Category: Blog

  • Cathedralic Higher Education – HEPI

    Cathedralic Higher Education – HEPI

    With the major challenges facing UK higher education at present, it is perhaps hardly surprising that many in the sector are concentrating on the short term. Survival rather than strategy is the order of the day. Higher education institutions (HEIs), though, are fundamentally long-term operations which educate students and undertake research intended to benefit society for many years to come.

    Indeed, they embody what has been labelled ‘cathedral thinking’, that is, a long-term activity which is ultimately for the good of future generations. There is a real risk, though, that the short-termism endemic in institutions and wider society will undermine this core attribute of HEIs.

    Here and now

    The UK higher education sector is, arguably, facing some of the biggest challenges it has for generations. Coping with the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 and the worldwide recession following the 2007-08 financial crisis was hugely difficult, but they feel, in hindsight, somehow to be less problematic than where we are now.

    Everyone is focused on survival, on getting through the next month, the next term, the next academic year. Certainly there is much lobbying going on from Universities UK, Vice-Chancellors and sector groupings to seek to persuade the government to do the right things for the sector in the forthcoming 2025 spending review. But, as the THE reported in garnering sector views on the year ahead, there is a great deal of uncertainty. Nick Hillman, quoted in the article, notes that the nature of politics, which HEIs are currently grappling with, is ‘a dirty, mucky, short-term, quick-fix sort of business.’

    While Universities UK’s Vivienne Stern believes that many HEIs have already made or begun to make the difficult changes required to cope with the challenges ahead, the longer-term investments in infrastructure and facilities which are required to sustain and develop a world-class higher education offer remain somewhere in the future.

    At times of great challenge, it is difficult to look beyond the immediate problems, the in-your-face issues which just have to be addressed, or there might be no future. Higher Education institutions should be well-placed to take longer-term views of everything and not be distracted by temporary turbulence. Many have been around for centuries in one form or another and have found ways to survive even when times were really, really tough. And yet it does feel that in common with just about every other organisation, HEIs are focused very much on the short term.

    Planning the long game

    However, so much in an HEI has to be viewed as long-term. Decisions around the development of the estate, research priorities, student recruitment and fundraising all require plans and commitment to sustained investment over the years.

    Whilst strategic planning is often the subject of cynicism or even mockery in HEIs and strategies are easily critiqued as being very similar, they serve a really important purpose in drawing the institutional community’s attention to the need to consider the components of the long-term success of the enterprise. Strategic plans also provide a framework for decision-making and a set of markers to ensure that the long term is not forgotten in all of the current noise and turbulence. This feels more important now, given societal trends of focusing only on the immediate issues and the current challenges facing the sector.

    Cathedral thinking

    HEIs have all the ingredients to ensure they balance short-term needs and longer-term priorities. The nature of education and research dictates a different perspective. Private sector companies frequently beat themselves up about this kind of thing and try to find ways to move away from a model which demands a relentless focus on short term profitability at the expense of long-term success.

    The idea of cathedral thinking, of delivering for future generations rather than just the current shareholders, has gained some purchase recently as companies have sought to develop a sense of purpose beyond just profit and be clearer with their investors what the long-term plan is. They have also sought to clarify longer-term goals and measure progress towards them whilst developing a culture which is focused on the long term. Universities and colleges are here already.

    The worry is, though that they are being pushed in the other direction, towards the short term rather than the more distant future. Indeed, governing bodies are often dissatisfied with the kind of key performance indicators that institutions generate, which are inherently longer-term. Most of them change on an annual basis at best, and some of them, such as the Research Excellent Framework or Teaching Excellence Framework outcomes, are only reported over a much longer timescale.

    As an aside, one of the important examples of taking a long-term view is in the appointment of staff. Careful and considered appointments are fundamentally long-term decisions. Many years ago when I worked at the University of Warwick, the ethos in appointing new administrators was very much about the long term. This was articulated, quaintly as it now seems, as ‘do they have a registrar’s baton in their knapsack?’ but the long-term view was clear in relation to the potential of appointees.

    Universities and colleges should be really good at this. Not only is the fundamental service offered a long-term one, but everyone spends ages every few years developing strategic plans, which are just that, plans setting out the strategic, long-term ambitions for the university. These are usually the product of substantial dialogue across the institution and with governing bodies and external stakeholders.

    Planning and punching

    As Mike Tyson famously said when asked whether he was worried about the plan Evander Holyfield was said to have for their forthcoming fight: ‘Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.’ It’s not a hugely original comment, even in boxing, and echoes the old military adage that ‘no plan survives first contact with the enemy.’ Finding a way both to respond to the immediate shock or issue and to consider the actions which will serve best for long term success is challenging. But it is essential if everything is not to be about just dealing with what is in your face (literally or metaphorically) right now and that your plans can be flexed to cope with the new reality.

    HEIs have to take a long-term view, but that is difficult when governments struggle to see beyond the next stage in the current election cycle. This is the dirty and mucky nature of politics described by Hillman. To ensure long-term certainty, universities and colleges ultimately have to take more into their own hands. This means a more vigorous defence of institutional autonomy while at the same time engaging with government priorities. It also means finding new ways to collaborate and to push back against the tide of excessive and burdensome regulation. Above all, though, it means taking the long-term view – cathedralic higher education.

    Source link

  • AI for everyone – but not everything

    AI for everyone – but not everything

    • Mary Curnock Cook CBE chairs the Emerge/Jisc HE Edtech Advisory Board, and Bess Brennan is Chief of University Partnerships with Cadmus. Cadmus is running a series of collaborative roundtables with UK university leaders about the challenges and opportunities of generative AI in higher education.
    • Yesterday, Wednesday 26th February, HEPI and Kortext published the Student Generative AI Survey 2025: you can read that here.

    Clarity and consistency – that’s what students want. Amid all the noise around Generative AI and assessment integrity, students are hugely concerned about the risk of inadvertent academic misconduct due to misunderstandings within their institutions around student use of GenAI.

    That was the message coming loud and clear from the HE leaders at Cadmus’ latest invite-only roundtable, which included contributions from LSE, King’s College London, University of Exeter, Maynooth University and the QAA.

    As Eve Alcock, Director of Public Affairs at QAA, put it:

    ‘Where there’s lack of clarity and uncertainty, student anxiety goes up enormously because they want to do what’s right. They want to engage in their assessments and their learning honestly. And, without clarity, they can’t be sure that they are doing that.‘

    Leaders shared examples of good practice around how universities are working in partnership with students to understand how they are using GenAI, as well as their concerns and what faculty and leadership need to know to encourage greater clarity and consistency.

    LSE: Student use of AI

    At LSE, student use of GenAI has been the focus of a major research project, GENIAL. It’s a cross-departmental initiative to explore the students’ perceptions and experiences of GenAI in their own learning process.

    According to Professor Emma McCoy, Vice President and Pro-Vice Chancellor (Education), AI is being used widely by LSE students on the courses covered by the project, and they are specifically using it to enhance their learning.

    However, there were risks when AI was brought into modules as part of the project: when it was introduced too early, some students lacked the foundational skills to use it effectively. Those who relied on it heavily in the formative stages generally didn’t do so well in the summative. Using AI tools sped up coding for debugging in data science courses, for example, but there were also examples of AI getting it wrong early on and students taking a wild goose chase because they lacked the foundational skills to recognise the initial errors. In addition, despite banning uploads, students uploaded a variety of copyrighted materials.

    While LSE has comprehensive policies around when and how students can use GenAI tools and how it should be acknowledged, only a predicted 40% acknowledged AI use in formative assessments in the project. In any case, such policies may become quickly redundant in any university, warned Professor McCoy:

    ‘We’re already seeing AI tools being embedded across most platforms so it’s going to be almost impossible for people to distinguish whether they’ve actually used AI themselves or not.‘

    Maynooth University: Co-creating for clarity

    For Maynooth University in Ireland, the starting point has been the principle that AI is for “everyone but not everything”. Leaders were aware that students were feeling nervous and uncertain about what they could use legitimately, with contradictory guidance sometimes being given about the use of tools with embedded AI functionality, such as Grammarly.

    Students were also concerned about a perceived lack of transparency around the use of AI. They felt they were being asked to put great effort into demonstrating that they were not using AI in their work but their openness wasn’t necessarily being reciprocated by the academic staff.

