The latest UK study visa application data, released in late May, shows that demand from main applicants recovered in calendar Q1 2025 (January through March). Applications from this cohort increased by 32% over Q1 2024 levels.[1] This is an encouraging signal of sector recovery, as applications in Q4 2024 were up 9% over Q4 2023, suggesting renewed student confidence in the UK as a study destination.
UK Study Visa Applications and Issuances Up For Main Applicants in Q1 2025
Nearly 47,000 main applicants submitted a UK study visa application in Q1 2025. This represents a 32% increase over Q1 2024:
These gains build on the year-on-year growth seen in Q4 2024, suggesting that the UK international education sector is experiencing a broader rebound and stabilisation, rather than a one-off peak in Q4.
Still, Q1 has historically made up just 8% to 10% of total annual applications from main applicants. With the bulk of applications and issuances typically occurring in Q3, the sector still has work to do to sustain renewed student confidence. Attention is especially important around addressing concerns and dispelling misconceptions stemming from the 2025 Immigration White Paper—a topic we will explore further below.
As with applications, main applicant student visa issuances likewise rose in Q1 2025:
Over 48,000 international students were issued a study visa in Q1 2025, representing a growth of 27% over Q1 2024. The issuance rate in both of these quarters was 88%, meaning the increased number of issued visas reflects stronger demand rather than changes in approval rates.
That said, tuition fees, visa charges, and the NHS surcharge have all risen in recent years, driving up the overall cost of studying in the UK. The White Paper’s proposed 6% levy on international tuition fee income risks adding to that burden, especially as institutions may need to pass the new financial pressures onto students. 83.5% of respondents in a recent survey cited cost of study as a top priority when choosing a destination, highlighting the potential impact of additional cost pressures. The Government’s own analysis projects an immediate drop of 14,000 international students, with a sustained decline of around half that figure over time.
Also, due to the raised Basic Compliance Assessment (BCA) thresholds proposed in the 2025 White Paper, institutions will likely need to enhance their vetting processes moving forward before issuing confirmation of acceptance of studies. Likewise, institutions may look to diversify within lower-risk countries to minimise exposure to visa refusals.
Where Did Demand Stabilise in Q1 2025?
A closer look at what made Q1 2025 a strong quarter reveals that the uptick in study visa applications was not limited to a handful of markets. Instead, demand recovered across a broad range of source countries. Of the 22 countries with 100 or more main applicants, 14 saw year-on-year growth—an encouraging sign that renewed student interest in the UK is present across multiple regions.
India accounted for over 18,000 main applicant study visa submissions in Q1 2025, marking a 29% increase from the same period last year and making it the UK’s top source market that quarter. This recovery is particularly promising given that Indian student demand had softened across all four major English-speaking destinations in the latter half of 2023 and throughout 2024.
This momentum may be bolstered by recent developments in the UK–India relationship. In May, the UK and India signed a long-anticipated Free Trade Agreement that, while not directly altering student visa policy, introduced mutual recognition of academic qualifications and greater clarity around post-study employment pathways. These developments could reinforce the UK’s appeal among Indian students, as long-term career prospects form an important part of prospective students’ decision-making process.
Elsewhere, the 64% jump in Nigerian applications marks an encouraging recovery. Nigeria faces unprecedented economic challenges, and was also arguably the most affected by the UK’s dependant visa restrictions. However, Nigeria was among several countries, along with Pakistan and Sri Lanka, two other drivers of sustained demand this past quarter, where nationals may face increased scrutiny due to past asylum claim rates. This added layer of caution from UK authorities could temper future demand from these markets, especially if students perceive a higher risk of visa refusal or changing entry conditions despite their qualifications.
What Student Populations Drove the Upward Visa Issuance Trend in Q1 2025?
Issuance trends offer additional insight into which student populations are successfully converting interest into study visas. These trends help us understand short-term momentum and assess key markets’ longer-term enrolment potential.
The 19,300 Indian students issued a main applicant study visa in Q1 2025 represented a 31% increase over Q1 2024. Their grant rate also rose to 96%, an increase of five percentage points which is especially significant given the scale of the incoming Indian student population.
Several other markets also demonstrated notable growth in UK study visa issuances this past quarter. The number of visas issued to main applicants from Nigeria increased by 84% compared to Q1 2024, with the grant rate rising by seven percentage points to 96%. Similarly, Sri Lanka and Ghana saw significant increases in visa issuances, with grant rates improving to 91% and 88%, respectively. These trends may reflect successful adjustments to new UK visa requirements and effective outreach efforts by institutions in these countries.
Conversely, main applicants from Pakistan experienced a 7% decline in student visa issuances. Their 74% grant rate represents a year-on-year drop of eight percentage points. Nepalese and Bangladeshi main applicants also saw grant rates decline in Q1 2025—down 14 and 15 percentage points respectively—though issuances doubled for both student populations.
Sustaining Momentum in the UK’s International Student Recovery
Strong Q1 2025 results are a welcome sign for the UK’s international education sector, especially as they build on the encouraging Q4 2024. Together, these quarters point to a potential turning point in student sentiment, possibly signalling a broader recovery in demand if institutions and the wider international education community remain aligned, and if geopolitical relationships remain relatively cooperative.
However, that stability is not guaranteed. With the release of the 2025 Immigration White Paper, institutions must proactively clarify recent policy changes and dispel myths that may deter prospective students.
Two areas of particular concern within the White Paper are the proposed reduction of the Graduate Route’s duration from two years to 18 months, and the proposed 6% levy. These changes could impact the UK’s competitiveness in attracting international students, as post-study work opportunities are a significant factor in students’ decision-making processes. Moving forward, it will; be critical for institutions to emphasise that this post-study work pathway remains accessible for all eligible students and is a key differentiator for the UK in an increasingly competitive global landscape.
[1] All data courtesy of the UK Home Office, unless otherwise stated. All timeframes in this article are by calendar year (January–December).
By Professor Lisa-Dionne Morris, Professor of Public & Industry Understanding of Capability Driven Design in the School of Mechanical Engineering, and Engagement Champion for the EPSRC EDI Hub+ at the University of Leeds.
Preparing the next generation of female international design engineers requires more than the delivery of technical content. It necessitates a systemic, institution-wide approach that equips graduates with the attributes, knowledge, resources, skills, and confidence to navigate a professional landscape that is rapidly changing and, in many cases, still being defined for future careers. The increasing global demand for roles in areas like sustainable product design, AI-integrated manufacturing, inclusive user interface systems, and human-centred engineering is underpinned by the foundational importance of STEM, making the empowerment of women designers and engineers in these fields crucial for driving innovation and achieving sustainable development goals. These emerging sectors demand not only technical competence but also a blend of creativity, emotional intelligence, and social awareness that diverse females in STEM demonstrate.
