Category: Blog

  • UK higher education in spring 2025: 10 ‘killer facts’

    UK higher education in spring 2025: 10 ‘killer facts’

    • This is the text of a speech delivered by Nick Hillman, HEPI’s Director, to the 16th Annual Student Housing Investment Conference.

    Good morning. It is wonderful to be here, even if the outlook for our sector does not feel quite as rosy as when I have appeared here in the past – and, given the new migration white paper from the Home Office, not as rosy as it felt just a few hours ago.

    The currency of policymaking is ‘killer facts’: those one-off striking statistics that act as ammunition for policymakers.

    • One example of a recent killer fact is the Office for Students’ announcement in November 2024 that ‘nearly three quarters (72 per cent) of higher education providers could be in deficit by 2025-26’ (1), which has certainly concentrated minds.
    • A second killer fact currently obsessing policymakers is 782,000 (2), which is the number for net inward migration to the UK in 2023 and which is driving the new crackdowns.

    In what is left of my 15 minutes, I want to focus on a few more killer facts.

    First, just in case you have not come across the organisation I lead before, the Higher Education Policy Institute or HEPI is the UK’s only specialist think tank for higher education and a registered charity. Our goal is to prompt evidence-based conversations about higher education policy through engagement, publications and events. We are funded by most universities throughout the UK and a limited number of corporations, including some of the bigger Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) providers, such as Unite Students, UPP and iQ, and we are very grateful for that support.

    The killer number I wish to provide about our own work is 10: that is how many new bits of research we have produced since 1 January 2025 (3). The reports we have covered include:

    We have also published 112 blogs since 1 January, covering the full range of higher education issues. The three most well-read pieces so far this year are:

    Conferences like this one are organised far in advance and the title I was given is ‘New Government Policy – what does it mean for the Sector?’ All I can say is: I wish I knew. I suspect the organisers thought we might have found out the answer to this question by now when they first scoped out the agenda late last year.

    But the fact is, aside from a letter from the Secretary of State for Education, the Rt Hon. Bridget Phillipson, to vice-chancellors from November last year, which chastised universities for not doing more on economic growth, access, teaching quality, efficiency and civic engagement, we are still waiting for a hint on what this Government’s legacy on higher education will be. So far, we have had more higher education policy from the Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government than we have from the Department for Education.

    I keep reading the administration is in its early days and needs time to find its feet, but it is now 10 months in. It took Tony Blair just two months after the 1997 election to announce the (re)introduction of tuition fees and it took the Coalition just six months after the 2010 election to announce the tripling of fees to £9,000.

    We have long ago missed the boat for making significant changes to fees and funding for 2025/26 and we will soon miss the boat for making changes for 2026/27, by which point we will be halfway through this Parliament.

    One of the reasons for the lack of clarity over government policy is that the shadow ministers who were responsible for the Labour Party’s approach to higher education and research in Opposition prior to the election did not end up in charge of those areas in government, so there was a new broom. This sort of sweeping out is now entirely normal. Which takes me to my next killer fact: in my 11 years leading HEPI, there have been 11 Ministers for Universities and 11 Secretaries of State for Education (4).

    The biggest challenge facing institutions currently is obviously the financial one. Since the brave decision to raise the full-time undergraduate fee cap to £9,000 from 2012, inflation has been eating away at the sum so it is now less than two-thirds of what it was, in real terms: according to Mark Corver of DataHE, the current fee cap of £9,250 is actually worth just £5,714 in 2012/13 terms (5). That is the same level as when John Major felt it necessary to set up the Dearing review, with the agreement of Tony Blair in Opposition.

    Mark Corver also points out in his recent fascinating LinkedIn post that an international student at a higher-tariff provider is now worth £69,000 (6) more to their university over the lifetime of a three-year course than a home student, as a result of the much higher international student fees. One possible response to that is to beat up on universities, as the Minister for Universities did earlier this week in a piece on the Telegraph website, for feathering their own nests. Another is to recognise that universities have not let their charitable status hold them back in becoming a vitally important UK export sector from which we all benefit – and also that it is our leading universities’ entrepreneurial spirit which has created the cross-subsidies that keep UK universities at the top of the international league tables, which ministers generally like to celebrate.

    And despite all the accusations and denials, we should be honest that university staff would have to be super human not to take those stark numbers into account when deciding how many of their places will be reserved for people from other countries and how many for home students.

    When I have spoken at this and similar events in the past, I have usually been optimistic on future student numbers. There are still some grounds for optimism in relation to both home and international students. For example, we have had decades of growth in UK higher education and the number of UK school leavers grows in each year of this decade.

    We used to predict that English universities alone would need another 350,000 places for home students by 2035 (7) – and many more still if the opportunity to reach higher education were spread more equally throughout society. However, we are more pessimistic now because, while demand for higher education went up during COVID, it has slipped back in recent times.

    In relation to international students, last week’s report from the Office for Students notes:

    ‘The reported non-UK student recruitment in 2023-24 was 15.5 per cent lower than last year’s forecast, largely because of a reduction in recruitment from January 2024 onwards [when the rules on dependants were tightened up]. This reduction is forecast to continue in 2024-25 with a small overall decrease in student numbers, meaning that entrant numbers are now projected to be 21 per cent lower than previous forecasts.’

    Yesterday’s migration white paper was accompanied by a Technical Annex, which estimated the policy changes the Government has proposed will reduce incoming international students by getting on for 40,000.

    In relation to home students, the Office for Students’ report notes:

    ‘In 2023-24, UK entrants were reported at broadly the same level as the previous year, but 10.8 per cent lower than forecast.’

    When it comes to the future, the OfS chastise regulated providers for being over-ambitious and model some alternative options, which suggest ‘providers would face significant financial challenges in all scenarios.’

    No one knows with complete certainty why demand is now so flat, but – when focusing in on home students – it seems to me the most likely causes are:

    1. First, the cost-of-living affecting students, whose maintenance packages have not kept up with anything like the true cost of being a student – my killer facts on this are that 57% of full-time undergraduates now do paid work during term time (8) (according to the 2024 HEPI / Advance HE Student Academic Experience Survey) and also that, according to our calculations, students need £18k per year to live with dignity (9), which is significantly above the maximum maintenance loan – this number was calculated for second and third-years in houses of multiple occupation, but I can announced today that we are now working on a second iteration of the Student Minimum Income Standard with Technology1 and the University of Loughborough looking at first-year students in PBSA.
    2. The second factor that I think is dampening demand is the negative rhetoric about higher education emanating from all sorts of places. In the last few days, we even have had two Labour MPs for northern seats say they are relaxed about the prospect of universities disappearing – one of them, Dan Carden, wrote in the Daily Mail that he ‘would close half our universities and turn them into vocational colleges.’ With friends like that, who needs enemies?

    Before I sit down, I want to make just one more point. I was asked in the rubric for today to mention degree apprenticeships. So let me say that there is a whole lot of nonsense talked about them, especially to young people. They are amazing when they work out, such as  when the apprentice knows exactly what profession they want to enter and to work in for the foreseeable future. I am proud to have a relative doing one. But despite all the promises, especially from the previous Government, degree apprenticeships barely exist for young people just out of school. Only 5% of Level 6 entrants are on degree apprenticeships (10) and the majority of them are 25 or over – just 13% were aged 18 in 2022/23. Moreover, many of those who do start a Level 6 apprenticeship do not complete the course. So for a conference like this one in 2025, degree apprenticeships remain something of a red herring.