    Maynooth’s answer was to set up an expert and genuinely cross-disciplinary AI advisory group to work on complementary student and staff guidelines. Crucially, they brought on board a large group of students to work on the project. From undergraduates through to PhD students and across faculties, students worked in sprint relays on the guidelines, building the “confidence to be able to contribute to this work alongside their academic colleagues to try and remove some of the hierarchies that were sometimes in place,” said Professor Tim Thompson, Vice-President (Students and Learning).

    One result was greater clarity around when GenAI use is permitted, with a co-created policy setting out parameters from no GenAI permitted through to mandated GenAI use and referencing.

    University of Exeter: Incubating innovation

    At the University of Exeter, new guidelines similarly describe every assessment as either AI integrated, where GenAI is a significant part of the assessment, AI supported, where ethical use of GenAI is accepted along with appropriate transparency, or AI prohibited. Alongside clear calls for students to be open about their GenAI use is a push for staff to also show best practice and be transparent with students if they are using GenAI to monitor or assess their work.

    To that end, Exeter is supporting staff to pick up the challenge of integrating GenAI into learning and teaching to better understand the ways in which students are accessing these tools. Exeter’s Education Incubator offers opportunities for staff to explore pedagogic innovation in partnership with students, with the intention of scaling up successful interventions. Projects include rethinking historical skills assessment with LLMs in Classics and Ancient History and student-led hackathons on detecting bias in AIs.

    While recognising the opportunities offered by AI for democratising access to learning, with innovations such as 24/7 coaching, Professor Tim Quine, Vice-President and Deputy Vice-Chancellor Education and Student Experience, also highlighted the danger of ever-widening digital divides:

    ‘There is a significant risk that AI will open up gaps in access to support where privileged students can access premium products that are inaccessible to others, while universities are struggling to navigate the legal, ethical and IP issues associated with institutional AI-supportive technologies, even if we’ve got the budgets to put those technologies in place.‘

    King’s College London: rethinking assessment

    ‘No one wants more assessment!‘ declared Professor Samantha Smidt, Academic Director, King’s College London.

    ‘Talking to staff and to students about assessment, they’re asking for things to be different, to be more meaningful and rewarding, but nobody’s saying we don’t have enough of it.’

    King’s has grasped the opportunity to rethink assessment in a holistic way as a result of, but not limited to, the AI imperative. Aware that students are keen for credit-focused work to be transparently comparable across modules, and for marks to be comparable across markers, King’s has been working on culture change, socialising ideas around a new approach to assessment.

    Professional development opportunities – and, importantly, funding, for staff to explore areas of interest within a new assessment framework, TASK –  have been allied with student partnership work. Pilots are trialling programmatic assessment across 10 programmes, focusing on assessment timings, tariffs, a shift to more formative assessment and a drive to reduce turnaround times.

    In the loop

    AI policy in HE is an increasingly complex area, with staff AI literacy requiring as much attention as student use of GenAI tools. In such a fast-developing field, where AI is going to become ever more woven into the fabric of the everyday technology used in academic work, engaging staff and students with emerging issues is critical.

    ‘The thing we hear time and time again is to keep partnering with and learning from students as a continuous process,‘ urged QAA’s Eve Alcock:

    Some AI policies will have been in place for a year, two years now, which is brilliant, but are they still working? Is there a need to evolve them? Making sure that students are fully within that loop is incredibly important.

    Source link

  • Roles in Educational Marketing Strategies

    Roles in Educational Marketing Strategies

    Reading Time: 8 minutes

    Are you wondering what sort of systems your school needs to streamline processes, enhance communication, and maximize student success? Two critical tools in this digital transformation are Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems and Learning Management Systems (LMS). If you’re thinking about which kinds of systems to implement – CRM vs LMS? 

    While both play vital roles in educational institutions, their functions, benefits, and implementation strategies differ significantly. Understanding the difference between CRM and LMS and integrating them into your educational marketing strategy can provide a powerful edge. In this blog, we provide all of the guidance you’ll need to get started.

    Simplify student management and boost recruitment efficiency!

    Transform your student portal experience. Get a FREE HEM-SP demo today.

    What Is a CRM System?

    In an educational marketing context, a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system is designed to manage interactions with prospective and current students. You can use CRM systems to track leads, nurture relationships, and streamline admissions workflows. These tools are indispensable if you’re looking to optimize your marketing and recruitment efforts by ensuring every prospective student receives personalized attention at the right time.

    CRM systems often include features such as lead tracking, segmentation, automated workflows, communication tools, and analytics. By providing insights into the enrollment journey, CRMs help schools allocate resources more effectively and improve conversion rates. A robust CRM can also support long-term engagement by keeping alumni connected to the institution.

    What is the best CRM for schools? Every school is different but generally, to choose the best CRM platform for your school, you should prioritize a system tailored to the education sector, like Mautic by HEM, which offers tools for lead management, personalized communication, and data-driven insights to streamline your admissions and marketing efforts.

    Built on the Mautic open-source marketing automation platform, it offers a comprehensive solution for managing leads, automating communication, and gaining insights into recruitment performance. With features such as contact management, campaign workflows, and lead scoring, Mautic by HEM helps schools supercharge their marketing and admissions efforts.

    HEM IMAGE 2HEM IMAGE 2

    Do you want to know how to use CRM and LMS to take your student experience to the next level? Contact us for a demo

    What Is an LMS?

    What is the purpose of LMS in education? A Learning Management System (LMS) is a platform designed to deliver, track, and manage educational content and student learning experiences. LMS platforms provide the infrastructure for online learning, offering tools for course creation, assignment tracking, progress monitoring, and student engagement. Schools use LMS platforms to enhance in-person and online education by providing a centralized hub for learning resources and communication.

    In addition to managing educational delivery, an LMS can provide valuable data on student performance and engagement, allowing educators to tailor instruction and support to individual needs. HEM’s Student Portal System, which includes a Student Information System (SIS), is an example of how an LMS can be integrated into an institution’s broader ecosystem. It streamlines everything from course scheduling to attendance tracking, creating a seamless experience for educators and learners.

    HEM IMAGE 3HEM IMAGE 3

    CRM vs LMS: Key Differences

    Although CRM and LMS systems serve different purposes, they often complement each other in educational marketing strategies. The primary distinction lies in their focus: CRM systems are designed to manage relationships with prospects and current students, while LMS platforms are dedicated to managing the delivery of educational content.

    A CRM system focuses on pre-enrollment activities, such as lead generation, nurturing, and conversion. It ensures prospective students receive timely, relevant information encouraging them to apply and enroll. By contrast, an LMS supports post-enrollment activities, including course delivery, student engagement, and academic tracking.

    Despite their distinct roles, both systems share a common goal: improving the student experience. By integrating CRM and LMS platforms, schools can create a cohesive journey from initial contact to graduation and beyond.

    HEM IMAGE 4HEM IMAGE 4

    Source: HEM

    Benefits of a CRM System in Educational Marketing

    Implementing a CRM system in your school’s marketing strategy can yield several benefits. CRMs streamline lead management by organizing contacts, tracking interactions, and automating follow-ups. This allows your admissions team to focus on high-priority leads while ensuring no prospect falls through the cracks.

    Mautic by HEM, for instance, empowers schools to create automated workflows for tasks such as email marketing, SMS campaigns, and event registrations. These tools help nurture leads effectively, moving them through the enrollment funnel. The platform’s robust reporting capabilities provide deep insights into the success of your marketing efforts, enabling data-driven decision-making.

    CRMs also enhance personalization. By segmenting leads based on criteria such as program interest, location, or stage in the admissions process, schools can deliver tailored messages that resonate with each prospect. This level of customization increases engagement and improves conversion rates.

    Example: One principal benefit of using a CRM for your school is access to detailed data that you can use to make your next move. The report below demonstrates how you can track registrations, what program the prospect has registered for, the prospects’ registration progress, and payment statuses. This is enough to craft and send a personalized follow-up message – a process that can be automated on CRMs like Mautic.

    HEM IMAGE 5HEM IMAGE 5

    Source: Mautic | Higher Education Marketing

    Benefits of an LMS for Educational Institutions

    An LMS enhances the learning experience by providing a centralized platform for educational content and resources. Students can access course materials, submit assignments, and communicate with instructors from anywhere, fostering flexibility and accessibility.

    LMS platforms also facilitate data collection, allowing educators to monitor student performance and identify areas for improvement. By tracking metrics such as course completion rates, assessment scores, and engagement levels, schools can make informed decisions to improve outcomes.

    HEM’s Student Portal System exemplifies how an LMS can integrate seamlessly into an educational institution. With features such as course scheduling, attendance tracking, and performance reporting, it streamlines administrative tasks while enhancing the student experience. This dual functionality ensures that both educators and learners have the tools they need to succeed.