Universities play a vital role as critical enablers and a resource. This extends beyond curricula to the people, processes, and environments that scaffold student growth, from technical staff and personal tutors to administrative teams and peer mentors. The university must therefore shift its conceptualisation of employability from curriculum-contained instruction to community-wide responsibility.
Barriers and Micro-inequities
For female design and engineering graduates, these ecosystems are even more consequential. While overt discrimination may be declining, micro-barriers, such as imposter syndrome, limited visibility of role models, cultural dissonance and inaccessible resources, continue to affect women disproportionately. The intersectionality of race, disability, and socioeconomic status further compounds these challenges.
Support mechanisms such as inclusive wellbeing services, financial assistance schemes, mentoring networks, and accessible technical environments serve as critical interventions. These do not merely reduce dropout risk; they transform educational experiences and enhance graduate outcomes.
Beyond KSA: Towards the ACRES Model
Traditional employability frameworks such as the KSA model (Knowledge, Skills, Abilities) focus primarily on individual traits. While helpful, such models risk overlooking the social, ethical, and emotional dimensions necessary for future engineering practice. In response, I propose the ACRES framework — a holistic model centred on:
A – Adaptability: Developing the capacity to respond flexibly to change
C – Collaboration: Cultivating skills in teamwork and interdisciplinary cooperation.
R – Resilience: Building psychological robustness through reflective learning
E – Empathy: Encouraging emotional intelligence through inclusive design challenges
S – Social Responsibility: Engaging students with ethical, civic, and sustainability issues.
These attributes are more than ideals; they represent the design specifications for the modern engineer.
Educational Practice in Action
Design engineering programmes across the UK are embedding these competencies through interdisciplinary projects, challenge-based learning, studio-based learning, sustainability modules, and community-based partnerships. At the University of Leeds, in the Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, for example, students engage in industry-informed design briefs, receive feedback from career mentors, and co-produce portfolios that reflect both technical ability and human-centred thinking.
Such practices are not incidental, they are fundamental. The preparation of women designers and engineers is a collective act; it is the result of intentional, inclusive, and collaborative university cultures that nurture talent through both “seen and unseen” interventions.
The university must function not only as a centre of instruction but as a dynamic support system, enabling intersectionality such as first-generation, women, disabled, and underrepresented female students to flourish in STEM to become graduates. When we invest in raising future-ready women designer and engineers, we are not merely producing graduates, we are shaping leaders, changemakers, and innovators for careers that, in many cases, are yet to be invented.
Francesca Woodward is Group Managing Director for English at Cambridge University Press & Assessment.
Anyone who has ever taken English language tests to advance in their studies or work knows how important it is to have confidence in their accuracy, fairness and transparency.
Trust is fundamental to English proficiency tests. But at a time of digital disruption, with remote testing on the rise and AI tools evolving rapidly, the integrity of English language testing is under pressure.
Applied proportionally and ethically, technology can boost our trust in the exam process –adapting flexibly to test-takers’ skill levels, for instance, or allowing quicker marking and delivery of results. The indiscriminate use of technology, however, is likely to have unintended and undesirable consequences.
Technology is not the problem. Overreliance on technology can be. A case in point is the shift to remote language testing that removes substantial human supervision from the process.
During the pandemic, many educational institutions and test providers were forced to move to online-only delivery. Universities and employers adapted to the exceptional circumstances by recognising results from some of those newer and untried providers.
The consequences of rushed digital adoption are becoming clear. Students arriving at UK universities after passing newer at-home tests have been found to be poorly equipped, relative to their peers – and more prone to academic misconduct. Students were simply not being set up to succeed.
Some new at-home tests have since been de-recognised by universities amid reports that they have enabled fraud in the UK. Elsewhere, students have been paying proxies to sit online exams remotely. Online, videos explaining how to cheat on some of the newer tests have become ubiquitous.
So how can universities mitigate against these risks, while ensuring that genuine test-takers thrive academically?
When it comes to teaching and learning a language – as well as assessing a learner’s proficiency – human expertise cannot be replaced. This is clear to experts – including researchers at Cambridge, which has been delivering innovation in language learning and testing for more than a century.
Cambridge is one of the forces behind IELTS, the world’s most trusted English test. We also deliver Cambridge English Qualifications, Linguaskill and other major assessments. Our experience tells us that people must play a critical role at every step of teaching, assessment and qualification.
While some may be excited by the prospect of an “AI-first” model of testing, we should pursue the best of both worlds – human oversight prioritised and empowered by AI. This means, for instance, human-proctored tests delivered in test centres that use tried and proven tech tools.
In language testing – particularly high-stakes language testing, such as for university or immigration purposes – one size does not fit all. While an online test taken at home may be suitable and even secure for some situations for some learners, others prefer or need to be assessed in test centres, where help is on hand and the technology can be consistently relied upon. For test-takers and universities, choice and flexibility are crucial.
Cambridge has been using and experimenting with AI for decades. We know in some circumstances that AI can be transformative in improving users’ experience. For the highest stakes assessments, innovation alone is no alternative to real human teaching, learning and understanding. And the higher the stakes, the more important human oversight becomes.
The sector must reaffirm its commitment to quality, rigour and fairness in English language testing. This means resisting shortcuts and challenging providers that are all too ready to compromise on standards. It means investing in human expertise. It means using technology to enhance, not undermine, trust.
This is not the time to “move fast and break things”. Every test provider, every university and every policymaker must play their part.
Imperial College London, University of Oxford, University of Cambridge and UCL all maintain their places in the global top 10 and 17 of the total 90 UK universities ranked this year are in the top 100, two more than last year.
The University of Sheffield and The University of Nottingham have returned to the global top 100 for the first time since 2023 and 2024 respectively.
But despite improvements at the top end of the QS ranking, some 61% of ranked UK universities have dropped this year.
Overall, the 2026 ranking paints a picture of heightening global competition. A number of markets have been emerging as higher education hubs in recent decades – and the increased investment, attention and ambition in various places is apparent in this year’s iteration.
Saudi Arabia – whose government had set a target to have five institutions in the top 200 by 2030 – has seen its first entry into to top 100, with King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals soaring 34 places to rank 67th globally.
Vietnam, a country that is aiming for five of its universities to feature in the top 500 by the end of the decade, has seen its representation in the rankings leap from six last year to 10 in 2026.
China is still the third most represented location in the world in the QS World University Rankings with 72 institutions, behind only the US with 192 and the UK with 90. And yet, close to 80 institutions that are part of the Chinese Double First Class Universities initiative to build world-class universities still do not feature in the overall WUR.
Saudi Arabia currently has three institutions in the top 200, while Vietnam has one in the top 500. If these countries succeed in their ambitions, which universities will lose out among the globe’s top in five years’ time?
The financial pressure the UK higher education is facing is well documented. Universities UK (UUK) recently calculated that government policy decisions will result in a £1.4 billion reduction in funding to higher education providers in England in 2025/26. The Office for Students’s warning that 43% of England’s higher education institutions will be in deficit this academic year is often cited.