    Source link

  • ‘What the hell just happened?’ Australia’s flirtation with a levy on international students – By Professor Andrew Norton

    ‘What the hell just happened?’ Australia’s flirtation with a levy on international students – By Professor Andrew Norton

    • This blog has been kindly written for HEPI by Andrew Norton, Professor of Higher Education Policy at Monash Business School, Monash University.
    • The thoughts of Nick Hillman, HEPI’s Director, on the levy can be read on the Research Professional News website here.

    For an Australian reader the UK immigration white paper’s proposal for a levy on international student fee revenue sounds familiar. In mid-2023 just such a levy was suggested for Australia by the interim report of a major higher education policy review. Like its UK version, the idea was to reinvest levy revenue in education. While the interim report lacked white paper status, education minister Jason Clare liked the idea enough to mention it in his report launch speech. 

    But now the levy has vanished from the Australian policy agenda. When the Universities Accord final report was released in February 2024 the levy idea was there but postponed, shunted off until after other major funding reforms that will start in 2027 at the earliest. So far as I can find, the Minister – newly reappointed this week after Labor’s election victory on 3 May – has not mentioned the idea in public for 18 months.

    So what happened? Predictably, the universities that stood to lose the most from the levy opposed it. But the bigger reason was that between mid-2023 and late 2023 the politics of international education in Australia were turned upside down. In a few months international education went from a valuable export industry to a cause of Australia’s housing shortages. International student numbers had to be cut. 

    As originally proposed in Australia the international student levy was not linked to migration policy. Some reduction in student demand was predicted, as levy costs were passed on through higher fees. But this was a policy side-effect, not its goal. If too many international students were deterred the levy would not raise enough money to achieve its domestic objectives. The Government needed more effective ways of bringing international student numbers back down. 

    Between October 2023 and July 2024 the Australian Government introduced, on my count, nine measures to block or discourage would-be international students. 

    Among the Government’s nine measures was one that delivered it international student revenue much more quickly than the proposed levy. The Government more than doubled student visa application fees from A$710 (~£330) to A$1,600 (~£745), claiming that the money would be spent on policies benefiting domestic students. During the 2025 election campaign Labor said it would increase visa fees again, to A$2,000 (~£930). The UK’s £524 fee looks cheap by comparison. 

    Higher visa fees and other migration measures had two big advantages over the once-proposed levy from the perspective of the Australian Government – legal ease and speed in delivering on migration goals. In Australia, many migration changes can be made by ministerial determination without parliamentary review. The levy required legislation. Australia’s system of sending controversial legislation to often-bruising Senate inquiries increases political costs, even when the bill ultimately passes.

    What visa fees lack is the Robin Hood element of the Australian levy as proposed. In 2023 the University of Sydney alone earned 14% of all university international student fee revenue. The top six universities received more than half of the total. Levy advocates argue that these gains are built on past taxpayer subsidies and prime real estate. Profits built on these foundations can legitimately be taxed for the wider benefit of Australian higher education. 

    In Australia generally, and under Labor governments especially, an egalitarian political culture gives these levy arguments some resonance. But for the foreseeable future migration is a bigger issue than university funding, and visa policies a more straightforward way of bringing down international student numbers than levies. Perhaps the levy idea will return, but the government’s long silence on the subject suggests that this will not happen anytime soon.

    Source link

  • Higher Education franchising is not the problem. Rogue providers and regulatory gaps are

    Higher Education franchising is not the problem. Rogue providers and regulatory gaps are

    • By Charlie Tennant, Vice Principal at the London School of Science & Technology.

    Higher education franchising is once more in the limelight for the wrong reasons, as many in the sector again question its benefits, the risks it poses to public funds and the use of it by niche, emerging and/or for-profit higher education providers. However, the stories and discourse miss the key factors that have allowed for abuse of the franchise model. It is gaps in higher education regulation that have led to franchising being scapegoated for what is, at its core, abuse by rogue providers that do not represent the vast majority of those engaged in franchising.

    Franchising is a model through which UK universities have delivered higher education for over two decades. Internationally, this forms part of many forms of Transnational Education (TNE), that as seen in Universities UK International (UUKi)’s Scale of UK Higher Education Transnational Education reports, continues to grow in scale. Locally, providers have adopted the franchise model since the mid-2000s, although since then, the market for many of those providers has changed from international students to local students. This change meant the number of students at these providers who were eligible for Student Loans Company (SLC) funding has grown. The model allows institutions that have found new approaches, differentiated courses, or cold spots of higher education to develop and expand their provision, with a significant portion of them hoping to one day gain their own Degree Awarding Powers (DAPs).

    However, the regulation of domestic franchise provision has not been as robust as it could be. The onus has rightly been put on the universities that are franchising their courses to ensure academic quality and standards of the franchise delivery, although there is currently no direct regulation of higher education franchise providers. Therefore, while some blame can be apportioned to universities engaged in franchising, it can be argued that the Department for Education (DfE) and policymakers’ approach to regulating higher education franchises has led to gaps open to abuse by rogue providers. Furthermore, routes for franchise providers to gain DAPs have been prolonged and made complex by the pause in processing of registration applications by the Office for Students (OfS). Now, the abuse of SLC funding by particular providers of the franchise model, reported by the Sunday Times in an article on 22nd March 2025 and in several articles since then, has brought the reputation of all franchise providers into disrepute, and connected the abuse to use of recruitment agents and the settled Romanian population in the UK.

    In a January 2025 press release for their consultation on franchise provision regulations, the Government outlined the benefits of franchising when done right, and its intention to crack down on rogue higher education providers. Professor Nick Braisby’s HEPI blog published in response to the consultation, rightly welcomes the Government’s new proposals, but asks for the sector to remain critical. This blog therefore proposes three ways in which to ensure the Government and the OfS achieve what they hope to through the crackdown.

    Firstly, the DfE, policymakers and the OfS need to enable quicker routes for franchise providers to join the regulator’s Register. This will allow greater scrutiny at an earlier stage in the lifecycle of an emerging higher education provider (which make up the majority of providers delivering franchised courses) and introduce a focus on their governance structures. Since the set-up of the OfS Register, providers have experienced long lead times for joining the Register, and on top of this, from December 2024, the regulator paused applications for the Register, DAPs and changes of registration category, thus exacerbating the issue of missing opportunities to directly regulate more franchise providers. This is counterintuitive given the OfS’s remarks around the risks associated with an over-reliance by both universities and franchise providers on partnership provision in their Insight Brief regarding subcontractual arrangements in higher education published just two months prior to the pause. The OfS’ Register of providers has the potential to be a great tool for transparency, but the current lead times and design of the approach lead to gaps in regulation that can be exploited by rogue providers.

    Secondly, instead of considering an outright ban, the DfE should implement a robust quality framework for domestic student recruitment agents. As a blueprint, they should draw from the established Agent Quality Framework (AQF) developed by the British Council, Universities UK International (UUKi), and the UK Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA). As with international student recruitment, the unregulated use of agents for domestic recruitment presents significant risks. By adopting a structured quality framework, the DfE and OfS can mitigate these risks and foster greater transparency and accountability. Agents, when operating under clear ethical guidelines and quality standards, can play a crucial role in widening participation, particularly by reaching communities historically underserved by traditional university outreach, for example, the UK’s settled Romanian population. A tailored framework can help to ensure transparency, effective governance and the establishment of professional standards of agents.