    Example: Here, the learning benefits of Ontario eSecondary School are outlined plainly – they offer quick support, access to expert teachers, and personalized help. An LMS significantly improves the student experience by providing resources that enrich lessons and offer support from staff. 

    An LMS is particularly essential for online academies like Ontario eSecondary School in order to provide structure and necessary resources to students; however, with an increasingly tech savvy student population that tends to expect online options, an LMS can benefit any school. 

    The second image demonstrates how courses can be delivered using LMS tools. Your aim should be to improve student experience by creating an interactive learning experience. This can be accomplished by integrating communications and multi-media tools with your LMS.

    HEM IMAGE 6HEM IMAGE 6

    HEM IMAGE 7HEM IMAGE 7

    Source: Ontario eSecondary School

    Implementing a CRM System: Actionable Advice

    To implement a CRM system effectively, start by identifying your school’s specific needs and goals. Consider factors such as the size of your admissions team, the complexity of your enrollment process, and the channels you use to communicate with prospects.

    Next, select a CRM system designed for the education sector. Mautic by HEM is an excellent choice, offering features such as automated workflows, lead scoring, and detailed reporting tailored to the unique challenges of student recruitment. Requesting a demo is a great way to explore the platform’s capabilities and determine how it aligns with your goals.

    Once you’ve chosen a CRM, focus on integration and training. Ensure the system integrates with your existing tools, such as your website and email marketing platforms. Provide thorough training for your team to ensure they can use the CRM effectively. Finally, monitor performance and gather feedback to refine your processes over time.

    Implementing an LMS: Actionable Advice

    When implementing an LMS, start by defining your educational goals. Consider the types of courses you offer, the level of interactivity you want to provide, and the needs of your students and instructors.

    Select an LMS that aligns with these goals. HEM’s Student Portal System, for example, offers a comprehensive solution for managing courses, tracking attendance, and monitoring student progress. By integrating these functions into a single platform, the system simplifies administration while enhancing the learning experience.

    Ensure your LMS is user-friendly and accessible. Provide training for instructors and students to maximize adoption. Regularly review performance metrics to identify areas for improvement and ensure the platform continues to meet your institution’s needs.

    Example: Here, the SP Student Information System is being used for course planning. LMS systems like this help you centralize the information that students need to retain lessons and complete their assignments. Be detailed and clear when providing lesson information.

    HEM IMAGE 8HEM IMAGE 8

    Source: Student Information System

    Combining CRM and LMS for Maximum Impact

    While CRM and LMS systems serve different purposes, integrating them can create a seamless experience for both prospective and current students. For example, data from your CRM can inform personalized communication with enrolled students through your LMS. Similarly, insights from your LMS can help you refine your marketing efforts by highlighting the types of content and courses that resonate most with learners.

    HEM’s suite of solutions, including Mautic by HEM and the Student Portal System, offers an integrated approach to educational marketing and administration. By combining the strengths of CRM and LMS platforms, schools can create a unified strategy that supports students at every stage of their journey.

    It’s Time to Get Started!

    LMS vs CRM? Instead of choosing one over the other, try focussing on how each system contributes to your educational marketing strategy. A CRM system like Mautic by HEM helps schools attract and convert prospective students, while an LMS like HEM’s Student Portal System ensures those students have an exceptional learning experience. By leveraging both tools, schools can optimize their processes, enhance engagement, and achieve their goals more effectively.

    If you’re ready to take your school’s marketing and administrative efforts to the next level, consider exploring HEM’s Mautic and Student Portal solutions. With the right tools and strategies in place, your institution can thrive in today’s competitive educational landscape.

    Simplify student management and boost recruitment efficiency!

    Transform your student portal experience. Get a FREE HEM-SP demo today.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Question: What is the best CRM for schools? 

    Answer: Every school is different but generally, to choose the best CRM platform for your school, you should prioritize a system tailored to the education sector, like Mautic by HEM, which offers tools for lead management, personalized communication, and data-driven insights to streamline your admissions and marketing efforts.

    Question: What is the purpose of LMS in education?

    Answer: A Learning Management System (LMS) is a platform designed to deliver, track, and manage educational content and student learning experiences.

    Source link

  • The holy grail of credit transfer?

    The holy grail of credit transfer?

    • Helena Vine, Lead Policy Officer for England at the Quality Assurance Agency, considers what we might learn from American researchers Lauren Schudde and Huriya Jabbar’s recent study of ‘Discredited: Power, Privilege and Community College Transfer’.

    When it comes to the more intractable issues in higher education policy, we’re often tempted to look wistfully overseas to supposedly sunlit uplands where the knotty issue has, at least on the surface, been resolved.

    This has never been truer than in the case of credit transfer – the process by which a provider recognises the credit a student has successfully accrued at another institution, exempting them from modules or even whole years of learning that they have already undertaken elsewhere. If I had a pound for every person who’s suggested I look at how the USA does it, I might be able to fund a neat solution here in the UK.

    I understand the appeal – the community college system and the transferable nature of credit are much more embedded within the United States than in the UK, even if each state takes a slightly different approach. It’s tempting to see such a system as the ‘holy grail’ of credit transfer models, where students can accumulate and transfer credit between institutions – and where the path of attending a community college before moving onto an institution offering four-year degrees is well-trodden.

    Finding a way forward feels particularly pertinent right now. The potential for a coherent and consistent sector-wide approach to credit transfer has been highlighted by growing government aspirations across all four nations of the UK to promote lifelong learning, widening participation and regional economic development. This is why we at QAA published guidance on credit recognition and research into credit transfer practices across the UK last year and why we’re currently working with colleagues across the sector to produce an in-depth study of those practices.

    We’ve naturally looked to the US ‘holy grail’ model to inform our thinking about how credit transfer might work under the Lifelong Learning Entitlement in England – and more broadly across the rest of the UK. But rather than discovering an abundance of convenient solutions that we could apply here in the UK, we were struck by the number of challenges and barriers that our systems share. It turns out that the US perhaps doesn’t have it entirely figured out after all.

    Credit transfer systems appear difficult for students to navigate in both the UK and the US. Research in the US exposed conflicting sources of information, guidance documentation that is difficult for students to digest, and protocols which place the onus firmly on students to show they have the requisite learning.

    These findings may feel all too familiar to those who’ve been engaged in credit transfer processes in the UK, which our own research found could also prove extraordinarily opaque.

    In their study of the credit transfer practice across Texas – Discredited: Power, Privilege and Community College Transfer (Harvard, 2024)– Lauren Schudde and Huriya Jabbar refer to this issue as the ‘hidden curriculum of transfer’. They argue that the series of hoops students must jump through almost feel designed to make them ‘demonstrate that they are worthy’. The students most ably navigating the system could do so because they took no information at face value and instead triangulated it across various sources to identify what was accurate. Such an approach indicates a significant amount of effort is therefore required to do something supposedly so essential to the smooth operation of a tertiary education system.

    Despite there being much clearer routes between community colleges and four-year degree providers in the United States than those we have between further education colleges and universities in the UK, Schudde and Jabbar’s research identifies an underlying assumption in some institutions that community colleges are of lower quality and their students are not necessarily academically prepared for transfer to higher levels of study.

    Academic faculty and administrators at those four-year institutions sought instead to preserve their institutions’ prestige and reputation for selectivity. In doing so, they fostered unwelcoming and unreceptive transfer processes and cultures, inevitably contributing to poorer outcomes for the students involved. Indeed, Discredited cites one administrator at a selective institution who questioned whether the students who failed to navigate its own complex system were the right candidates for such a prestigious place of study.

    And in the traditionally hierarchical education system we have known in the UK – and particularly in England – it’s not impossible to imagine that there have been similar pockets of resistance that have impeded credit transfer and student mobility here too.

    Delving further into the body of research on credit transfer in the US, we find that attempts to streamline and standardise these processes have often encountered concerns around the impact on institutional autonomy. While state-wide, policy-level initiatives are much more common in the US than in the UK, measures as simple as the introduction of a common system for course numbering have been met with resistance. Similar concerns abound across the UK, where efforts to acknowledge some consistency across provision raise fears of a slippery slope towards external interference in admission policies.

    Ultimately, Schudde and Jabbar argue that efforts to improve support for students (and for community colleges) in navigating these transfer processes are insufficient within a system not designed to ease their paths and where the players with the most power are sometimes the ones most resistant to a reformed system.