Some 19% UK university leaders say they have cut back on investment in research given the current financial climate, and an additional 79% are considering future reductions.
On a global scale, cuts like this will more than likely have a detrimental impact on the UK’s performance in the QS World University Ranking – the world’s most-consulted international university ranking and leading higher education benchmarking tool.
The 2026 QS World University Rankings already identify areas where UK universities are behind global competitors.
With a 39.2 average score in the Citations per Faculty area, measuring the intensity of research at universities, the UK is already far behind places such as Singapore, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, Australia and Mainland China, all of which have average scores of at least 70.
In Faculty Student Ratio, analysing the number of lecturers compared to students, the UK (average score of 26.7) is behind the best performing locations such as Norway (73.7), Switzerland (63.8) and Sweden (61.8).
While Oxford, Cambridge and LSE all feature in the global top 15 in Employment Outcomes and 13 UK universities feature in the top 100 for reputation among employers, other universities across the world are improving at a faster rate than many UK universities.
While 74% of UK universities improved in the international student ratio indicator in 2022, the last few years have identified a weakening among UK institutions. In 2023, 54% of UK universities fell in this area, in 2024, 56% dropped and in 2025, 74% declined. And in 2026, 73% dropped.
The government in Westminster is already aware that every £1 it spends on R&D delivers £7 of economic benefits in the long term and, for that reason, it prioritised spending to rise to £22.6bn in 2029-30 from £20.4bn in 2025-26.
But without the financial stability at higher education institutions in question, universities will need more support going ahead beyond support for their research capabilities. Their role in developing graduates with the skills to propel the UK forward is being overlooked. The QS 2026 World University Ranking is already showing that global peers are forging ahead. UK universities will need the right backing to maintain their world-leading position.
Today’s prospective students aren’t waiting for a glossy brochure to arrive in the mail. They’re researching schools on their phones between classes, watching campus tours on YouTube, and chatting with peers online to compare experiences. They’re digital-first and impatient, and expect the same seamless experience from a college as they would from Netflix or Amazon.
To stand out in this noisy, fast-moving environment, your enrollment marketing needs to work smarter. That means shifting away from static promotions and embracing data-driven, student-centric strategies that guide each prospect from curiosity to commitment.
Here’s how you can make that happen: 10 tactics that schools across North America (and beyond) are using to win the attention, trust, and enrollment of today’s students.
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
1. Understand Your Audience (Better Than They Expect)
The best enrollment marketing strategies begin with deep audience insight. Not the surface-level kind (like age ranges or postal codes), but real, behavior-based understanding.
Instead of just collecting names at events or counting clicks on a landing page, take the time to analyze what your audience is doing. Are they spending five minutes reading your nursing program page but bouncing quickly from your homepage? Is there a spike in traffic after you post student testimonials on Instagram? These are the clues that shape smart decisions.
Tools like Google Analytics, HubSpot, or Slate reveal exactly where prospects engage and where they drop off. Segmenting audiences based on their actions, rather than assumptions, lets you personalize outreach that feels meaningful. If a student explores your hospitality program at 11:00 p.m. from another time zone, your strategy should reflect that interest and context.
Personalization builds a connection. And connection drives conversion.
Example: Oregon State University implemented a modern CRM (Slate) to segment and personalize outreach. OSU filters prospective students by interests, major, and location to trigger automated, tailored communications (email, text, print) for each segment. With this approach, Oregon State University ensures that prospects receive information relevant to them. For example, engineering-minded students get content on OSU’s tech programs, improving engagement and application conversion.
2. Turn Your Website Into a Top-Performing Recruiter
Think of your website as your lead admissions counselor. It works 24/7 and never forgets a prospect’s name, if it’s built right.
A compelling site doesn’t just list programs. It creates an experience. Navigation should be intuitive, especially on mobile, where the majority of users browse. Application deadlines should never be more than one click away. Program benefits should be clear, outcomes measurable, and support services obvious.
Equally important is online visibility. Students won’t land on your site if it isn’t optimized for search. That means including the phrases they’re typing into Google: “Best business diploma in Vancouver” or “Top graphic design college Canada.” A steady stream of blog content around these themes builds your authority and search rankings over time.
Don’t underestimate local search either. Schools that claim their Google Business listing and keep it updated with reviews, photos, and FAQs tend to show up higher in local results, right when families are deciding which campuses to visit.
Example: ENSR partnered with HEM to revamp its website for better usability and search visibility. Targeted SEO optimizations (including multilingual content and Google Ads campaigns) were implemented to attract more qualified traffic. ENSR also improved site speed and navigation. As a result, the school saw a 10% year-over-year increase in admissions, clear evidence that an optimized, easy-to-find website translates into more student enrollments.
How can schools use SEO to reach more prospective students? Schools can use SEO by optimizing their website and content with keywords students search for, like program names or “colleges near me.” Creating informative blog posts, improving site speed, and using clear navigation help boost search rankings, making it easier for prospects to find and explore the school online.
3. Meet Students Where They Scroll
Social media is no longer just a promotional tool; it’s where brand trust is built. And guess what? Students don’t want picture-perfect posts. They want a glimpse into real student life: the awkward, the inspiring, and everything in between.
How do social media platforms help attract prospective students? Social media platforms help attract prospective students by showcasing authentic campus life, student stories, and academic highlights where students already spend time. Targeted ads and engaging content build awareness, answer questions, and create emotional connections that encourage students to explore programs and take the next step toward applying.
The most effective schools blend behind-the-scenes campus life, student takeovers, and authentic voices with strategic, paid campaigns. Engagement is key. Answer comments, reply to DMs, and ask questions. Your presence shouldn’t just be felt; it should be responsive.
And when a student visits your site but doesn’t apply? A retargeting ad reminding them about a scholarship deadline can bring them back with a purpose.
Example: Randolph-Macon Academy utilizes student-driven social media takeovers and campaigns to humanize its brand. For example, on “Takeover Tuesdays,” R-MA students run the school’s Instagram Stories, giving followers a genuine day-in-the-life look at campus life. These peer perspectives resonate with prospective students and parents. R-MA also shares posts on LinkedIn celebrating achievements (like its seniors earning $16 million+ in scholarships) to boost credibility. By strategically targeting content on platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn, R-MA expands its reach and builds trust with specific audiences.
Campus visits are powerful but not always possible. Virtual tours bridge that gap beautifully when done right.
Why are virtual tours important for school admissions marketing? Virtual tours are important because they let prospective students explore campus facilities, culture, and student life from anywhere. They provide a first-hand experience that builds familiarity and trust, especially for international or remote students who can’t visit in person, helping them feel more confident about applying.
