks like in the face of this crisis: opening and leading important conversations with governments, reassuring parents and inspiring students.
Conclusion
As Warren Buffett noted, “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it.” In today’s media environment, a brand can be severely damaged in seconds. By integrating crisis management into overall institutional and brand strategies, universities can transform crises from threats into opportunities for growth and reputation enhancement. While crises may be inevitable, this framework offers a path for universities not just to survive, but to thrive in challenging times..
Zeenat Fayaz is Director of Brand & Strategy at The Brand Education. Zeenat’s experience working with QS and THE gives her unique insight into the way institutions are evaluated and ranked. Today, Zeenat helps top-tier universities understand the power of branding and use this to enhance their global reputations. You can find Zeenat on LinkedIn here.
And Brian MacDonald is the Chief Creative Officer and a co-founder at Zillion. He has worked on strategic, creative, and branding projects for dozens of universities in the US, Canada, and overseas. His work focuses on how branding can drive institutional revenue, and his work has raised more than $6 billion for his clients. You can find Brian on LinkedIn here.