    Their argument rings true in the UK. On an individual level, providers are open and willing to engage with students with prior learning and support them in finding a route into the institution that recognises their potential and sets them up for success. Many are also willing to acknowledge that their practice in this area could be enhanced. But if the conversation continues to happen solely at an individual level, we risk a system which remains disjointed, opaque and disheartening to engage with. In doing so, we will fall far short of our ambitions for lifelong learning, a skills revolution and a more flexible imagination of higher education.

    Sector reference points, such as the UK Quality Code and the Credit Framework for England coordinated by QAA, have a strong track record of facilitating appropriate consistency across a diverse sector. They recognise the common ground the sector shares while enabling providers to adapt it to their own context. The same approach could be taken with further guidance around credit transfer. Every provider’s credit transfer policy may include slightly different requirements and limits, but a sector-led agreement coordinated by QAA on what information goes in those policies and how they’re communicated to applicants would go a long way towards easing the burden on learners and providers, who know they need to do more in this space but aren’t sure where to start.

    Learning that the US is far from perfect in this area could easily disincentivise action. Instead, I think it demonstrates that it’s not simply a waiting game for slow cultural and system change to emerge. Instead, it shows that, without proactively tackling the entrenched barriers in the system, the challenges continue to linger no matter how smooth and shiny it looks on the surface.

    Source link

  • Freckles – or something else?

    Freckles – or something else?

    • Martin Williams is Chair of the University of Cumbria and a former higher education policy official in the Department for Education.

    It was interesting to read Jo Johnson’s 28 January HEPI blog about the OfS’s suspension of new applications to the Register and for Degree Awarding Powers  (The Office for Students needs to walk and chew gum, by Jo Johnson).  The OfS, apparently, is ‘failing to support the innovation vital to our success as a knowledge economy’. It is ‘abandoning its statutory duties to support innovation and choice’.  By telling the world it is ‘snowed under with handling institutional failure’, it is sending bad messages to international students.  I doubt that the recent OfS announcement of proposed new conditions for applications will have defused these criticisms.

    As one of the main architects of the legislation that created OfS, Jo is certainly well-placed to assess how well it is delivering his vision of the future (and he is duly appreciative that OfS appears to be sticking with his particular love, the Teaching Excellence Framework.) He still believes in his policies. All credit to him.

    Others, however, may ask whether that is because those policies have demonstrably worked for the public good, or because Jo does not want to question them. 

    Harsh though it is to place Jo Johnson alongside die-hard Brexiteers, there is something of the same conviction that the vision was glorious, but it was never properly implemented and has been sabotaged by the unbelievers.  If the vision had been fully realised, English Higher Education should now be going through a period of unprecedented innovation, backed by massive entrepreneurial private investment, creating the best time ever to be a student and the best ever generation of students.  If it isn’t, then those reliable whipping boys, Bureaucracy and Regulation, can be sent to the pillory.  It cannot be that the vision was naïve, or even plain wrong in parts.

    Perhaps we are indeed on the way to that golden age.  After all, there are now more than 400 higher education providers on the OfS Register, which is a lot more than were there in the old HEFCE days. This means more institutions are competing for students, and students have more institutions to choose between. Jo quotes the innovative examples of the Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology, the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering, the London Interdisciplinary School and The Engineering & Design Institute: London as the tip of the innovation iceberg.  They are the first fruits of the harvest that should now be blossoming even more bountifully, but for OfS’s narrow-mindedness.

    And perhaps we aren’t.  Mike Ratcliffe, whose MoreMeansBetter blogs shine a valuable light on the parts of the English higher education sector that most people haven’t heard of, commented under Jo’s article that ‘his list doesn’t include the providers who have recruited large cohorts… The four great providers, with their distinctive offerings, need to be put alongside a raft of business management, performing arts and theology providers.  He instances the Applied Business Academy, currently being wound up.  This institution, which went from 420 students in 2020/21 to 2,360 in 2022/23, has, on Mike’s estimates, in the most recent year, ‘had twice as many students as the four providers have had in their entire existence combined’.

    The Applied Business Academy is just as much the result of Jo Johnson’s vision as the Dyson Institute.    

    Which takes us back to the vision itself. 

    It was rooted in the post-2012 settlement and the new possibilities it opened up.  It was a bold and imaginative experiment, and I would certainly not want to assert it has failed.  I don’t have definitive evidence either way.  But an experiment it was, and it should be recognised as such.  It now deserves to be evaluated, seriously and dispassionately, with no preconceptions.  A new government, due to publish its own vision for higher education later this year, has the chance to commission such an evaluation.     

    How we got here

    We got here because of the raising of the fee cap in 2012.  This made it possible, for the first time, for serious profits to be made from providing higher education in England, with these profits underwritten by the public purse. 

    Both before and after 2012, the State has been the largest financial contributor to English higher education institutions – either directly, through grants, or indirectly via the student loan guarantee.  However, before 2012 the State’s contribution to teaching was split fairly evenly between grants and loans.  The maximum loan was around £3,500; the residual costs of providing a course were met by grants, paid by the Funding Council, HEFCE, according to the perceived costs of teaching different subjects (just over £6,000 per student was considered the minimum cost for a “classroom-based” subject like Law). 

    To control grant expenditure, there were also broad “targets” for each institution for the number of students they would take each year.  This limited an individual institution’s room to grow.  It also limited the number of new institutions that would be accommodated in the whole HE system. 

    The settlement reached after the 2010 Election very deliberately and fundamentally changed this system, as Nick Hillman has recently described:

    • Raising the tuition fee loan cap to £9,000 sent it well above the ‘break-even point’ for most HE courses (whereas the previous £3,500 fee loan was well below it). 
    • Removing limits on funded student numbers meant that the State undertook to pay the fees for any student accepted by an eligible institution.  Hence, it allowed the rapid expansion of institutions that could recruit students, including completely new institutions entering the market for the first time.

    That – entirely intentionally – included for-profit institutions. 

    Where We Now Are

    The regulatory environment that has been created incentivises institutions to recruit as many students as they can, while delivering courses as cheaply as they can.  That applies to all providers, but is especially helpful to new for-profit providers, entering the market unencumbered by arrangements made under the previous system.

    Some would simply call this efficiency.  They would have a fair point.  All institutions have to cover their costs and make sufficient surpluses to finance their futures.  But there are some differences. 

    To illustrate, my own institution (University of Cumbria) is required by its governing documents to operate as a charity for the benefit of education in Cumbria. That is why we were created. When surpluses are made (and we are making surpluses!), they go towards that goal.  Neither I, nor any of my Board, nor any external investor, benefits financially.  We are an institution that is devoted, however imperfectly, to the public good. 

    In a for-profit institution, naturally, the picture is different.  Very sensibly, they will locate themselves wherever they think offers the best prospects (usually big cities).  If they are not prospering there, they will leave without a backward glance.  If they are prospering, the profits may well leave too; they are not in business to invest in places.  And a look through Mike Ratcliffe’s blogs gives a sense of some of the profits that are being made; in some cases, more than 25%, and tens of millions of pounds.  The beneficiaries are the investors and the owners, wherever they may be, and the funds have come from the British taxpayer. 

    I am not trying to imply that there is anything wrong or unethical going on here. Any institution is entitled to operate within the regulatory system as it exists, and this is what these institutions have done.  Of course they should be trying to minimise costs; they are for-profit institutions.

    But I am saying that it is reasonable for the government, on behalf of the taxpayer and the citizen, to ask itself whether this demonstrates a higher education regulatory regime that is operating in the public interest.

    That is a genuinely open question.  I don’t have the information to do a cost-benefit analysis.  Some of this boils down to gut reactions anyway.  Offering good quality educational opportunities is a public benefit, whoever does it. If an agile, low-cost, slimmed-down provider can attract lots of students onto Business Studies courses in Birmingham or Manchester, and some of those students therefore don’t go to universities like mine, so what?  Students are presumably exercising choice, and that is a good thing.  Making money from providing a service is not against the public interest.

    On the other hand, the current regulatory regime actively incentivises institutions like the Applied Business Academy to enter the market.  It is an unusual market, because there is no need to compete on price; the taxpayer obligingly provides students with the money to pay an institution’s fees. This underpins the profits that can be made and pocketed by private investors anywhere in the world.  Some people would feel this wasn’t the right use of taxpayer money.  And if – it is a genuine if – the presence of a lot of ABAs were sucking some students away from the ‘public interest’ providers, and thereby destabilising them financially, the State, and the taxpayer, may find themselves with a further set of headaches. The fate of the University of Remoteshire, the largest employer in its area and the recipient of considerable public funding over the decades, is a matter of legitimate public concern. 