The most compelling virtual experiences go beyond slideshows or still images. They immerse visitors in 360° visuals of your labs, residences, lounges, and dining halls. Add narration, clickable maps, and interactive hotspots to create a sense of discovery.
Want to make it even more engaging? Offer live tours hosted by current students. Answer questions in real-time. Make the conversation two-way. This kind of hybrid interaction not only informs, but it also builds comfort and connection.
Gamifying the experience with small touches like hidden easter eggs or quizzes can boost session time, making students stay longer and remember more.
Example: Eastern New Mexico University: In January 2025, ENMU launched an upgraded 360-degree interactive virtual tour of its campus, in partnership with a virtual tour platform. The tour lets prospective students anywhere in the world explore campus landmarks at their own pace with panoramic views and clickable info points. New interactive stops even feature current students sharing their experiences via video, and users can access photos and descriptions of traditions at each location. This immersive virtual experience makes viewers feel “like they are on campus,” even if they cannot visit in person.
Nothing conveys emotion, trust, and energy quite like video. That’s why it’s the top-performing format across all platforms.
Students use video to explore, compare, and decide. A 30-second clip showing campus energy can hook them, while a three-minute video of a student explaining why they chose your school can tip the scales.
The best videos aren’t always the most polished. Often, it’s the realness that lands, the quiet moment in a dorm room, a laugh during class, a genuine answer about overcoming a challenge. When current students tell their story on camera, it resonates far more than scripted promos ever could.
And don’t stop with publishing. Upload to YouTube (the second largest search engine in the world), share snippets on social media, and embed videos in your emails or on your site. It keeps your message moving, even when you’re not.
Example: The Academy of Applied Pharmaceutical Sciences regularly produces short videos featuring student success stories and hands-on training highlights. These testimonials and “day in the life” videos are shared on AAPS’s website and social channels, providing an authentic glimpse into student outcomes. AAPS also posts video content of alumni in their new careers or students in lab classes, which personalizes the school’s message.
6. Be There Instantly with Smart Chatbots
Picture this: a student is exploring your program page at 10:45 p.m. They want to know if scholarships are still open, but your office is closed.
This is where chatbots shine. When used effectively, they answer FAQs, guide students to relevant pages, and even collect lead info for follow-up, all in real time.
Today’s best bots go beyond text. They can speak multiple languages, schedule tours, and connect students with human counselors. They’re not a replacement for your staff. They’re the frontline, making sure no interest goes cold.
Example: The University of Illinois Gies College of Business deployed an AI chatbot named “Alma” on its online MBA program website to handle common questions and nurture leads. The chatbot was built with a no-code AI platform and programmed to answer prospective students’ free-text questions about the program, provide key information (e.g., deadlines, curriculum), and even collect contact info for follow-up.
Your school can say it’s great. But it means more when others say it for you.
Prospective students read reviews before making decisions. That’s true whether they’re buying shoes or choosing a college. A few well-placed, authentic reviews from happy students or parents can tip the scale in your favor.
Example: Rosseau Lake College actively highlights student and parent testimonials on its official site to manage its online reputation. RLC’s admissions section features a dedicated “Student Testimonials” page with quotes, stories, and even videos from current students and recent graduates.
Make it easy for your community to share their voice. Follow up after tours or events with a simple request for feedback. Prompt graduating students to reflect on their journey. And most importantly, respond graciously to both praise and criticism.
Highlight these testimonials in your marketing materials, emails, and website. Some schools even have dedicated pages that feature alumni quotes, rankings, and outcomes all in one place.
Example: Discovery Community College leverages Google reviews and social media to boost its reputation. When the college receives a glowing review online, the marketing team amplifies it; for instance, Discovery CC shared a student’s 5-star Google review on Instagram with a thank-you message.
When you let your results speak for themselves, people listen.
8. Nurture With Purpose: Email and Text Messaging
Email isn’t outdated. It’s just misused.
Too often, schools blast the same generic message to every lead. But with marketing automation tools like HubSpot or Slate, you can do better. Much better.
Send personalized messages based on actual behavior. If someone downloaded a course calendar, send a follow-up series about faculty highlights, career paths, or student testimonials from that program. If a student clicked a scholarship link but didn’t apply, follow up with a helpful guide or checklist.
Text messages are the perfect complement: fast, direct, and effective. Use them for urgent nudges like deadline reminders or event RSVPs. But be respectful. Less is more when it comes to texting.
9. Host Webinars That Educate and Inspire
Done right, webinars are student recruitment gold. They let students interact with faculty, hear from alumni, and ask real questions, all from the comfort of home.
Think beyond the program overview. What are students anxious about? Admissions essays? Career prospects? Financial aid? Offer sessions that solve these problems, not just sell solutions.
Example: The University of North Texas runs themed Admissions Webinars for targeted audiences of students who haven’t yet applied. UNT invites high schoolers to sign up for sessions like “Why UNT? & How to Apply,” where recruiters walk through programs, campus life, and the application process via Zoom.
Live Q&As make these events feel dynamic. A student asking a question and getting an answer in the moment, that’s engagement. That’s trust.
Example: Randolph-Macon Academy hosts regular live webinars for prospective families as part of its recruitment strategy. During these virtual info sessions, R-MA’s admissions counselors present an overview of the school, share up-to-date facts, and then open the floor for Q&A. They often incorporate a live virtual campus tour within the webinar. This format has been effective in converting attendees to applicants – families get to interact directly with staff and students from home, addressing any doubts in real time.
And once the event ends, the content lives on. Recordings become lead magnets. Clips fuel your social strategy. Recaps can power blog posts. Every webinar is a long-term asset when you plan it right.
10. Showcase What Comes After: Alumni Success
Prospective students are investing time and money. What they want to know is simple: “Will it pay off?”
Highlighting alumni outcomes is one of the most persuasive things you can do. Share job placement rates, grad school acceptances, average salaries, whatever metrics tell the story of success.
Even more powerful are personal stories. The alum who launched a startup. The student who landed a dream internship. The graduate who returned to school to mentor others. These aren’t just achievements, they’re proof points.
Example: Randolph-Macon Academy publicizes its alumni and student success outcomes as a core part of marketing. R-MA’s communications showcase statistics like 100% college acceptance and millions in scholarships earned by each graduating class. In 2025, R-MA proudly shared that its 69 seniors collectively secured over $10.5 million in scholarships for college. Alumni success stories (military academy appointments, leadership roles, etc.) are featured on the school blog and newsletters.
Some schools use interactive alumni maps to show where grads are working across the globe. Others run weekly spotlight stories on social or newsletters. However you do it, make sure it’s easy for prospects to imagine their own future in the successes of those who came before.
When you say, “Here’s where our grads go, and here’s how we help them get there,” the value of your school becomes real.
Enrollment Marketing Is Not About Tactics. It’s About Trust.
Each of these enrollment strategies works on its own. But when you combine them into a cohesive enrollment plan, powered by data and driven by empathy, you don’t just generate interest. You build relationships.