    Finally, the DfE, policymakers and the OfS need to engage more with franchise providers and their university partners jointly. So far, engagements have been disjointed, with either a university or one of their partner franchise providers engaged separately. This creates barriers to collaboration, which would otherwise aid in the pursuit of greater transparency, oversight and the maintenance of academic quality and standards. Bringing both universities and franchise providers together when engaging will enable the Government to find ways to both demonstrate the benefits of franchise provision, as well as develop regulatory approaches and guidance collaboratively with stakeholders. This joint engagement with universities and their partner franchise provider could pave the early steps towards a sector-wide code of practice, an idea discussed in HEPI and Buckinghamshire New University’s Debate Paper on franchising. This could then sit alongside collaboratively developed regulations that would ensure rogue providers cannot abuse regulatory gaps. It will also help to establish a more balanced burden of regulation between universities and their franchise provider partners, and safeguard the reputation of franchise provision.

    Ultimately, effective regulation of the broader higher education student journey, streamlined registration, and collaborative engagement are crucial. By addressing these systemic gaps and promoting transparency, the policymakers, DfE, OfS, and the higher education sector can restore faith in franchising and ensure its legitimate benefits are realised.

    Source link

  • New Government, familiar problems – By Chris Husbands

    New Government, familiar problems – By Chris Husbands

    The higher education sector had high hopes of a new government last July. Early messaging from ministers suggested that they were justified.  The Guardian quoted Peter Kyle, the Science Secretary, declaring an ‘end to the war on universities’. Speaking to the Commons in September 2024, the Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said that ‘the last Government ..use[d] our world-leading sector as a political football, talking down institutions and watching on as the situation became…desperate. I [want to]…return universities to being the engines of growth and opportunity‘.  In November, she announced a rise – albeit for just one year in the first instance – in the undergraduate tuition fee, with the prospect of alleviating pressure on higher education budgets.

    Ten months on, the hopes look tarnished as financial, political and policy challenges mount. The scale of the higher education funding challenge is deepening, it seems, by the week. The OfS has reported that four in ten universities will report a deficit this year.  Restructuring programmes are underway in scores of universities, with some institutions on their second, third or even fourth round of savings.  The post-study graduate visa, an important lifeline for international student recruitment, appears to be under threat.

    There are eerie echoes of headlines and comments under the last government.  The Daily Telegraph declared that a ‘record number of universities [are] in deficit’. The Times claimed that universities that appeared to report relatively poor progression to graduate-level jobs were to be ‘named and shamed’. Following the success of Reform UK in local elections, some backbench Labour MPs have been sharply critical of universities: ‘I would close half our universities and turn them into vocational colleges’, wrote the Liverpool MP Dan Carden (BA, London School of Economics, since you ask), whilst Jonathan Hinder, MP for Pendle (MA Oxford) declared himself ‘happy to be bold and say I don’t think we should have anywhere near as many universities and university places‘. Philip Augar, who reviewed skills funding for Theresa May’s Government, wrote in the Financial Times that the ‘English higher education market is broken‘ as a result of a ‘failed free market experiment’. It seems terribly familiar: a sector in financial crisis, losing political traction and friends.

    Policy direction appears to be unclear. The English higher education sector is still largely shaped by the coalition government’s policy decisions between 2010 and 2015. Its key design principles include uncapped student demand since number controls were abolished in 2013, assumed cross-subsidies across and between activity streams allowing for institutional flexibility, access to private capital markets since HEFCE capital funding was removed in 2011, diverse missions but largely homogenous delivery models based around traditional terms and full-time, three-year undergraduate provision, and jealously protected institutional autonomy. Familiar though these principles are in higher education policy, some are in truth relatively recent, and are creating tensions between what the nation wants from its university system, what universities can offer and what the government and others are willing to pay for.   

    Moreover, the sector we have in 2025 is not the sector which the 2017 Higher Education and Reform Act (HERA) envisaged: HERA was expected to significantly re-shape the sector. The government’s impact assessment of HERA suggested that there would be in the order of 800 HE providers by the mid-2020s.  This did not happen, though the impact of private capital, often channelled through established institutions and now rapidly growing for-profit providers, should not be underestimated as a longer-term transformative force in the sector.

    We are expecting both a three-year comprehensive spending review and a post-16 White Paper in a couple of months’ time. In my 2024 HEPI paper, ’Four Futures’, I sketched out possible scenarios for a sector facing intense challenges. The near-frozen undergraduate fee was reducing the unit of resource for undergraduate teaching as costs rose. Undergraduate demand seemed to be softening amongst (especially) disadvantaged eighteen-year-olds. International student demand remains volatile and subject to political change in visa regulations.  The structural deficit on research funding deepened.  ‘Four Futures’ outlined four scenarios, summarised in Table 1.

    Of course, we all want a mixture of cost control, thriving universities, regional growth and research excellence, but it is difficult to have all of them. Governments and universities set priorities based on limited resources, so there are choices to be made and trade-offs to be confronted for both policymakers and institutional leaders. 

    Government needs to make decisions about universities in the context of competing and changing policy imperatives. It needs to balance restoring government finances, allocating resources to other needy sectors, securing economic growth, and, more obviously important than a year ago, protecting sovereign intellectual property assets and growing defence-related R&D. The Secretary of State’s letter to Vice-Chancellors in the Autumn identified growth, engagement with place, teaching excellence, widening participation and securing efficiencies, but did not unpick the tensions between them.  That depends on articulating a stronger vision for higher education given the Government’s priorities and resources and the economic challenges facing institutions, and it is a task for the forthcoming White Paper.  

    But there are urgent choices too for institutions, and those need to be made quickly in many universities.  Institutional and sector efficiencies are vital, and a key theme of the UUK Carrington Review, but they need to be considered in the light of sustainable operating models for both academic delivery and professional services. Institutions need a clearly articulated value proposition, communicated strongly and effectively and capable of driving the operating model. In the past, too many universities have tried to do too many things – and with resources scarce, the choices cannot be ducked. That means there is a consideration which links the choices facing government and those facing individual institutions.  If a core strength of the English system lies in its diversity and its distributed excellence, individual institutions need to think about their place in, and responsibilities to, the wider HE system. For a sector characterised by intense competition, that is a profound cultural shift, notwithstanding the economic and legal challenges of collaboration.

    The higher education sector now is not the sector we have always had, and therefore it won’t be the sector we always have. How the sector collectively, and institutions individually, confront choices is a test for policymakers and institutional leaders.

    Source link

  • Ripple effects of US DEI backlash: What should UK universities do?

    Ripple effects of US DEI backlash: What should UK universities do?

    • By Stephanie Marshall, Vice Principal (Education), Queen Mary University of London. She is the author of the forthcoming Strategic Leadership of Change in Higher Education (3rd edition, Routledge).

    Warner Bros., Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Disney, Deloitte, Amazon, and Google – these are just some of the companies that have scaled back their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives or changed their language around such programs since Trump’s inauguration. This list, as we know, continues to grow more than three months into his administration. Meanwhile, universities around the world have anxiously watched the US Department of Education threaten to withdraw funding from institutions that consider race in their decision-making, with institutions like Columbia University under the axe.

    Universities in the UK are not immune to the ideological shifts across the Atlantic. The Daily Mail, for example, has already drawn attention to DEI spending in UK higher education, with attention-grabbing headlines such as: ‘Spending on university campus diversity staff skyrockets to massive £28 million a year – with one boss on an eye-watering six-figure sum’.

    Advocates of DEI have argued against such sentiments, emphasising that ethnic minorities are not the only ones to benefit from equitable and fair workplace policies and practices. The advantages of inclusion spread to first-generation learners, individuals with disabilities and others from underrepresented backgrounds. Proponents also remind us that social justice has a compelling business case. Yet even where a business case for DEI exists, it appears that ideological pressures are beginning to outweigh even commercial logic, let alone basic fairness.