    What should happen now?

    The new government should be asking itself, and OfS, about the system it has inherited.  It should not automatically trash the work of its predecessors, but should also apply some common-sense scepticism to claims from those who have an obvious vested interest in preserving the status quo (which means the system created after 2012).  It should seek an honest assessment of the costs and benefits in the round, recognising that there are both.  And ultimately, it should decide for itself whether the new marks that are becoming visible on the face of English higher education are predominantly charming freckles, that add to the attractiveness of the whole, or something less benign. 

    Source link

  • To stick or pivot? TEF 3.0 and the future of quality

    To stick or pivot? TEF 3.0 and the future of quality

    • Stephanie Marshall is Vice-Principal (Education) at Queen Mary University of London. She is the author of the forthcoming Strategic Leadership of Change in Higher Education (3rd edition). Ben Hunt is Executive Officer (Education) at Queen Mary University of London.

    In contrast to the adage that ‘good strategy closes doors’, the Office for Students (OfS) Strategy consultation has left many options open. This is true of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), which the OfS intends to bring into alignment with its wider quality regime:            

    ‘TEF will be the core of our new integrated approach to quality, with assessment activity becoming more routine and more widespread to ensure that institutions are delivering high quality academic experiences and positive outcomes’.

    Cart before the horse?

    The OfS has stated in its consultation that it will expand its quality assessment regime without evaluating how this exercise has, or will, enhance education provision.

    Previous investigations were seen as burdensome and lacking transparency.[1] On transparency, Professor Amanda Broderick, Vice-Chancellor & President at the University of East London, reflected on a quality investigation: ‘…we were not informed of what the OfS’s concerns had been at any point of the review’.

    On burden, Professor David Phoenix, Vice-Chancellor of London South Bank University, has written about an investigation at his provider: ‘…providers are already very used to…scrutiny. Professional and regulatory bodies (PSRBs) have their own approaches to course review and validation, and in many instances the level of scrutiny can greatly exceed that of the OfS’.

    And in a recent HEPI blog, the ex-higher education minister and architect of TEF Lord Jo Johnson asserts that the OfS has consistently deprioritised innovation.

    So perhaps the OfS has reached a moment of choice: to stick or pivot.

    Stephanie Marshall has written previously about the different global ‘pivots’ in higher education quality: ‘massification, quality assurance, quality enhancement, and then a move to addressing equity deploying large data’.

    The OfS’s decision to pause new provider entrants has arguably stalled massification. It is duplicative when it comes to assurance with other regulators such as Ofsted. And its deployment of data through the Data Futures process is beset by delays. Instead of enabling providers to embrace change, an unintended consequence of these decisions is that sector innovation is slowed. Amidst this and the sector’s financial challenges, the OfS seeks to expand its investigatory regime without a clear theory of change linked to enhancement.

    Pivot Part 1: From assurance to fremragende

    In a Norwegian report to which Marshall contributed, it was noted that: ‘In English, the term ‘excellence’ is now much overused…In Norwegian the word “fremragende” has a sense of moving forward (frem) and upward (tall or reaching above the rest, ragende) and is reserved to describe something really cutting-edge’.[2] 

    Centres for disciplinary excellence in education were established in Norway through the Centres for Excellence (CfE) Initiative, introduced by their previous Quality Assurance body, NOKUT. To be eligible for CfE status and funding, higher education institutions had to meet baseline standards and evaluate the distinctive quality of their provision. Each Centre selected its own criteria aligned to the provider’s vision and mission.

    Of course, there were challenges with this process, particularly when it came to differences in judgements of the panel assessing, against the institution being assessed. However, NOKUT was open to evolving its views, positioning itself as a ‘critical friend’. This process set out to be supportive and iterative, focused on both past impact and continuous improvement. The success of this approach has been validated over the years by regular evaluations of the impact of the scheme.

    In England there were 227 providers who participated in TEF. Adopting a system from a country with 21 higher education providers is clearly not practical. The important lessons are, firstly, a critical friend approach can be beneficial to enhancement, and, secondly, institutions can be trusted to evolve some of their quality metrics in line with their mission and values. This is particularly important in a system as diverse as in England where most providers are already above the quality baseline.

    Fremragende may be a more accurate framing of authentic educational enhancement rather than the English buzzword ‘excellence’. Frenragende suggests an ongoing journey: a verb rather than a noun. The higher education environment is and will be in a state of flux where quality frameworks need to be agile and unlock innovation, particularly in the territory of AI.

    Pivot Part 2: Enabling enhancement through data

    The OfS has a basket of lagging indicators: the National Student Survey (NSS) and Graduate Outcomes Survey (GOS) which comprise the TEF. If they are utilised in the next TEF, which seems likely, one way to begin to move from assurance to continuous improvement could be for the OfS to encourage greater use of the optional NSS bank. There are additional questions in place regarding the views of healthcare students, and several optional additional questions. An integrated approach could also be taken to the questions within the GOS, either enabling some optional questions for graduates, or mapping the GOS questions to those in the NSS.

    This flexibility would demonstrate trust, give providers a way to articulate ‘learning gain’, and capture the diversity in the sector. It would also maintain many of the positive aspects of TEF for key stakeholders, including the centrality of the student voice through the NSS and other mechanisms.        

    Pivot Part 3: Quality through partnership

    Any approach to integration should be a partnership with students, providers, international organisations and employers. We hope that entrance into the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education will enable the OfS to collaborate with other global quality bodies.

    The OfS should consider how, in its assessment of excellence, it integrates learning from other inspection regimes, such as Ofsted and existing PSRB requirements. Through this, it should reduce regulatory duplication. This is in line with the Regulator’s Code principle of ‘collect once, use many times’.

    A mindset shift from assessing the baseline to forward-facing, continuous enhancement is required, both by the OfS and the sector. With further contextualisation of provision, the sector can exercise its autonomy to drive excellence, and the OfS can fulfil its statutory role in enabling quality and innovation. 

    Let’s join our Norwegian colleagues in adopting the fremragende approach.

     

     

    Source link

  • Solving the continuation challenge with engagement analytics

    Solving the continuation challenge with engagement analytics

    • By Rachel Maxwell, Principal Advisor at Kortext.

    Since the adjustments to the Office for Students’ (OfS) Condition B3: Student outcomes, published continuation rates have dropped from 91.1% in 2022 to 89.5% in 2024 for full-time students on their first degree.

    This drop is most evident for students in four key areas: (1) foundation year courses; (2) sub-contracted and franchised courses; (3) those with lower or unknown qualifications on entry; and (4) those studying particular subjects including Business and Management, and Computing.

    Universities utilising student engagement analytics are bucking this downward trend. Yet, surprisingly, engagement analytics are not mentioned in either the evaluation report or the accompanying Theory of Change document.

    Ignoring the impact of analytics is a mistake: universities with real-time actionable information on student engagement can effectively target those areas where risks to continuation are evident – whether at the programme or cohort level, or defined by protected characteristics or risks to equality of opportunity.

    The [engagement analytics] data you see today is next year’s continuation data.

    Dr Caroline Reid, former Associate Dean at the University of Bedfordshire

    A more complete view of student learning

    The digital footprints generated by students offer deep insights into their learning behaviours, enabling early interventions that maximise the opportunity for students to access the right support before any issues escalate. While data can never explain why a student is disengaging from their learning, it provides the starting point for a supportive outreach conversation. What happens thereafter would depend on what the conversation revealed – what kind of intervention would be most appropriate for the student? Examples include academic skills development, health and wellbeing support or financial help. The precise nature of the intervention would depend on the ecosystem of (typically) the professional services success and support expertise available within each institution.

    Analysing engagement activity at the cohort level, alongside the consequent demand on student services teams, further enables universities to design cohort or institution-wide interventions to target increasingly stretched resources where and when they are needed most.

    [With engagement analytics we have] a holistic view of student engagement … We have moved away from attendance at teaching as the sole measure of engagement and now take a broader view to enable us to target support and interventions.

    Richard Stock, Academic Registrar, University of Essex

    In 2018–19, 88% of students at the University of Essex identified as having low engagement at week six went on to withdraw by the end of the academic year. By 2021–22, this had reduced to approximately 20%. Staff reported more streamlined referral processes and effective targeted support thanks to engagement data.

    Bucking the trend at Keele

    The OfS continuation dashboard shows that the Integrated Foundation Year at Keele University sits 8% above the 80% threshold. Director of the Keele Foundation Year, Simon Rimmington, puts this down to how they are using student engagement data to support student success through early identification of risk.