From a student’s first Google search to their final enrollment decision, every interaction matters. So make them count. Use tools like CRMs to track engagement. Align marketing with admissions. And most importantly, keep the student experience at the center of it all.
Because in today’s world, enrollment isn’t about volume. It’s about value. Give your prospects content that answers questions, support that feels personal, and stories that inspire. Do that, and the results will follow.
Need help building your enrollment marketing plan?
HEM offers expert services tailored to higher education institutions across Canada and beyond.Contact us today to learn more.
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: How do social media platforms help attract prospective students?
Answer: Social media platforms help attract prospective students by showcasing authentic campus life, student stories, and academic highlights where students already spend time. Targeted ads and engaging content build awareness, answer questions, and create emotional connections that encourage students to explore programs and take the next step toward applying.
Question: Why are virtual tours important for school admissions marketing?
Answer: Virtual tours are important because they let prospective students explore campus facilities, culture, and student life from anywhere. They provide a first-hand experience that builds familiarity and trust, especially for international or remote students who can’t visit in person, helping them feel more confident about applying.
Question: How can schools use SEO to reach more prospective students?
Answer: Schools can use SEO by optimizing their website and content with keywords students search for, like program names or “colleges near me.” Creating informative blog posts, improving site speed, and using clear navigation help boost search rankings, making it easier for prospects to find and explore the school online.
By Peter Ainsworth, a consultant and writer on higher education finance, known for advocating structural reform that aligns university incentives with real-world graduate outcomes.
Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” may sound absurd to British ears, but beneath the “very stable genius’s” promotional gloss lies a legislative change designed to reset the relationship between the US Higher Education sector and the state. The bill, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives on 22 May 2025, includes the Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Act (SSTSA) – which, if passed by the Senate, would be the world’s first statutory implementation of institutional risk-sharing in student loans.
Historically, in both the US and UK, universities have been financially rewarded for their enrollment of students rather than for the practical benefits delivered to their customers. Success arises out of customer acquisition rather than service value-add. Students take out government-backed loans to pay tuition; institutions receive the money upfront regardless of whether or not their degrees lead to economic success. The result is a moral hazard: an incentive (payment) structure for universities that is not aligned with the employability gain that students want and taxpayers need. Systematically falling graduate premiums on both sides of the Atlantic reflect the impact of insulating universities from the employment risk their students face in a rapidly changing economy.
The American reform seeks to realign incentives to better align risks and objectives. It introduces an Earnings-to-Price Ratio (EPR):
EPR = (Median Value-Added Earnings) / (Median Total Price)
Institutions with low EPRs – indicating poor graduate earnings relative to costs – will face a financial penalty in the form of an invoice from the US Treasury to cover the estimated student loan losses for the relevant cohort. If the Senate passes the reform, US universities will have a powerful incentive to transform their offer to ensure meaningful real-world earnings gains for their students.
The SSTSA is an advance on the existing Cohort Default Rate (CDR) system, which merely threatened to deny access to federal loans to students of institutions with very high default rates. But there was no direct financial risk. Congress deemed it ineffective and so now proposes something more market-oriented.
Meanwhile, the UK is two steps behind, only now looking to implement a version of the CDR model which the US is already moving away from. A recent Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) paper proposes regulating universities based on early-career graduate earnings proxies – like the CDR it is recognising the importance of career earnings outcomes but measuring them indirectly and using regulatory sanction rather than financial cost as the stick. The IFS proposes to use earnings in a three- to five-year window post-graduation to drive regulatory response. Like the CDR’s reliance on a technical definition of default, this short, near-term window will create heavily biased statistics, diminishing the value of professions with delayed earnings trajectories such as medicine and academia.
Further, the IFS proposes to exclude from consideration graduates with very low earnings. This favours institutions whose graduates earn just below an arbitrary threshold level. They also rely on UK tax data which omits emigrants, undervaluing universities that succeed in preparing graduates for global careers.
As Friedrich Hayek argued, complex systems cannot be centrally managed through proxies and aggregated metrics. Graduate career trajectories are dynamic, diverse, and unpredictable — precisely the kind of outcomes that defy simple measurement. Accepting that lifetime earnings are the relevant metric leads inevitably to the conclusion that no bureaucratic proxy will suffice.
There is a cleaner alternative. Universities could be required to issue the loans themselves, something that Buckingham, for example, already does on a small scale. Where needed, to support cash flow, the government could lend to institutions rather than students. This would internalise the financial risk: institutions would have a direct, long-term stake in the earnings success of their graduates. Universities could be freed to set fees and loan terms based on the economic value they expect to deliver and would be incentivised to provide ongoing support — career services, retraining, alumni engagement — to minimise loan defaults over the full life of the loan.
Such a model also addresses bigger challenges facing the higher education sector. Edward Peck, the new Chair of the Office for Students, recently argued that AI is making traditional assessment ineffective and universities must move from testing what students know to what they can do. Meanwhile, Diana Beech and André Spicer, writing for HEPI, have highlighted that universities now employ an average of 17.6 staff solely to handle regulatory compliance and warned that regulation is “multiplying and becoming less predictable.” In this context, risk-sharing offers a route back to institutional autonomy: tying funding to real-world success rather than the IFS’s proposal for even more bureaucratic box-ticking.
Finally, political and fiscal realities support this innovation. A shift to institutionally issued loans would remove the student loan portfolio from the government’s balance sheet, reducing annual write-downs by around £15bn per annum – a present value of around £300bn. That would go a long way to address the various fiscal challenges faced by the Labour government. With less bureaucratic interference, more strategic freedom, and appropriate incentives, the sector should be able to make student loans pay, ensuring a sustainable and prosperous future, and letting British universities blow past their American rivals like nobody’s seen before.
Following publication of our joint GS/HEPI reporting into vice-chancellor recruitment and a vibrant LinkedIn debate, the complex dynamics shaping leadership in the sector have been brought to light. The conversation reveals a sector at a crossroads, wrestling with tradition and transformation.
Insider vs. Outsider: Who Should Lead?
Should vice-chancellors come from within academia or be recruited from other sectors? Out-of-sector candidates can bring a fresh perspective on leading change and challenging the status quo. Inside sector candidates offer deep cultural understanding, academic credibility, and governance experience. Many argue for a hybrid model and leaders who can bridge both worlds.
The CEO-ification of the VC Role
Today’s vice-chancellors are expected to be more than academic figureheads. They must be visionary strategists, financially astute operators, and empathetic people leaders. But, much more is needed to nurture leadership development pipelines with, perhaps, a reappraisal required of the very many leadership development programmes that exist already.
Diversity and Inclusion: Still a Distant Goal
Leadership in higher education remains homogenous. There remains a pressing need to broaden the pool, not just in terms of gender and ethnicity, but also professional and disciplinary backgrounds. Scepticism, especially in research-intensive institutions, about whether university leaders without academic credibility should lead universities persists. Valuing potential over pedigree could unlock untapped leadership talent.