    The bigger picture

    This pushback against DEI does not occur in isolation. It is part of a broader challenge to the values of openness, inclusion and global cooperation that have long underpinned and defined higher education. And as we have seen in the last few years in the UK, international students have become part of this debate.

    The pressing question for university leadership is whether these trends will gain further traction in the UK. If so, what implications will they hold for the future of UK higher education – a sector that has prided itself on the collective efforts and advances made towards a more representative, inclusive offer?

    ‘The UK is not the US. That is a critical starting point for any approach we have’, Professor Tim Soutphommasane, Chief Diversity Officer at the University of Oxford, recently pointed out at a seminar hosted by the Higher Education Policy Institute.

    This distinction is important, yet ongoing political developments suggest that the UK remains susceptible to US influence while facing similar pressures against openness from within its own borders. So, what are some of the risks and opportunities?

    On the one hand, growing anti-DEI and anti-immigration sentiment poses a shared risk to universities worldwide.

    Leading study destinations such as the US, Canada, the UK and Australia often have an interdependent, shared approach to international student policy. To elaborate, in 2021 – four years ago – fears over declining international student numbers led the UK and Canada to implement measures that attracted more applicants, ultimately allowing them to surpass pre-pandemic enrolment figures. Meanwhile, Australia struggled and lagged behind until it lifted its cap on working hours, offered visa refunds and extended post-study work permits. (I discuss these trends and their implications in greater detail in my forthcoming book, Strategic Leadership of Change in Higher Education, 3rd edition, Taylor & Francis.)

    Roll forward four years, and we can see that restrictive policies in one country create lucrative opportunities for others.

    With Australia now tightening visa rules, Canada reducing student permits, and the US signalling an ‘immigration crackdown’, the UK government has a unique opportunity – perhaps even a responsibility – to assert its stance on cross-border education and research while strengthening its position as a preferred destination. The British Council’s Annual Five Trends to Watch 2025 report highlights how Trump’s first term (2017-21) saw consecutive declines in international student enrolment in US universities, and it would come as no surprise to anyone if enrolment were to drop again during his second term in office.

    Way forward

    As global uncertainties persist, it is more important than ever for the UK to demonstrate its commitment to diversity and inclusivity, both domestically and internationally. From an economic perspective, and contrary to popular rhetoric, it is worth remembering, as Dr. Gavan Conlon of London School of Economics stated:,

    International students contribute nearly ten times more to the economy than they take out, boosting both local and national economic well-being.

    Education is indeed one of the UK’s greatest exports.

    But continuing to attract international students is not just a pragmatic move for financial sustainability – it is also a powerful statement of the values of collaboration, inclusivity, and global engagement that define UK higher education. Moreover, if there are financial gains brought by international students, they must be utilised to strengthen our ability to protect institutional autonomy and uphold our principles in these difficult times. As culture wars intensify, UK universities must stand firm as internationally highly respected centres of partnership and exchange.

    Source link

  • Redefining Student Success with Digital Marketing and CRM

    Redefining Student Success with Digital Marketing and CRM

    Reading Time: 10 minutes

    The way higher institutions define and acknowledge student success in higher education today is changing rapidly. Today, diplomas and transcripts are no longer the benchmarks for measuring the success rate of students in their academics. To define success, you have to consider a complete and holistic journey and vision. Factors like the student’s academic excellence, mental and physical growth, and preparation for what comes next are increasingly becoming key to defining academic success. This is why universities are looking beyond enrolment figures, they are now more focused on helping their students thrive academically, socially, and professionally.

    This brings us to the role of modern digital marketing tactics and advanced CRM tools. Colleges can create an environment that supports every student with the right resources they need to succeed, using the data-driven outreach and personalized support that these tools offer. In this blog post, we’ll explore the true meaning of student success and what key metrics are best placed to measure student success in higher education. We’ll also show you how marketing automation and CRM platforms (including HEM’s own Mautic for Education and Student Portal) can help drive real student achievement. Read on to find out what strategies and tools are best suited to define modern student success.

    Looking for an all-in-one student information and CRM solution tailored to the education sector?

    Try the HEM Student Portal!

    Redefining Student Success Metrics in Higher Education: Beyond GPAs and Graduation Rates 

    Who you ask about the definition of academic success will also determine the type of answer you get. Administrators might lean towards metrics and retention rates. Students tend to have a more personal definition of success, like having supportive mentors, developing confidence, and building lasting connections.

    This brings us to the question: What is the definition of student success? The definition of student success encompasses building communication skills and critical thinking activities, career or grad school readiness. In essence, a successful student grows through campus life, engages with the community, and adequately prepares themself for future opportunities.

    Below are components of a comprehensive student success definition:

    • Academic Achievement: Mastering course material and maintaining strong GPAs
    • Persistence and Retention: Continuing enrolment term after term until graduation
    • Personal Development: Cultivating critical thinking, communication skills, and emotional intelligence
    • Engagement and Belonging: Finding community through meaningful campus involvement
    • Career Readiness: Building the confidence and skills needed for post-graduation success

    As EDUCAUSE, a prominent education technology organization, points out, student success programs “promote student engagement, learning, and progress toward the student’s own goals through cross-functional leadership and the strategic application of technology.” This reaffirms the fact that true success calls for a harmonious relationship between human connection and technology. 

    Measuring What Matters: The Metrics of Achievement 

    How do we truly and correctly measure student success if we say that there are many sides to it? What is the definition of a successful student, and how to measure student success in higher education? While this question has intrigued higher educational professionals for decades, today’s schools are finding the right answers by combining traditional metrics and emerging indicators.

    Traditional measurements include retention rates (are students returning each semester?), graduation rates (are they completing their degrees?), and academic performance (are they mastering the material?).

    Now, these numbers matter. They help us tell to a reasonable degree if students are progressing toward their educational goals, or not. However, there’s a richer story to be told beyond these statistics, and you’ll learn about it shortly.

    Student success metrics commonly include:

    • Retention Rates: The percentage of students who return for subsequent terms
    • Graduation Rates: How many students complete their degrees within expected timeframes
    • Academic Performance: Beyond grades—how students grow intellectually over time
    • Student Engagement: Participation in everything from research opportunities to campus events
    • Student Satisfaction: Feedback that reveals how students experience their education
    • Post-Graduation Outcomes: Career placement, graduate school acceptance, and alumni achievements

    Away from these quantifiable measures, today’s schools value the essence of student-defined success. For them, it could be a first-generation student finding their voice, an international student building cross-cultural friendships, or a working parent balancing studies with family life. The schools that manage to combine statistical trends with individual stories will ultimately get the most complete picture of things. 

    Examples: ULM developed FlightPath, an open-source advising system for degree audits, early alerts, and “What If?” planning. It is designed to help you determine your progress toward a degree.

    HEM Image 2HEM Image 2

    Source: ULM FlightPath

    Digital Marketing: Setting the Stage for Success

    What do marketing strategies have to do with student success? What does digital marketing contribute to student success? Higher education marketing and student success are interconnected through a series of key touchpoints.

    The path to college student success often begins with that first Instagram post that catches a high school junior’s eye or that personalized email that addresses their specific interests. It is all part of the coordinated digital marketing campaigns that today’s schools employ, to great success.