    The enhanced data analysis undertaken by Simon and colleagues demonstrates the importance of working with students to build the right kind of academically purposeful behaviours in those first few weeks at university.

    • Withdrawal rates decreased from 21% to 9% for new students in 2023–24.
    • The success rate of students repeating a year has improved by nearly 10%.
    • Empowering staff and students with better engagement insights has fostered a more supportive and proactive learning environment.

    Moreover, by identifying students at risk of non-continuation, Keele has protected over £100K in fee income in their foundation year alone, which has been reinvested in student support services.

    Teesside University, Nottingham Trent University (NTU) and the University of the West of England (UWE) all referred explicitly to engagement analytics in their successful provider statements for TEF 2023.

    The Panel Statements for all three institutions identified the ‘very high rates of continuation’ as a ‘very high quality’ feature of their submissions.

    • Teesside’s learning environment was rated ‘outstanding’, based on their use of ‘a learner analytics system to make informed improvements’.
    • NTU cited learning analytics as the enabler for providing targeted support to students, with reduced withdrawals due to the resulting interventions.
    • UWE included ‘taking actions … to improve continuation and completion rates by proactively using learning analytics’ to evidence their approach.

    The OfS continuation dashboard backs up these claims. Table 1 highlights data for areas of concern identified by the OfS. Other areas flagged as key drivers for HEIs are also included. There is no data on entry qualifications. All figures where data is available, apart from one[1], are significantly above the 80% threshold.

    Table 1: Selected continuation figures (%) for OfS-identified areas of concern (taught, full-time first degree 2018–19 to 2021–22 entrants)

    The Tees Valley is the second most deprived of 38 English Local Enterprise Partnership areas, with a high proportion of localities among the 10% most deprived nationally. The need to support student success within this context has strongly informed Teesside University’s Access and Participation Plan.

    Engagement analytics, central to their data-led approach, ‘increases the visibility of students who need additional support with key staff members and facilitates seamless referrals and monitoring of individual student cases.’ Engagement data insights are integral to supporting students ‘on the cusp of academic failure or those with additional barriers to learning’.

    The NTU student caller team reaches out to students identified by its engagement dashboard as being at risk. They acknowledge that the intervention isn’t a panacea, but the check-in calls are appreciated by most students.

    Despite everything happening in the world, I wasn’t forgotten about or abandoned by the University.
    NTU student

    By starting with the highest risk categories, NTU has been able to focus on those most likely to benefit from additional support. And even false positives are no bad thing – better to have contact and not need it, than need it and not have it.

    What can we learn from these examples?

    Continuation rates are under threat across the sector resulting from a combination of missed or disrupted learning through Covid, followed by a cost-of-living crisis necessitating the prioritisation of work over study.

    In this messy world, data helps universities – equally challenged by rising costs and a fall in fee income – build good practice around student success activity that supports retention and continuation. These universities can take targeted action, whether individually, at cohort level or in terms of resource allocation, because they know what their real-time engagement data is showing.

    All universities cited in this blog are users of the StREAM student engagement analytics platform available from Kortext. Find out more about how your university can use StREAM to support improvements in continuation.

    [1] The Teesside University Integrated Foundation Year performs above the OfS-defined institutional benchmark value of 78.9%.

    Source link

  • 10 Benefits of an Online Admissions and Enrollment System

    10 Benefits of an Online Admissions and Enrollment System

    Reading Time: 8 minutes

    As a school administrator or marketer, you’re likely already familiar with the challenges of traditional admissions processes: manual paperwork, miscommunication, long timelines, and a lack of transparency. 

    Implementing an online enrollment system can revolutionize your institution’s operations. It can help you create a seamless experience for prospective students while significantly easing administrative burdens.

    At Higher Education Marketing, we’ve spent years partnering with institutions to understand their unique needs. Our Student Portal is designed specifically for education providers like you, offering an all-in-one solution to streamline admissions and enhance the student journey. 

    Let’s explore ten benefits of adopting an online admissions and enrollment system and how HEM’s Student Portal can help you transform your processes. You’ll see how much value you can add to your student experience and how a sophisticated CRM can boost enrollment.

    Simplify student management and boost recruitment efficiency!

    Transform your student portal experience. Get a FREE HEM-SP demo today.

    Understanding Online Enrollment Systems

    What does an enrollment system do? An online admissions and enrollment system is a digital platform that streamlines student recruitment, application management, and enrollment. By moving these processes online, institutions can eliminate manual paperwork, reduce processing times, and improve the overall experience for students and staff. 

    These systems typically include customizable application forms, real-time tracking, automated communication tools, and integration with other institutional systems like CRMs and financial platforms. Now, let’s get to the good part–the many benefits of enrollment system tools. 

    Want to know what our Student Portal System can do for your school? Let’s connect! 

    A Brief Overview of the Enrollment Process

    To maximize the benefits of an online admissions and enrollment system, it’s important to understand the enrollment funnel. What is the process for enrollment? It’s a framework that outlines the four key stages prospective students go through when deciding to enroll at your institution. These include awareness, interest, decision, and action. 

    Awareness is the first stage, where students become familiar with your school through marketing efforts, social media, or word-of-mouth. During this phase, you aim to make a positive impression and highlight what sets your institution apart.

    Interest follows as students actively seek more information about your programs and offerings. At this stage, providing detailed program descriptions, virtual tours, and engaging content becomes crucial to capturing their attention.

    Decision is the third stage, where students weigh their options and determine if your institution aligns with their goals. Clear application processes, transparent cost estimates, and personalized communication can help sway their decision.

    Action is the final stage, where students commit by completing their application and enrollment. An intuitive and efficient online system, like HEM’s Student Portal, ensures this final step is seamless and stress-free, setting the tone for a positive student experience.

    HEM 1HEM 1

    Source: HEM

    1. Simplifying the Application Process

    An online admissions system allows you to simplify and accelerate the application process, providing a smoother experience for prospective students. Instead of requiring students to navigate complex paper forms or disjointed systems, you can offer them a centralized, user-friendly portal where they can complete their applications step-by-step.

    HEM’s Student Portal includes a customizable WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) form builder, allowing you to tailor applications to your institution’s specific requirements. With options for e-signatures, document uploads, and guided prompts, your students can complete their applications quickly and confidently.

    For administrators, this streamlined process means less time spent tracking incomplete applications and more time focusing on strategic initiatives. You can view, manage, and update application statuses in real time, ensuring nothing slips through the cracks.

    Example: The key benefit of online enrollment systems regarding the student journey is convenience. Here, American Public University is the perfect example.

    HEM 2HEM 2

    At the click of a button, students can begin their applications.

    HEM 3HEM 3

    They are immediately led to a simple, free application form where they’ll provide vital information needed for the American Public University to determine whether admission into their program will be granted and allow them to track their journey. 

    Source: American Public University 

    2. Enhancing Recruitment Efforts

    With an online system, you can improve how you engage with prospective students from the beginning of their journey. HEM’s Student Portal integrates powerful marketing automation tools, allowing you to nurture leads with personalized communications at every stage of the admissions funnel. You can keep prospective students engaged and informed by sending timely emails, reminders, and updates, increasing their likelihood of completing enrollment.

    Furthermore, the system’s data insights enable you to identify trends in student inquiries, monitor which marketing campaigns are most effective, and adjust your strategies accordingly. This data-driven approach ensures your recruitment efforts are consistently targeted and impactful.

    Example: Once a prospect has filled out a contact form or inquired about a program, they should receive a personalized follow-up message that provides program details and prompts them to follow the next steps.

    Here, the Academy of Learning sends an automated email about its Accelerated PSW Program to a prospect who recently expressed interest. Our Student Portal integrates email and messaging services to facilitate and automate communication with prospects, a key part of the recruitment process.

    HEM 4HEM 4

    Source: Academy of Learning | Gmail

    3. Reducing Administrative Burden

    One of the most immediate benefits of implementing an online admissions and enrollment system is the reduction in administrative workload. Manual processes can be time-consuming and prone to errors, but with an online platform like HEM’s Student Portal, you can centralize all tasks in one intuitive interface. From managing inquiries to processing payments, every step is organized and automated.

    Staff members across departments can collaborate more effectively, ensuring seamless communication and reducing duplication of efforts. The result? A more efficient admissions team with more time to focus on higher-value tasks, such as building relationships with students and refining institutional strategies.

    4. Offering Real-Time Insights

    Making informed decisions is essential in a competitive education landscape, and real-time insights from your admissions system can give you a critical advantage. HEM’s Student Portal provides robust reporting and tracking tools, giving visibility into key metrics such as completed applications, outstanding payments, and enrollment trends.