Culture, Metrics, and Mission
Effective leadership in universities demands cultural intelligence and emotional literacy. Metrics like rankings and KPIs, while useful, often fail to capture the true impact of leadership. A more holistic, context-specific approach is needed; one that honours the civic and educational purpose of universities.
Collective Leadership and Cross-Sector Learning
Leadership should not and cannot rest on one individual. Distributed models featuring diverse senior teams and strategic co-leads are gaining traction. Embracing mobility between academia and industry can enrich leadership with fresh insights and mutual respect.
Join the Conversation: Upcoming Webinar
These themes and more will be explored in our upcoming webinar. Whether you’re an academic, policymaker, or sector professional, this is your chance to engage with thought leaders and shape the future of higher education leadership.
In their examination of ten trends that will shape the future of the campus university, Edward Peck, Ben McCarthy and Jenny Shaw set out a compelling account of the factors that will shape English higher education. As a result of these factors, they argue that, in the future, ‘Academic awards will focus as much on the development of employment and generic skills as the acquisition and retention of specific knowledge’. Given that it is co-authored by a long-standing vice chancellor, who will shortly take on the role of the Chair of the higher education regulator, this can be read as an urgent call for higher education to be clear about how it produces graduates who will make important contributions to society.
While I agree that higher education needs to be open to discussing the value of its education for graduates and society, I do not think a convincing case can be made by focusing on the distinction between generic skills and specific knowledge. Instead, my argument is that higher education needs to develop a much better account of how the knowledge that students engage with through their degrees prepares them to make important contributions to society. There are four elements to this.
First, the development of generic skills and the acquisition of specific knowledge are not alternative educational objectives for degree programmes. Rather, they are different elements of a rich educational environment. More fundamentally, the educational power of higher education does not lie in either of these options. What is educationally powerful about higher education is the way in which it offers students access to structured bodies of knowledge. Seeing these bodies of knowledge from the inside gives students and graduates the opportunity to view themselves and the world differently. It is the structure of these bodies of knowledge that allows students and graduates to develop ways of engaging with the world that make use of this knowledge and related skills in a diverse range of contexts. Generic skills and specific knowledge are generated as part of this engagement with structured bodies of knowledge, but they are not where the educational treasure of higher education lies. Indeed, our seven-year international longitudinal study of those who studied degrees in Chemistry and in Chemical Engineering found that those who focused on specific knowledge rather than the ways of engaging with the world they gained from their degrees tended to benefit less from their education.
Second, showing that higher education is about gaining access to structured bodies of knowledge explains why it requires programmatic study over the three or four years of a degree. If it were simply about generic skills or specific knowledge, then there would be no need for the systematic and sustained engagement that we currently demand of students. Presenting higher education as about generic skills or specific knowledge risks it appearing very obvious that demanding several years of sustained study is an unnecessary and expensive luxury. It is only by showing the importance of students’ gaining access of bodies of knowledge that we can explain why alternative forms of higher education that are already boxing higher education in, such as micro-credentials, are not up to the job of supporting students to see these bodies of knowledge from the inside and engaging with the world from the perspective of this knowledge.
Third, understanding the importance of the structured nature of this knowledge helps to highlight the importance of producing graduates from a rich diversity of disciplinary, interdisciplinary and professional subjects, who engage with the world in different ways. Addressing the challenges facing the world will require drawing on the diversity of these perspectives which cannot be gained through being taught generic skills or unconnected stores of specific knowledge.
Fourth, ensuring that higher education maintains its focus on structured bodies of knowledge is key to challenging educational inequalities. Otherwise, it is entirely predictable that the education offered by ‘elite’ institutions will remain focused on structured bodies of knowledge while ‘mass’ higher education shifts to focus on generic skills. Given that those with the greatest resources are most likely to access elite higher education, the poor will be left with an education that leaves them rooted in the contexts in which they have developed their generic skills whereas the privileged will benefit from the ways in which structured bodies of knowledge support them to move between contexts.
The great higher education advocate David Watson urged universities and academics to ‘guard your treasure’. The treasure of higher education is the collective structured bodies of knowledge that we are stewards of for society. Our role is to support society and students to understand the power of this knowledge and what it can do in the world. In response to the important questions raised by Edward Peck, Ben McCarthy and Jenny Shaw, we need to develop much more compelling accounts of how access to these structured bodies of knowledge provides an education that is qualitatively different from an education focused on developing generic skills and specific knowledge. We need to show how this qualitative difference is crucial in offering a relevant education that has the potential to change students and society. If we fail to do this, then we are in great danger of throwing away our greatest treasure.
This is an edited version of a speech giving by Vivienne Stern, Chief Executive of Universities UK, to the HEPI Annual Conference on Thursday 12 June.
Thank you, Nick, for the invitation to speak today.
In a somewhat pathetic attempt to prove the utility of my degree in English Literature, I once learned that the way to prove the validity of your argument was to back it with reference to a work of literature, preferably by someone who was good and dead.
And so, I want to start with the opening lines of Winnie-the-Pooh.
Here is Edward bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump, on the back of his head, behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming downstairs, but sometimes he feels that perhaps there is another way, if only he could stop bumping for a moment and think of it.
How like being a Vice Chancellor.
Most mornings, I imagine you leaping out of bed, full of the joys of spring and filled with a sense of possibility. Between that point and, let’s say, breakfast, you probably find yourself getting hit on the back of the head by 20 or 30 things that will, unequivocally, need dealing with. It is not dull. But this constant stream of new bumps can make it difficult to take a step back and think. Where is this all heading?
We are challenged on both sides of the political spectrum, and there is a curious degree of political consensus around some of the major issues. Anxiety about whether the massification of higher education has gone too far; whether too many students are studying for degrees that have limited value; whether this represents a good use of public money in the form of the loan write-off, and that some of these students would be better off doing something else. There is a concern from both right and left about the degree to which the sector has become increasingly characterised by competition which seems to serve no one well.
Research, currently being undertaken on behalf of Universities UK by Stonehaven and Public First, has illuminated public concerns about the financial motives at play in the sector – a sense that somehow students and graduates are getting screwed by the system – bound up with widespread dissatisfaction about the state of the economy, public services and a growing anxiety that the future for us and our children is one of inevitable decline.
This is underpinned, both in the current government and on the right of the political spectrum by that old conviction that there are ‘good universities’ – generally confused with the Russell Group – and ‘other universities’ which are generally suspect. On the upside, from the Chancellor on down, there is a genuine belief in the power of universities to power the economy and individual opportunity. Government wants more of the good stuff. But in both government and the official opposition, questions are being asked about public funding could be directed in a more targeted way to support, to encourage and incentivise those things which public and politicians would like to see more of – and weed out the stuff they are less convinced by.