    Here’s how digital marketing strategies  can help nurture student success:

    • Attracting the right-fit students: When marketing materials paint an authentic picture of campus culture, incoming students arrive with realistic expectations and are more ready to engage.
    • Personalized communication: Tailored messages that speak to individual aspirations create early connections. When a prospective engineering student receives content about robotics competitions or research labs, they begin envisioning their place in your community.
    • Seamless onboarding: The summer before freshman year can be overwhelming. Automated campaigns that introduce new students to campus resources, share advice from current students, and foster peer connections help transform nervousness into excitement.
    • Feedback loops: Savvy marketing teams don’t just broadcast – they listen. Social media monitoring and regular surveys help identify pain points before they become barriers to success.

    Examples: Gonzaga’s English Language Center moved from siloed data to a Student Success CRM on Salesforce, improving collaboration and early-alert capabilities for ESL learners.

    HEM Image 3HEM Image 3

    Source: Gonzaga University

    CRM Tools: The Backbone of Student Support

    Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems are now important tools for tracking and supporting the student journey, especially in today’s data-driven world. These platforms present themselves as centralized hubs that help schools track student progress, identify potential challenges, and carry out timely interventions.

    Colleges can transform how they engage with students at every stage using the right CRM. Take this scenario for example: A first-year student misses out on many classes and fails to log into the learning management system for two weeks. While this might have gone on without being detected in the past, probably until midterm grades showed a significant gap, not anymore. With a CRM, a trigger will set off based on this pattern and send automatic alerts to the students’ advisor, who can now contact support resources to arrest the decline before it further spirals.

    Example: King’s College uses CRM Advise to flag risk factors, like missed classes, and automatically route alerts to advisors and support centers.

    HEM Image 4HEM Image 4

    Source: King’s College – CRM Advise

    Here are six ways CRM tools elevate student success in higher education:

    1. Centralizing the 360° Student View: Modern CRMs integrate data from admissions, advising, financial aid, and student life to create comprehensive student profiles. When an advisor can see that a struggling student is also working 30 hours weekly, they can provide more targeted support.
    2. Enabling Early Alerts: By analyzing patterns like missed assignments or decreased LMS activity, CRMs can identify at-risk students before a crisis develops.
    3. Automating Support Workflows: Smart CRMs ensure consistent communication throughout the student journey. From congratulatory messages when students ace exams to gentle nudges when they miss classes, automated workflows maintain continuous engagement without overwhelming staff.
    4. Providing Data-driven Insights: Institutions can analyze which interventions are best-suited to promote student success, using comprehensive data collection.
    5. Streamlining Administrative Processes: By simplifying registration, financial aid processes, and advising appointments, CRMs eliminate frustrating barriers that might otherwise derail student progress.
    6. Promoting Community: Many platforms include features that connect students with mentors, study groups, and support communities. These all help to nurture the sense of belonging that anchors students during challenging times.

    With solutions like Mautic by HEM, schools can enjoy robust CRM and marketing automation tailored specifically for them. The platform provides a central hub where you can manage all of your leads, applicants, agents, and parent contacts, enabling personalized support throughout the student lifecycle.

    Example: Michael Vincent Academy, a Los Angeles-based beauty school, sought to enhance its student recruitment efficiency by streamlining lead management and follow-up processes. With HEM’s Mautic CRM, the academy automated key marketing tasks and introduced lead scoring, enabling staff to focus on high-value prospects. This allowed the team to dedicate more time to building meaningful connections with prospective students, ultimately improving recruitment outcomes.

    IMAGE 8IMAGE 8

    Source: HEM

    HEM’s Student Portal combines online application creation and management, SIS functionality, and lead-nurturing tools in one centralized system. As a student, this is designed to help you manage your journey – from initial application to enrolment to graduation and beyond.

    As a school, using these specialized tools can help you address your institution’s unique needs and leverage the capacity of generic CRMs.

    IMAGE 9IMAGE 9

    Source: HEM

    Example: Students at Western Michigan University (WMU) use the Student Success Hub’s CRM to schedule and manage appointments, review advising notes, work on success plans, and tasks.

    HEM Image 6HEM Image 6

    Source: WMU Student Success Hub Training

    The Impact of Dedicated Success Programs

    One of the key ingredients of college student success is the use of structured programming that helps students navigate important stages of their academic journey. Many schools have found value in offering a student success class or course, such as a freshman seminar or “College 101” course that equips students with essential skills and connections.

    What is a student success class in college? It’s a course designed to help students be successful in college. It aims to help students properly navigate both academic requirements and college culture. Here is a list of subjects that these classes typically cover:

    • Effective study strategies tailored to college-level expectations
    • Time management techniques for balancing academic and personal demands
    • Campus resource navigation, introducing students to everything from tutoring to counselling
    • Financial literacy skills to manage college costs
    • Stress management and wellness practices
    • Career exploration and professional development

    Research continues to show that the students who complete these courses earn more credits and have a higher graduation rate than those who don’t participate. 

    The Power of Storytelling in Student Success Marketing

    By channelling authentic storytelling into their marketing narratives, schools can connect with prospective and current students. Stories have a way of transforming abstract content as “retention initiatives” into relatable human experiences that inspire action.

    What if you created a series featuring diverse student voices? Think of the impact it can have. Think of first-generation students who initially had doubts about themselves but connected with mentors who had faith in them, the transfer student who found unexpected opportunities, or the international student who calls the school home.

    Not only do these narratives attract prospective students, but they remind the current ones that challenges are not special and that success is very much achievable. 

    Tips to Boost Student Success with Marketing and CRM

    Institutions looking to take advantage of digital marketing and CRM tools more effectively should consider these practical strategies.

    1. Use Data to Personalize Outreach: Segment your communications based on student interests, challenges, and milestones to provide relevant support throughout their journey.
    2. Implement Early Alert Systems: Configure your CRM to identify warning signs like decreased engagement or academic struggles, enabling timely, personalized interventions.
    3. Integrate Your Systems: Ensure your marketing automation, CRM, and student information systems communicate seamlessly for a complete view of each student’s experience.
    4. Maintain Consistent Communication: Develop messaging flows that accompany students from prospective inquiry through graduation while remaining authentic and supportive.
    5. Leverage Student Feedback for Content: Gather testimonials and success stories that inspire current students and set realistic expectations for prospects.
    6. Train Your Team on Tools: Invest in comprehensive training so everyone, from admissions counselors to faculty advisors, can effectively use your CRM to support student success.

    Example: GSU’s Student Success 2.0 initiative includes implementing an enterprise CRM for a unified student record and early-alert triggers to boost retention by up to 1.2 % annually, with the National Institute for Student Success (NISS) also set up to that effect.

    HEM Image 7HEM Image 7

    Source: GSU Student Success 2.0 Initiative

    Creating a Culture of Success: A Holistic Approach

    The most effective approach to student success blends marketing insights, CRM capabilities, and human connections in one big package. With these elements working in harmony, institutions can create environments where students from all backgrounds can thrive.

    Remember that behind every data point is a student with dreams, challenges, and unlimited potential. When you align marketing, technology, and support programs around a student-centred vision of success, you can get positive outcomes in return. We don’t just improve statistics, we transform lives and fulfill higher education’s fundamental promise.

    Looking for an all-in-one student information and CRM solution tailored to the education sector?

    Try the HEM Student Portal!

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Question: What is the definition of student success?

    Answer: The definition of student success encompasses building communication skills and critical thinking activities, career or grad school readiness.

    Question: How to measure student success in higher education?

    Answer: While this question has intrigued higher educational professionals for decades, today’s schools are finding the right answers by combining traditional metrics and emerging indicators.

    Question: What is a student success class in college?