    Imagine identifying bottlenecks in your process as they happen, enabling you to resolve issues before they escalate. With this level of visibility, you can forecast enrollment numbers more accurately, allocate resources efficiently, and continuously optimize your processes.

    Example: The Student Portal allows you to create comprehensive, updated CRM reports to track enrollment data. Find out what kind of requests are being made, what desired action has been taken, and what’s next.

    HEM 5HEM 5

    Source: HEM

    5. Improving Communication and Transparency

    A common frustration for both students and staff in traditional admissions processes is a lack of clarity. With an online system, communication becomes seamless and transparent. Students can log into their portal anytime to check their application status, access important updates, and even chat with a virtual admissions assistant for guidance.

    HEM’s Student Portal goes a step further with its integrated communication tools. From automated notifications to direct messaging capabilities, the platform ensures that every student feels supported and informed throughout their journey. This transparency fosters trust and builds a stronger connection between students and your institution.

    6. Enhancing the Student Experience

    Your admissions process is often the first interaction prospective students have with your institution, making it crucial to leave a positive impression. An online admissions and enrollment system demonstrates that your school values convenience, efficiency, and modern technology, which resonate with today’s tech-savvy students.

    HEM’s Student Portal includes features like virtual admissions assistance and a quote builder, which allows students to estimate program costs upfront. These tools empower students with the information they need to make confident decisions, enhancing their overall experience and reinforcing their trust in your institution.

    Example: The Student Portal prioritizes a seamless experience for students, guiding them from step to step, making it easy to share important files, and providing a full picture of their enrollment journey.

    HEM 6HEM 6

    Source: HEM

    7. Facilitating Financial Planning

    Financial concerns are one of the most significant barriers prospective students face when considering enrollment. You can address these concerns head-on by incorporating tools like HEM’s quote builder and seamless payment gateway integration. The quote builder provides students and their families with transparent cost estimates for tuition and fees, enabling them to plan their finances effectively.

    The payment gateway integration simplifies the payment process, allowing students to make secure transactions directly through the portal. You can also track real-time payment statuses, ensuring that financial records are always current.

    Example: Accademia Italiana Salerno utilizes our Student Portal’s Quote Builder feature, which provides students with a close estimate of their school expenses. Your students will appreciate being able to plan when making a significant investment in their education.

    HEM 7HEM 7

    Source: HEM

    8. Supporting Institutional Flexibility

    Every institution is unique, with its own set of requirements and processes. That’s why customization is essential in any online admissions system. HEM’s Student Portal offers a flexible framework that adapts to your needs, whether you’re managing applications for a university, language school, or K-12 provider.

    You can customize application forms, workflows, and communications to align with your institutional goals. This flexibility ensures that the system serves as a seamless extension of your team rather than a one-size-fits-all solution.

    9. Boosting Efficiency with Integrated Tools

    Efficiency is at the heart of any successful admissions process; integrated tools can make a significant difference. HEM’s Student Portal combines essential functionalities like CRM systems, marketing automation, and data analytics into one centralized platform. This integration eliminates the need for multiple disconnected systems, streamlining your operations and improving collaboration across departments.

    For example, marketing teams can use the portal to track campaign effectiveness, admissions staff can manage inquiries and applications, and financial teams can monitor payments—all within the same system. This level of integration enhances productivity and ensures that every team member has access to the information they need.

    10. Preparing for the Future

    As the education sector evolves, embracing technology is no longer optional but essential! Implementing an online admissions and enrollment system positions your institution as a forward-thinking leader ready to adapt to changing student expectations and market demands.

    HEM’s Student Portal is built with the future in mind, incorporating scalable features that grow with your institution. Whether you want to expand your programs, attract international students, or enhance your digital presence, the portal provides the tools you need to succeed.

    Why Choose HEM’s Student Portal?

    At Higher Education Marketing, we consider ourselves your partners in success. Benefit from the advantages of enrollment system technology, from simplifying application management to enhancing communication and providing real-time insights. Our platform empowers you to transform your admissions process. Request a demo today and discover how HEM’s Student Portal can help you achieve your institutional goals while creating a superior experience for students and staff.

    Simplify student management and boost recruitment efficiency!

    Transform your student portal experience. Get a FREE HEM-SP demo today.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What does an enrollment system do?

    An online admissions and enrollment system is a digital platform that streamlines student recruitment, application management, and enrollment.

    What is the process for enrollment?

    It’s a framework that outlines the four key stages prospective students go through when deciding to enroll at your institution. These include awareness, interest, decision, and action.

    Source link

  • You may not know this example of translation research, but it will have changed your life . . .

    You may not know this example of translation research, but it will have changed your life . . .

    Arguably, the most recognisable example of translational research in recent years was the swift development and rollout of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. The world was waiting for this research to meet its real-world ambition. Many members of the public would recognise that some of this research was undertaken at Oxford University and, with some exceptions, would also recognise the beneficial impact of the vaccine for both individuals and society. Following the rollout, there was even a public discussion that touched upon the idea of interdisciplinarity. How could the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine be communicated to communities who felt reluctant to have the jab or distrustful of medical science?

    However, there was another piece of research that was translated into real-world effect with serendipitous timing.

    In 2013, Professor Andrew Ellis was working at the Aston Institute of Photonic Technologies. Ellis had previously worked at BT, where his observations and experience suggested that the ‘capacity’ needed in the telephone infrastructure had and would increase consistently over time and was consistently underestimated. Ellis recalls an ongoing refrain of ‘surely we have enough capacity already’. This continued to be true once the copper phone lines were used to deliver data for home internet usage.

    At this point, most residential properties were on ADSL (Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line) internet connections. That is where copper wires are used to deliver broadband internet. Homes were typically working at speeds of around 8 megabits per second (Mbps).

    The Government had developed a strategy setting out that the majority of residential properties should be able to work at speeds of ‘at least 2 Mbps per second and 95% of the UK receiving far greater speeds (at least 24 Mbps) by 2017’. Fibre broadband was beginning to be rolled out, which used fibre optic cables to transmit data much more quickly. However, these fibre optic cables were generally only used to reach the street cabinet, with copper wires connecting the street cabinets to individual homes, restricting the broadband speed that could be achieved.

    From his previous work, Ellis could see that this ambition was neither competitive internationally nor of sufficient use long-term when demand for emerging applications was taken into account. He demonstrated that capacity was falling well below the predicted need and that the UK was slipping down the league table for connectivity in economically developed countries. Estonia, Poland, Korea and Norway were all streaking ahead.

    Ellis contacted MPs working on this strategy via the Industry and Parliament Trust. Two breakfast meetings and a dinner meeting were held to discuss the lack of ambition in the strategy. However, only the fortuitous attendance of a senior civil servant at the dinner meeting led to a policy breakthrough. Further momentum and publicity were generated by a meeting organised by the Royal Society to discuss ‘Communication networks beyond the capacity crunch’, including a presentation by Dr Andrew Lord.

    Ellis was lobbying for an increase in ambition. There was resistance to this as there was no additional money to spend on improving infrastructure outside of the spending review cycle. Ellis convinced the Government that no additional spending was needed to change the ambition. Changing a number in a policy document wouldn’t (on this occasion) cost the government any more money. (The terms ‘pure-fibre’ and ‘full-fibre’ were also coined at these meetings, meaning using fibre optics cables to the street cabinet and from the cabinet to individual homes.)

    With the Government changing their ambition, providers such as Clear Fibre, Gigaclear and BT Openreach would need to improve the infrastructure to deliver faster broadband to our homes.

    It was estimated that upgrading the whole UK to full fibre would cost £40-60 billion as part of the EU-funded Discus project. Research by the AiPT team showed that it would be closer to £8-10 billion if the network was reconfigured according to their research proposals, a one-for-one replacement of network equipment from copper to fibre-based ones. Further, research demonstrated that fibre is also more energy efficient.

    Optical networks were using about 2% of the electricity in the developing world. (Ellis explained that BT objected to this figure, stating that it was, in fact, 1.96%!) Not only was a full-fibre network faster, it was also more energy efficient. (This now pales in significance to the energy consumption that will increasingly be needed to power AI data centres.)

    BT began rolling out full-fibre broadband to 80% of the UK. In 2019, BT hired heavily for this work, much of which was completed in the first few months of 2020. The increased activity and presence of BT vans helped fuel the 5G coronavirus conspiracy!