I have told you nothing that you don’t already know.
The question is, what are we going to do about it?
When I started in this job, nearly three years ago, I thought I knew what to expect. A few months in I found myself saying to my husband ‘What on earth was I thinking? I used to have this lovely job, swanning around the world listening to Ministers in other governments tell me how wonderful our university system was. It was like wandering into the bottom right-hand corner of the Hundred Acre Wood – Eeyore’s Gloomy Place (rather boggy and sad).
How do we get out of it?
One path leads us deeper into the bog.
Political distrust and pressure on public finances, coupled with a belief that somehow other parts of the education system have more to offer, leads to the continuing erosion of funding -in all four nations of the UK.
You have less money to teach and support students; while scrutiny, scepticism and expectations continue to grow. This forces you into increasingly competitive measures – increased risk appetite in areas like international recruitment, transnational education (TNE) and franchising, fiercely competitive recruitment behaviour which hobbles one university at the expense of another. In research, the paramount need to remain internationally competitive and to retain rank position drives more and more universities deeper and deeper into financial difficulty. The only way out is to press the pedal on international recruitment, to the extent that the Home Office will let you.
This feeds public and political distrust and a sense that something is irretrievably broken here. Even tighter immigration controls follow. More regulation of outcomes and franchising. All sorts of people start to think your problems are of your own making, and that they have simple solutions: whether that’s cutting or capping student numbers, or deciding what to fund or not fund, to determining which universities do research and which do not.
This is the path we’re on.
At UUK, we have spent the last two years trying to map the other path – what gets us out of this bog, and back to the bit of the forest with more of the bees and butterflies?
That was the point of the Blueprint, which we published nine months ago.
There are many people who think that the answer is just explaining ourselves better. I partly agree with them. Of course, we should do more to increase public and political understand of the fantastic work that universities do in all sorts of areas. I see this stuff every single day, in universities of all types, and in all parts of the country. At UUK, we’ve been doing much more of this front-footed stuff through a series of interlocking campaigns to reinforce three key messages: a degree is an overwhelmingly good investment for most graduates; universities power local, regional and national economies; and that universities are a vital national asset.
We need to do more of this, and more effectively. We’re working closely with communications teams in universities to help us.
But I don’t think doing more of this is going to solve the problem or change the path we’re on.
And I don’t think that we can counter negative perceptions of the sector by explaining why they are wrong.
That was the point of the Blueprint. We took a good hard look at what was working well, and what could be better. We enlisted critical friends to provide challenge, and to try to keep us focussed not what on we needed from the Government, but on what the country needed from us.
And we are following through: there are far too many recommendations in the Blueprint – but we are delivering on the most significant ones already, and we can see evidence of the influence of the agenda we set in the Westminster government Higher Education Reform agenda.
The Transformation and Efficiency work is one part of this. A couple of weeks ago we published the first outputs of that work, describing seven opportunities which would help the university system move towards a New Eara of Collaboration. We will shortly publish the next output; a guide to what we are calling ‘Radical Collaboration’ produced by KPMG and Mills and Reeve. JISC sharing with the sector outline business cases for three major areas of sector-level cooperation: procurement; shared business services; and collaboration to sustain vulnerable subjects.
Step by step, we’re trying to pick our way towards the other path through the woods. A route which starts with an attempt to be objective and, where necessary, self-critical; not defensive when faced with criticism, but confident enough to listen to it and respond thoughtfully and proactively. To build pride in what our universities currently represent in the national self-image, and to present them as a reason for optimism about our country’s future. I’d like us to be able to capture some of the excitement you all encounter in labs and seminar rooms – students and staff who are busy discovering something new, and can’t wait to tell other people about it.
At heart, what I think we are working towards is a proposition that the university system should not resist the growing clamour for change, it should own it. We should lean into change. We should remind people change is part of our story: that every so often, the university system goes through a major evolution: think of the 1850s and the establishment of a generation of technical institutes for the education of working men, to the radical decision to start admitting women, to the 60s White Heat of Technology universities; to the removal of the binary divide and the age of massification.
Our universities are constantly changing, and change is good.
Like the rings in a tree, these moments of transformation happen periodically as the sector grows. But they happen around a recognisable core. If a scholar from the 1400s pottered through a wormhole in time, they would recognise what is happening in our universities – the pursuit of knowledge and its transmission within a scholarly community – but the way that successive eras of change have left their marks would tell the history of the sector.
Seismic social changes, which have changed who is in our universities: what they study, how they study and how closely we work with wider society, industry and public services.
So, here’s the thing. I believe we are going through one of those periods of change which leaves a mark. That we’re entering a new era and we’re the lucky folks who get to try to work out what the change will be.
What will enable this great university system to go from strength to strength?
But we’re not alone in thinking that this is a moment where change is needed. There is a window, which is open for now, but is not going to stay open too long.
In July, the Westminster government will publish its Higher Education Reform strategy, embedded in a post-16 White Paper. At some point, either alongside that or slightly later in the year, the Department for Science and Technology (DSIT) will set out their vision for the research system and the university place within it.
The current line of thought tends towards differentiation of mission; specialisation and a more directive approach to the distribution of scare public funds to support national priorities.
An extreme version of this might result in universities being put into boxes; constrained in their mission; to government picking winners and losers – from amongst institutions, or types of institution, or from amongst subjects.
The traditional metaphor here requires jam. Since we are in the Hundred Acre Wood, I will substitute jam for honey.
It will be from thinly spread honey to honey concentrated in a smaller number of places, or used for a smaller number of things. The strategic priorities grant, made up of about 30 tiny honey pots, will see quite a bit of smashing up. A smaller number of bigger pots will take its place. Government will use these to incentivise and support the things it wants to see. Since we don’t anticipate there being, overall, much more honey, it implies that some will end up on bread and water.
I am going to get myself out of a sticky mess by dropping the metaphor.
I am instinctively a bit jumpy about Ministers deciding what universities should and should not do, simply because I have worked with quite a lot of them.
Can we come up with a compelling vision, behind which we can enlist the support of both universities themselves, and the government alongside it?
The Blueprint and the Efficiency and Transformation Taskforce are trying to point the way. They set out:
A conviction that we should not turn back on the road to massification: that although there are many who doubt it, we should keep going, until your background is not the most likely determinant of whether or not you go to university.
A belief that further expansion should not necessarily be more of the same: we can work to present choices, illustrating the many different ways universities already offer higher education. From degree apprenticeships, fully online, blended, and accelerated provision, to courses developed for specific employers in partnership with them. Presenting the three-year degree as one option amongst many for those who want a higher education – but a positive choice with distinct and valuable features, which explain its enduring appeal.
But we could lead the debate about what the LLE could become – how it could allow students and employers to club together to support professional development throughout a career, in a structured and accredited fashion.