    Answer: It’s a course designed to help students be successful in college. It aims to help students properly navigate both academic requirements and college culture.

    Source link

  • Liberating the library to foster student belonging

    Liberating the library to foster student belonging

    • By Dr Steve Briggs, Director of Learning and Teaching Excellence, University of Bedfordshire.

    There have been growing discussions, and the emergence of corroborating evidence, related to how a sense of belonging affects not only the student experience but also attainment, retention and well-being. As per the Office for Students’ (OfS) 2025-30 vision, university environments play a critical role in the student experience and have real potential to impact on belonging. Accordingly, how environments can promote a positive student experience and foster belonging should be of utmost strategic importance to university leaders.  

    Given their central position, university library environments have a significant potential to positively (or negatively) affect students’ sense of belonging. Library spaces, learning materials (both physical and digital) and operational processes all have the potential to individually or cumulatively foster a culture of belonging.

    I propose that there are traditional assumptions and modus operandi inherent with university libraries that may inadvertently be to the detriment of student belonging. While such practices are not necessarily straightforward to change (owing to issues around security and/or cost), here I consider more radical approaches that a library might employ to foster student belonging. Across all the following options, it is imperative that students are involved in re-imagination projects through facilitating co-creation and user experience design. This will serve to ensure that changes actually reflect student needs rather than becoming well-intentioned but misguided attempts to enhance belonging.

    Minimising physical barriers. Libraries have traditionally used security gates to control access. This means that most students’ first experience of a library will be a barrier. For many, this can feel intimidating, send messages of limited trust and so potentially feel very unwelcoming. Navigating barriers may also be particularly challenging for some students with a disability. Historically, gates were seen to be an effective means of protecting valuable library collections. However, the use of radio frequency identity tags, CCTV and enhanced staff monitoring will potentially serve the same purpose. Further, gates may provide a false sense of security, given that any library that has opening windows could easily provide an alternative means for library resources to be illicitly removed. As a result of many university libraries increasingly moving to a digital-first purchasing, the size and status of physical collections is likely to progressively diminish. Where there are very high-value items, it might be more appropriate to restrict access to a dedicated section rather than the entire building. Removing gates could save money in terms of security gate management and maintenance costs; it is also in keeping with the approach being increasingly adopted by public libraries, such as Luton Central Library.

    Relational customer service. Central to belonging are positive relationships between students and university staff. This may be at odds with transactional library models that focus on efficiency and rapid issue resolution, which can lead to students feeling like a number rather than individuals. Relational customer service is based on seeking to understand individual student needs (for example, is a student an employee, parent or carer?) to tailor service delivery accordingly. In doing so, they might provide a positive (and hopefully memorable) experience. As a result, students feel more valued, fostering ongoing engagement with library services. As per the Mental Health Charter, such approaches can help to combat feelings of loneliness and isolation. How library leaders can positively disrupt any prevailing transitional approaches and move to more relational working practices should be carefully considered when planning staff development.

    Simplified navigation. Complicated library resource classification schemes may be intimidating for students and a barrier to feelings of belonging. Facilitating social annotation may serve to help students better understand and navigate a library collection. By way of an example, students might work together to annotate a journal article virtually and be encouraged to include signposts to relevant library resources. There are dedicated platforms available that facilitate social annotation, as outlined by Cornell University. Likewise, the location of physical library stock could create unanticipated issues around belonging. For example, housing certain subject collections next to social learning spaces might be more conducive to promoting belonging when associated courses have the greatest emphasis on group work. Including students in the cataloguing and organisation of library stock would serve to increase awareness of how design could better promote belonging.

    Trust-based borrowing. Members have routinely needed to check learning materials out of a library. Whilst this is necessary in order to manage a library collection, there may be situations when students are very concerned about being seen to borrow certain resources or knowing their borrowing activities are being recorded. For example, a student might want to borrow materials that allow them to explore their sexuality but conflict with their religious status. In such instances, libraries may consider removing the need to check certain stock out of the library and instead operate on a ‘trust’ basis that materials will be returned.

    Blended learning enabled. Historically, individual study carrels were synonymous with libraries. Over time, there have been reductions in carrels to accommodate social learning spaces. Given the emergence of blended learning and remote working, students are increasingly meeting remotely with lecturers and peers online outside of scheduled sessions. Practically, library users are increasingly going to need access to soundproof spaces (such as individual meeting pods) to be able to meet virtually with classmates or tutors without disturbing other library users. Such implications for redesigning library spaces have previously been explored by Research Libraries UK and will need to remain an ongoing consideration for library leaders. Without such facilities, students may feel unable to fully engage in blended learning while working in a library, in turn undermining their sense of belonging.    

    Child-friendly. Public libraries will typically arrange regular programmes of activities for children and their families, especially during school holiday periods. In contrast, universities have historically been reluctant to allow students to bring their children onto campus, including into library spaces. This presents a major barrier for those with parenting or caring responsibilities. Universities currently take quite different positions in terms of allowing children into buildings. Increasingly, institutions are starting to allow students to bring children into libraries for a short-term visit and with potentially some restricted access. In contrast, select universities, including Surrey and York, have introduced family study rooms to allow students to bring children onto campus for longer periods, but these are currently exceptions rather than the norm. Were such facilities to be staffed, this could provide work experience opportunities for students studying health and social care or primary education courses.

    Commuter-ready. Traditionally, libraries have been concerned about students eating and drinking due to the risk of damage to stock and learning spaces. More recently, this position has started to soften. In light of the growing number of commuter students, access to kitchenette facilities on campus is increasingly in high demand. While examples of such provision exist within libraries, this is yet to become a standard feature of university libraries. Similarly, commuter students will need ready access to device charging stations and safe places to store items. Given the extended opening hours offered by libraries, these would be a logical place to host such facilities.

    Wellbeing-centred. Examples of traditional university library learning spaces include quiet or silent areas, social learning zones, reading rooms, group rooms, presentation rooms and computer suites. There are examples of selected university libraries expanding the range of learning spaces to meet the wellbeing needs of users. One such example is the creation of sensory spaces, which may be restricted to students with disabilities or open to all users. A second example could be the provision of exercise equipment within libraries. Such provisions would promote positive well-being, a key condition for the belonging dimension of the ‘Live’ module of the Mental Health Charter. 

    Civic centrepiece. The Secretary of State has previously highlighted that enhancing the civic role of universities was a priority. This could involve opening up library spaces to members of the local community. In addition to civic duty, opening up libraries may also support belonging. The progressive increase in the number of students who have caring responsibilities may mean that students would feel more supported by their institution, and in turn gain a great sense of belonging, should they be able to being dependents with them to university libraries. 

    Considering the current financial challenges facing the UK higher education library sector, it is reasonable to expect that any of the aforementioned actions would need to be staggered, potentially over several years, within many institutions. Accordingly, library leaders should be developing long-term student belonging strategies with clearly identified and connected work plans to ensure that there is a belonging ‘golden thread’ that links phased library developments and, in turn, ensures a coherent future library experience.

    I would like to acknowledge discussions with Janine Bhandol, Sofia Mavrogeni (Academic Liaison Librarians at the University of Bedfordshire) and Carly Ramirez-Herelle (Head of Library Services at the University of Bedfordshire) related to library futures which helped to inform this article.  

    Source link

  • After a Dip in 2024, are UK International Student Visas Poised to Return to their Previous Peak?

    After a Dip in 2024, are UK International Student Visas Poised to Return to their Previous Peak?