    In a moment of serendipity, this meant that by the 23rd of March 2020, when the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, announced the first lockdown, there was enough access capacity for many of us to begin working at home. As we got used to Zoom and Teams, multiple people were using video calls in one household for work and homeschooling. Not only did this allow for a relatively smooth transition to remote working, but it allowed our children to continue accessing their education and for us to keep in touch with friends and family (Zoom quiz, anyone?) The societal shift to remote working, prompted by lockdowns but enabled by full-fibre, remains both contested in terms of productivity and profound in terms of impact.

    I asked Andrew what challenges he faced when trying to inform industry and policy of his research. He noted three key barriers:

    1. To impact Government policy, one needs to know the right person to talk to. There must be barriers to prevent a free-for-all lobbying system of civil servants. However, policy institutes, research impact centres and organisations such as the IPT should be able to facilitate connections when this is helpful to both parties.
    2. The second – is the structure of academic contracts. New ideas often come from, and are certainly implemented by, PhD students and Research Assistants. However, given that most research assistants are on two- or three-year contracts, their eyes are firmly on improving their CV to land the next contract. This often leads them to focus almost entirely on publications. To build good links with industry and engage in long-term strategy, longer-term job contracts are needed.
    3. Similarly, he feels a strong tension between metrics, such as 4* papers, required for REF and rapid publication of results in outlets read or attended by decision-makers in industry, where solutions are often required in months rather than years

    Whilst the success of the COVID vaccine development may have made global headlines, the work of the AiPT’s team (Andrew believes that others lobbied on the same topic, including Professor Dimitra Simeonidou at the University of Bristol, Professor Polina Bayvel CBE at University College London and Professor Sir David Payne at Southampton University) quietly allowed many of us to continue working and to be connected to our colleagues, friends, and family throughout the pandemic. Further, as Professor Sarah Gilbert, Professor of Vaccinology at the Jenner Institute and lead scientist on the vaccine project, explains, the ability to work remotely with trial volunteers (giving them information via video instead of in-person presentations) and collaborating with colleagues across the globe was vital in the vaccine production itself.

    Source link

  • Ask not what you can do for engineering…

    Ask not what you can do for engineering…

    • Professor Beverley Gibbs, Director of the Dyson Institute for Engineering & Technology, and Chair or the Engineering Professors’ Council’s Education, Employability & Skills Committee; and Johnny Rich, Chief Executive of the Engineering Professors’ Council
    • Last Thursday 13 February 2025, HEPI published One Step Beyond: How the school and college curriculum in England can prepare young people for higher education. This piece considers how the school curriculum can be adapted to develop creativity, practical skills, and inclusive, real-world learning.

    Engineering is a UK powerhouse sector, growing in all UK regions and impacting all economic sectors. Engineers design, build and maintain the infrastructure, products and services that our economy and society depend on, provide life-saving medical devices, and are the drivers in our transition to a more sustainable world.

    It might be reasonable then to suppose that the school curriculum would be designed to prepare pupils for a sector that accounts for a fifth of UK jobs and a quarter of vacancies.[i] On the contrary, engineering is almost entirely absent from the school curriculum. To the age of 16, a pupil can pass through education blithely unaware that engineering exists, let alone what it entails. Its closest correspondent is the Design & Technology GCSE. But due to costs, equipment needs and teacher shortages, even that declined by two-thirds between 2011 and 2023.

    Post-16, the BTEC pathways are also under threat. In the past they have provided a critical entry route into engineering for a diversity of students, particularly those from lower socioeconomic groups or who were keen to give engineering a try.

    They are being displaced by the Engineering T-level route – courses which, because they cannot be combined in the same way as BTECs, require a full-time commitment to a single subject and subsequent career. That’s quite an ask to make of a 15-year-old with no prior educational experience in engineering.

    Moreover, as a recent study by the Engineering Professors Council found, many universities feel that the mathematical content of T levels fails to meet the entry requirement for undergraduate Engineering courses.[ii]

    But Professor Francis’s review of the curriculum and assessment is not about engineering. No doubt every discipline and sector would want to make its own special pleading, and while few would have as good a case as engineering might, we want to focus on wider benefits to the education system (that would also happen to serve engineering better).

    Engineers are creative, but practical; analytical, but hands-on; dreamers, but problem-solvers. They often work in teams, crossing disciplines, especially with business and design. And often, their driving passion is to make the world a better place. Are these not traits we’d want to instil in every school-leaver?

    One of the reasons engineering is neglected in the school curriculum is perhaps because it is (wrongly) considered analogous to applied sciences and mathematics. That’s a deeply reductive view. The approaches adopted by contemporary engineering have much to offer the school curriculum, with implications far broader than engineering’s own interests.

    Creativity

    Ours will not be the only voice calling for more creativity in schools. This would, of course, support the UK’s creative arts economy, but engineers also use their creativity to imagine, design, solve problems and challenge the status quo. Creativity in the school curriculum nurtures resilience and a healthy ability to be comfortable with subjectivity.

    A skills-based curriculum

    The tide towards a ‘knowledge-rich curriculum’ in recent years has set up a false dichotomy with the development of skills. What is lost is the conscious focus on that development, and so the acquisition of skills becomes an accidental and devalued by‑product rather than a deliberate outcome.

    For example, no one doubts the cardinal importance of mathematics and the sciences, but in learning about them, engineers synthesise these concepts to create reality.  In an information-rich age it is critical that future generations can turn knowledge into know-how, discriminate between good and bad sources, and develop subject-specific and transversal skills along the way. This is not about becoming engineers, but twenty‑first‑century citizens.

    One of the most effective ways to develop and assess skills-based approaches is through problem- (or project-) based learning (PBL) strategies. PBL comprises a spectrum of active learning techniques that ground (ideally, cross-subject) knowledge in relevant, real-world situations with students working in teams, learning to collaborate, reflect and accommodate one another’s strengths and weaknesses. Long‑standing critiques of the ‘work-readiness’ of engineering graduates have stimulated a growing implementation of PBL approaches in engineering courses, championed by professional bodies, employers and faculties alike.

    We would encourage schools to consider what it would look like to adopt a similar approach: active learning focused on a project, acquiring the interdisciplinary knowledge to address the challenge. Could we replace pupils pleading, “Why do I have to learn this?” with stimulating their curiosity?

    Assessment

    Examinations are, generally, a poor imitation of the way in which knowledge is put to use in modern life and they rarely even attempt to assess skills or behaviours – except, of course, one: the ability to perform recall under high-stakes pressure. This shouldn’t be regarded as life’s pre-eminent performance metric, especially given the inherent sexism it involves.[iii]

    In engineering education, we take inspiration from a raft of professional artefacts to create interesting and diverse assessment formats. Alongside tutorial sheets and examinations, we use designs, proposals, plans, specifications, portfolios, presentations, debates, and creative media. Students are assessed individually but also in teams, because teamwork in itself is a valuable attribute. This approach is not merely fairer and less anomalous, but we are also discovering how much more inclusive it is to draw on a varied assessment regime. Different intelligences are given the opportunity to shine, and diversity becomes an asset, not an incongruity.

    It is not coincidental that these approaches that are common in engineering – creativity, skills-based orientation, learning through application, and diverse ‘authentic’ assessment – are also approaches that are inclusive of neurodiverse minds. Engineers are more likely to suffer from the symptoms of autism-related disorders than any other profession, and dyslexia is thought to be three times more prevalent amongst engineers than in the general population (30% compared to 10%). We know the great contributions neurodiverse minds make to engineering and recognise this diversity of thinking as the strength it is. 

    A school curriculum and assessment strategy that is overly compartmentalised and rigid is in danger of disenfranchising large groups of young people, kettling them into narrow career paths, when, given the right opportunities, they would become leading thinkers, doers, makers and entrepreneurs.  

    [i]  EngineeringUK: https://www.engineeringuk.com/media/319071/euk-key-facts-and-stats-sept23.pdf

    [ii] Makramalla, M., Atkins, C., and Rich, J., Engineering Professors Council, 2024: Maths for Engineering: Do T levels add up? https://epc.ac.uk/article/maths-for-engineering-do-t-levels-add-up/

    [iii] During an exam period of around a month, half the students are likely to have to sit between a fifth and a quarter of their exams while menstruating. Two-thirds of girls report feeling less able to perform in time-limited assessments during their period (Plan International 2021, https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2024/01/22/period-poverty-in-uk-higher-education-addressing-stigma-and-empowering-students/) and accommodations are challenging to secure for an eventuality that – despite its ubiquity – carries much stigma.

    Source link