And while there are those who say that there is no such thing as the university system; we might assert that we should act to make sure that we don’t see a slow falling apart of something that should be a system, by an over-emphasis on competition within a market. This county needs universities which are capable of filling a range of needs – from world leading specialist institutions, like the Courtauld Institute which I will visit later today, or the Royal College of Music; to the post graduate institutions which don’t appear in the rankings because NEWS FLASH the rankings don’t capture post graduate institutions; to the small community based universities which are often church foundations, and which focus on a public service mission. We need these things just as we need the enormous powerhouses that are our great dual-intensive and research-intensive institutions. If it can be argued that we don’t have a system, we should look to change that.
We should acknowledge again and again that this country is in a bit of an economic funk and that, as it has done many times before, the university system will put its shoulder to the wheel to help turn that around. That we’re open to being more forensic in our analysis of what is effective, to spreading the best practice more widely, to being held to account. What I really mean is that we should stop just producing studies on our economic impact, which the Treasury ignores, and work with government to develop a shared understanding of the economic value created by the university system, which we could actually use – as we have HEBCI and REF – to influence behaviour and improve what we do.
Above all, we have an emerging conviction that universities can and should collaborate more – both to be more efficient and to be more effective in their collective mission. We should be willing to think radically about this. The next phase of the Transformation and Efficiency work will be focussed on how we might support this direction of travel in very practical ways.
And the role for Government? Perhaps more Christopher Robin than AA Milne. More ‘in the forest with us, finding our way together’, than ‘sitting in an office in Whitehall and deciding who does what’.
But we do want Government in there – most importantly we want Government to recognise that there is a public interest in the way this system works. That public funding can play a role in smoothing the rough edges of the market and correcting for its failures, and that have a responsibility alongside the sector itself for the stewardship of the system.
Going back to Winnie the Pooh has been a pleasure. I am going to end where I began, as the book itself does, with the image of Winnie, going upstairs this time, ankle first, gripped by the little fist of Christopher Robin. Let’s stop bumping a while, so we can think.
By Dani Payne, Senior Researcher and Education Lead at the Social Market Foundation.
University remains the most effective pathway for disadvantaged individuals to achieve upward social mobility. Graduates earn more, are less likely to be unemployed, and report higher levels of health, happiness and civic engagement. Yet, despite this individual impact, higher education’s benefits often fail to translate into positive outcomes for local communities.
Recent research from the Sutton Trust ranked constituencies by social mobility. Most interesting is the bottom 20. More than half have at least one university within their immediate locality, and some have as many as 18 in their wider region. Essentially, having a university – or, indeed, many universities – in your region doesn’t guarantee improved local social mobility.
The need for a new social mobility framework
The government’s ‘opportunity mission’ is built on the principle that every child, in every community, should have a fair chance to succeed.
But rising costs, frozen maintenance support, demographic shifts and widening attainment gaps threaten progress made on access. Moreover, targets tend to be institution-specific, creating duplications and silos, and encouraging competition between providers. Selective universities continue to meet access targets by disproportionately recruiting disadvantaged pupils from high-attaining London boroughs, leaving local disadvantaged learners behind – even when world-class institutions are right on their doorstep.
We must broaden how we assess universities’ social mobility impact. To be able to understand when, why and how the benefits of an institution do or don’t reach into local communities, we must also consider their roles as major employers, civic actors and research hubs.
In our new report, Leave to Achieve?, we set out a new framework for how universities can conceptualise and measure their local social mobility contribution. The framework consists of four key pillars, underpinned by the need for regional collaboration and long-term planning.
1. Educational opportunities for local people
Access to higher education varies starkly by region: 27% of disadvantaged pupils in London hold an undergraduate degree by age 22, compared to just 10% in the South West.
Universities must work with local schools and colleges to raise attainment and create alternative entry pathways. They should be considering the extent to which they nurture and recruit talent locally, supporting pupils to progress and succeed. A place-based approach to widening participation, developed collaboratively with other regional providers, ensures local talent is not just nurtured but retained.
Some existing initiatives show promise. Durham Inspired North East Scholarships, Middlesex’s guaranteed offer scheme for local applicants, and the Warwick Scholar’s program providing financial, academic and practical support to local disadvantaged pupils, all show how targeted programs can work at a local level. However, articulation agreements with local further education providers are underutilised in England, and inconsistent contextual admissions policies limit impact.
2. Good jobs for local people
Universities are often the largest, or among the largest, employers in the local region. This is often cited to give the impression that they are ‘too big to fail’, particularly in the current financial context. But little has been done to look at the extent to which universities are providing good jobs to local people, and whether these are open to people from different socioeconomic backgrounds.
Academic roles provide an opportunity for social mobility – for those who can secure one. For someone from a lower socioeconomic background to become a lecturer, for example, they have almost certainly experienced upwards occupational social mobility, if not also absolute (income) social mobility, too. Similarly, professional service roles are often well paid and secure, with a reasonable pension, and working within a university comes with a certain amount of cultural and social prestige, too.
A university performing strongly in this area would be spearheading initiatives to support local people from disadvantaged backgrounds into some of these roles and supporting staff from lower socioeconomic backgrounds whilst they are there. Southampton’s staff social mobility network stands out here, specifically recognising and seeking to tackle barriers in recruitment, retention and career progress for those from working-class backgrounds.
3. Using research to address local needs
Research within institutions should address local needs and tackle inequalities, with outputs shared with local communities. Local residents should have opportunities to be involved in research and should understand why research carried out in their region is valuable.
There are excellent examples in this area, such as UWE Bristol’s ‘Engagement with Education‘ programme and London Metropolitan’s participatory knowledge exchange projects. But these remain examples of best – not yet standard – practice.
4. Civic actors: Lead locally, collaborate regionally
As civic institutions, universities must be more deeply integrated within their localities. Despite growing attention to civic engagement, activity is often fragmented and lacking an overarching strategy. Participation in local skills planning is inconsistent, and incentives to foster collaboration across providers are weak.
Great Manchester’s Civic Agreement is a great example of universities coming together with local leaders to work towards shared goals, recognising that collaboration is far more effective than competition, duplication, or silos. The South West Social Mobility Commission takes this a step further, bringing together all education providers (not just higher education), businesses, local leaders and third-sector organisations to promote better social mobility in the region.
A call to action
This framework is not a checklist, but a tool for reflection. We do not expect every institution to be a star performer in every pillar, but we do see value in measuring impact more holistically, across the full range of university activity.
Universities should ask themselves:
Are we reaching local disadvantaged students?
Are we getting local people into good jobs, and are these jobs available to those from all social class backgrounds?
Is our research making a tangible difference to local challenges?
Are we truly embedded as civic leaders in our region?
Only by addressing these questions can we begin to understand how – and when – the presence of a university does improve social mobility in its immediate communities. And only then can we ensure that local people no longer feel that they must leave in order to achieve.