    Policy changes in 2024 reshaped the UK’s international education landscape, leading to significant shifts in student mobility. The Sunak government’s restrictions on student dependents immediately impacted applicants from key source markets where family migration is a priority. At the same time, rising fees and uncertainty around the Graduate Route (now resolved) added further pressure that dampened demand.

    Main Applicant Demand Declined by 12% in 2024

    The UK has long been a leading destination for international students, with visa applications peaking in 2022 at nearly half a million main applicant submissions. This high point was partly driven by post-pandemic disruptions to global student mobility. Applications dipped slightly in 2023 as demand stabilised and the Sunak administration’s rhetoric signalled a less welcoming environment for non-EU students. By 2024, application volumes saw a sharp decline:

    More than 423,000 sponsored study visas for main applicant international students were processed in 2024. This represents a 12% decline from the previous year and a 15% drop from the 2022 high-point. While this drop was more mild than student visa decreases seen in other destinations in 2024, it still accounts for nearly 60,000 fewer processed applications in a single year.

    Withdrawn applications further reflect softened student demand, likely influenced by policy changes. Nearly 6,600 prospective students withdrew their application in 2024, a 127% increase from the previous year. This followed a sharp rise in Q4 2023, when withdrawals spiked to 2,000—366% higher than Q4 2022. In short, after a wave of unwelcoming messaging from the Sunak administration in mid-to-late 2023, fewer international students applied, and withdrawals hit record highs.

    However, there are signs of possibly renewed student confidence. Nearly 63,000 UK study visa main applications were processed in Q4 2024. This represents a growth of 9% over Q4 2023.

    Demand Fell Most Sharply in Markets Where Students Commonly Travel With Family

    The most significant drops in UK study visa demand in 2024 came from countries where international students often apply with dependants:

    table visualization

    Main applicant numbers fell in 2024 across seven of the ten countries with the highest ratios of dependants to main students, underscoring the impact of the new restrictions. Yet not all high-dependant markets followed this trend. Applications from Nepal rose sharply, increasing by 61%, while volumes from Pakistan and Bangladesh held steady.

    Does this mean concerns about the new policy were overstated since not all high-ratio student populations saw declines? Not quite. The seven countries that experienced declining interest—Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Ghana, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and India—accounted for seven of the eight largest main applicant declines last year, with Russia (-21%) slightly surpassing Saudi Arabia.

    Where Did Student Demand for a UK Study Visa Remain Resilient in 2024?

    Beyond these declines, which student populations showed increased demand in 2024? The table below highlights the top 10 student populations that saw growth in 2024:

    table visualization

    Nepal and Pakistan emerged as notable exceptions to the broader decline among countries with high dependant-to-student ratios—not just for bucking the trend, but for the scale of their growth. Nepal saw the sharpest year-over-year increase of any market in 2024, with main applicant volumes surging by 61%. Pakistan followed closely behind, ranking fourth overall with an 11% rise. Their resilience suggests that factors beyond dependant policies—such as economic conditions, domestic education capacity, and long-term aspirations for post-study work—continue to shape student decision-making.

    Beyond Nepal and Pakistan, growth was more geographically dispersed in 2024. Kenya and Myanmar (Burma) recorded some of the largest increases, signaling rising demand from parts of both Africa and Southeast Asia. Several European countries, including Germany, Switzerland, and Italy, also posted moderate gains. Meanwhile, the presence of Mexico and Kazakhstan among the top 10 growth markets highlights the increasingly global nature of student mobility to the UK.

    Just beyond the top 10, Kuwait and Turkey also recorded notable increases in main applicant volumes. As institutions navigate a shifting recruitment landscape, both countries may present important opportunities for future engagement and growth.

    Looking Ahead

    The UK’s international education sector faced considerable challenges in 2024, with policy changes reshaping student mobility patterns. At this stage—and despite calls from some in the sector—we don’t anticipate imminent steps to reverse the dependent policy, nor do we think it’s likely that the Government will opt to take international students out of the net migration figures. That said, we’ve already seen a much more positive message coming from the Government towards international students and we expect this to be sustained and reflected in the launch of the new International Education Strategy.

    It’s also important to note that the UK was not the only destination to experience softened student interest in 2024, as international education sectors in Canada, the US, and Australia all faced declines. Encouragingly for the UK, many institutions reported higher enrolments in this year’s January intake than in the same time last year, indicating positive momentum. Now is the time to build on that progress.

    To sustain this momentum, UK institutions will need to actively re-engage prospective students and rebuild confidence in key markets. Clear communication around post-study work opportunities, financial aid, and student support will be essential to reassuring applicants. At the same time, growing interest from countries such as Kenya, Myanmar, Kuwait, and Mexico presents an opportunity to strengthen recruitment efforts and establish a more diverse student base.

    Source link

  • How does UK research support Government’s five missions, and should universities align with them?

    How does UK research support Government’s five missions, and should universities align with them?

    Earlier this year, HEPI, with support from global information analytics company Elsevier, hosted a roundtable dinner on how UK research and innovation should support the government’s five missions.

    This blog considers some of the themes that emerged from that discussion.

    The Labour government has made clear that five missions drive its decisions on policy. These are: kickstarting economic growth, an NHS fit for the future, safer streets, breaking down barriers to opportunity and making Britain a clean energy superpower. In October 2024, it announced a £25 million R&D Missions Programme to address specific challenges involved in meeting these missions and to help turn scientific advances into real-world benefits.

    How well do the UK’s research strengths already map to the missions, and how much capacity exists to do more? For global information analytics company Elsevier, this was worth interrogating. It set to work, drawing on its Scopus database of research publications and the Overton index of policy documents, clustering papers into topics and using artificial intelligence and large language models to link them to the missions.

    This allowed it to track what share of UK research carried out between 2019 and 2023 relates to the missions the government has identified and how this compares to other policy areas, including how it has varied over time. Elsevier has also been able to make comparisons with the research strengths of other countries in these areas. The process involved developing a methodology that matched huge datasets to the narrative national goals set out in Labour’s manifesto.

    The role of R&D in supporting government priorities was the subject of a roundtable dinner, informed by this analysis, hosted by HEPI in February and attended by policymakers and senior leaders from across the higher education sector. The discussion was held under the Chatham House rule, by which speakers express views on the understanding that they will be unattributed.

    Useful information

    Sarah Main, vice-president, academic and government relations at Elsevier, told participants that the aim of the analysis was to be useful, for the research community and policymakers, in making the case for continued investment in R&D in the lead up to a tight spending review.

    The work shows that a significant share of the UK’s published research relates to government priorities: for example, 11% relates to growth and around 35% to its aims around health. By making comparisons with research outputs in other countries, it also identifies possible future partnerships and collaborations.

    But she pointed out that research output is only one way in which research and innovation supports the government’s missions; people, skills and infrastructure also play a part. Further work, she said, could help identify the key people, institutions and areas in which the UK has relevant strengths, as well as suggest emerging questions and themes.

    Many of those attending the roundtable felt that it was useful to see how far universities are producing research that supports government priorities and to be able to demonstrate this to policymakers – and the Treasury. They particularly welcomed the chance to identify where relevant research was taking place internationally.

    It was suggested that the tool would be useful in maintaining a dialogue between research and government priorities, identifying quickly the kind of work taking place and who was doing it and helping to build communities around research areas.

    Potential problems

    But there were reservations about aligning research too closely with specific policy areas. The fear was that what could be lost in the process was curiosity-driven work, which was a feature of the UK system and which could lead to valuable nuggets of knowledge that could go on to solve world problems. Another concern was that innovation strengths did not always translate into strengths around delivery.

    Some questioned how much could be achieved without investment in supporting a healthy research environment for the long term. The recent decision to cut overseas aid in favour of increasing the defence budget was an example of how quickly government policies could change.

    Research priorities could change too. One participant in the roundtable said it would be important not to ignore findings from further back in the past or for policymakers to forget the broader research agenda in favour of the latest exciting paper.

    ‘I look at the missions and I think the reason these are possible is because of R&D that was being done 25 years ago,’ said one delegate, who was worried that concentrating on where the government is looking now could be at the expense of developing capability in the missions of future generations and working out what these would be – learning to live with robots perhaps or addressing chronic loneliness. 

    Focusing exclusively on missions also ignores how ready the research community is for a shock like Covid or another existential challenge. And what about some of the nuances of where the UK’s research strengths are located, such as working with other disciplines, and how research feeds into growth in more general ways than through specific papers? Relevant skills training and universities’ educational role are also important.

    Talking politics

    Then, how much weight should be given to a government’s stated priorities? If last July’s election had elected a party with the mission to make Britain great again, would the research community want to find out how far the work it was doing supported it?

    Also, how far are the government’s missions likely to persist, with Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin doing everything they can to undermine them, as one delegate argued? Far more likely to determine whether the government gets re-elected will be progress on growth and healthcare, which have been consistent public concerns for decades. Even if, as Elsevier has found, 35% of research in the UK relates to health, ministers may respond by asking why, in that case, people are no healthier.

    Some felt that universities needed to be more political and to understand better the channels by which research becomes policy and how to negotiate them. This could involve researchers considering the attitudes of the public as well as those of politicians.

    The government may also need to give universities a clearer idea of what good looks like when it comes to universities, such as whether the amount of research related to healthcare that Elsevier has identified is good enough, where the government wants universities to be focusing and what resources will be available to them. 

    But spending too much time dabbling in politics could be dangerous. Instead, suggested one participant, universities should be engaging “at scale” with all sectors and everyone involved in the political process, giving advice to whoever needs it.

    The public purse

    Universities should also avoid dwelling on their own self-interest. One delegate noted that finding out how far they contribute to the government’s missions would be of little use if the sector collapses. But another suggested that focusing too closely on missions could encourage universities merely to highlight relevant work they are already doing and then make another request for money.

    It is certainly the case that there will be plenty of other calls on the public purse over the next few months and years. In this context, it could be useful for the sector to stress the shorter-term wins relevant to the missions that management science or operational research can offer, as well as long-term gains such as new drugs. One delegate suggested that it would be useful to have clearer identification of where research has directly led to spin-out companies and economic growth.

    The roundtable concluded that universities are clearly relevant to addressing the government’s missions, that they are already influencing policy and that the methodology under discussion could help inform strategy. But it recognised that outcomes – such as reduced crime and an efficient NHS – are what matter most to the public and these therefore should be the priority.

    Source link

  • What does our future workforce look like – and how are universities responding?

    What does our future workforce look like – and how are universities responding?

    • By Jamie Roberts, Policy Manager, and Aiste Viduolyte, PhD student intern at the Russell Group.

    To achieve the government’s ambitious aims of increasing growth and productivity, the UK will need a skilled workforce to match.

    All eight high-potential growth sectors identified by the government’s Industrial Strategy green paper will heavily rely on graduate skills – in particular the creative, digital and life sciences sectors, where over 70% of the workforce is made up of graduates. The government’s own forecasts show that the UK will need an additional 11 million graduates across the country by 2035, with 88% of new jobs being graduate-level.

    To meet these needs on both national and local levels, Russell Group universities are building on their existing partnerships with colleges, businesses and local authorities to make sure education remains as relevant and responsive as possible for graduates and employers alike. Our latest briefing paper, Local Partnerships to Deliver Skills, looks in more detail at the ways in which our universities collaborate with industry, local government and education providers.

    Here we explore three key characteristics of the UK future workforce – and how our universities are responding.

    1. Workers’ skills must keep pace with employers’ rapidly evolving needs

    The government is determined to get British business back to full health and has identified several growth-leading sectors in the Industrial Strategy green paper. These are likely to attract the most investment, but to generate productivity and deliver innovation, they will also need a workforce with the right set of skills – and these needs are evolving at speed.

    Not only will we need new graduates with the latest skills and knowledge, but also existing workers who can be upskilled and reskilled to make sure the workforce’s capabilities keep pace with rapidly changing technological developments and industry practices. This is why Russell Group universities partner with industry to shape course content, ensuring education and training are agile and responsive to each sector.

    Increasingly – now at 17 of our 24 universities – this includes degree apprenticeships, which give people opportunities to pivot or upskill at any stage of their career. Apprenticeships have become an essential pathway for delivering skills directly to industry at all levels, and almost 8,000 students enrolled on apprenticeships at Russell Group universities in 2023/24. At Queen’s University Belfast, for example, business partners such as PwC and construction firm Farrans are directly influencing apprenticeship course content and building talent streams in the areas where skills are most urgently needed, from digital software technology to civil engineering and building.

    More and more, this also means partnering with Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) which form the bedrock of the UK economy. At the University of Liverpool, the careers and employment service works with a network of local SMEs to support graduate recruitment and ensure that the university’s graduates are equipped not only with the specialist and technical know-how, but also essential soft skills to enhance what they can bring to local small businesses.

    2. Local workforces must meet each region’s specific needs, strengths and skills gaps

    Whether it’s fixing cold spots or supporting existing industry clusters, we can’t take a one-size-fits-all approach across the country. Local growth plans will be vital in shaping each region’s workforce needs.

    That’s why universities, as important anchor institutions in their towns, cities and regions, must be at the heart of these plans. Our members are already in active collaboration with local and combined authorities to research, understand and address local workforce needs – as part of City Deals, Civic University Agreements, or university involvement in local skills networks.

    In Manchester, the University has teamed up with Greater Manchester Combined Authority and four other regional university partners to develop the first ever city-region Civic University Agreement (GMCUA) in the UK. This model is transforming the relationship between the university sector and local government, allowing them to work together on mapping skills and opportunities, particularly in green skills, the creative sector, health and social care. Meanwhile in London, UCL’s partnership with the councils of Camden, Islington and Newham enables students to contribute to local research and policy, while granting residents access to data skills and literacy training to improve their employability and career prospects.

    3. Every workforce benefits from multiple educational pathways to build the best combination of skills and experience

    While growing the UK’s graduate workforce, it is important we remain cognisant of the wide variety of educational backgrounds and pathways in our communities, and maximise the strengths that different providers bring. We need to move toward a skills and education system that incentivises true collaboration. Partnerships between higher education and further education are invaluable and should acknowledge that further education colleges are not just feeder institutions. Building on existing collaboration will allow students the best of both worlds, while creating cohesive educational pathways that complement, rather than compete with each other.

    Through a mixture of academic and vocational training, our universities’ partnerships with our further education colleagues offer a broad range of expertise, which can support a variety of career options and cover the multitude of skills needed in each region.

    Working together makes sure we not only fulfil a broader range of skills and sectors but also support greater access to education for all. A co-ordinated system, where further and higher education are aligned, creates clearer pathways for people of all backgrounds and educational experiences to access higher-level qualifications. This generates more mechanisms by which we can upskill our workforce.

    A sustainable, highly skilled workforce is of course reliant on a stable, well-funded university system. which is one of the reasons the sector has been so keen to make government understand the scale and urgency of the financial challenges we’re facing. Simply put, the UK won’t have the right workforce to achieve its growth ambitions without considering the role of its universities.

    Source link