Category: Blog

  • Festive Ideas to Engage Students and Alumni

    Festive Ideas to Engage Students and Alumni

    Reading Time: 15 minutes

    The holiday season offers a valuable opportunity for schools to foster connection and celebrate community. Each year, Higher Education Marketing reviews holiday videos from institutions across the education spectrum to spotlight standout examples that capture the spirit of the season while supporting broader marketing goals.

    This annual holiday video post brings together some of our favourite picks from this year’s festive content. From heartfelt messages of gratitude to creative student-led performances, these videos show how colleges and universities are using year-end storytelling to connect with students, staff, alumni, and prospective families in meaningful ways. Beyond tradition, holiday videos have become a strategic tool in higher education marketing, helping schools showcase their personality, values, and milestones from the past year.

    Whether it is a lighthearted campus moment or a thoughtful message from institutional leadership, a well-crafted holiday video can generate goodwill, boost social engagement, and reinforce school spirit. The best part is that these moments do not require a Hollywood budget. With a strong concept, authentic voices, and a little seasonal creativity, schools of any size can produce compelling year-end content.

    In this post, we will explore what makes an effective holiday video, share practical production tips, and highlight some of the best holiday videos of the season, according to the HEM team.

    Are you looking for education marketing services?

    Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!

    What Is a Holiday Highlight Video for Schools?

    A holiday highlight video is a short, engaging piece of content that schools create to celebrate the festive season while reflecting on the year’s milestones. Blending seasonal charm with storytelling, these videos typically showcase memorable moments, achievements, and community messages, wrapped in a festive tone that resonates with audiences across generations.

    Unlike a standard event recap, holiday highlight videos often include holiday music, decorations, or creative themes to evoke warmth and cheer. They may feature snippets from campus events, student performances, messages of thanks from leadership, or lighthearted skits that show off your school’s personality.

    These videos are usually concise and shareable, perfect for distribution across social media, email newsletters, and your website. Whether heartwarming or humorous, the goal is to celebrate your school community, express appreciation, and leave viewers with a lasting positive impression. Think of it as a year-in-review meets a holiday greeting card, brought to life on screen.

    Why Should Colleges and Universities Create Holiday Videos For Their Community?

    Producing a holiday video might seem like a lighthearted tradition, but it holds serious strategic value for educational institutions. From strengthening community ties to enhancing your brand visibility, here are five reasons why colleges and universities should consider creating a holiday highlight video:

    1. Strengthen Community Connections

    Holiday videos offer a powerful way to reinforce a sense of belonging. By featuring students, faculty, staff, and alumni, schools can celebrate their shared experiences and spirit. These videos become a reflection of community life, highlighting festive events, volunteer efforts, and everyday moments that matter.

    For example, the University of Louisville once released a holiday video where its mascot delivered handwritten cards across campus, culminating in a warm message from an administrator. This kind of storytelling reinforces school pride and strengthens emotional bonds among viewers.

    2. Showcase Values and Campus Culture

    A holiday video is also a chance to communicate your school’s values in action. Whether it’s highlighting inclusivity, creativity, service, or academic excellence, these videos offer a glimpse of campus life through a seasonal lens.

    Adelphi University, for instance, created a holiday video featuring its panther mascot distributing scarves and hats to students. Along the way, viewers were treated to quick scenes in the library, labs, and dorms, an engaging way to showcase school spirit while spotlighting facilities and values like generosity and community support.

    3. Engage Students, Prospects, and Alumni

    Video is a highly engaging content format, especially across platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube. A well-produced holiday video grabs attention more effectively than a typical end-of-year message and offers entertainment, recognition, and emotional connection in one package.

    Students enjoy seeing familiar faces and moments captured, while prospective students gain a glimpse of campus life and the people who shape it. A great holiday video can humanize your institution and offer a feel-good experience that’s easy to share, extending your reach organically.

    4. Celebrate Successes and Boost Morale

    The end of the calendar year is the perfect moment to celebrate your school’s accomplishments. A holiday video allows you to highlight academic achievements, sports victories, community impact, and institutional milestones, all wrapped in a festive, uplifting tone.

    The University of Michigan, for example, once released a holiday video of its annual tree lighting ceremony that featured pediatric patients as special guests. The message was heartwarming and celebratory, perfectly blending joy with meaning, boosting morale, and reinforcing shared values.

    5. Build Tradition and Institutional Memory

    Producing a holiday video each year can evolve into a cherished tradition. These videos serve as visual keepsakes, documenting your institution’s journey and growth. Schools like UNC Greensboro (UNCG) have become known for their annual holiday productions, consistently showcasing creativity and school spirit. Over time, these videos build anticipation, tradition, and a deeper emotional connection with your audience.

    In short, holiday videos are more than just festive fun; they’re powerful storytelling tools that strengthen community, showcase culture, engage audiences, and leave a lasting impression.

    Using Holiday Videos for Student Recruitment and Brand Awareness

    Beyond community engagement, holiday videos can also be a strategic asset for student recruitment and brand visibility. How can a school use holiday videos to support student recruitment and brand awareness? Schools can use holiday videos to showcase campus culture, student life, and values in a warm, authentic way. These videos humanize the brand, create an emotional connection, and give prospective students a real glimpse of the community, helping strengthen brand awareness and support recruitment decisions.

    Here’s how they support marketing objectives:

    Showcasing Campus Life to Prospects

    Prospective students want to feel a connection with a school before applying. Holiday videos, featuring real moments, smiling faces, and decorated spaces, offer a genuine snapshot of campus life. When students from diverse backgrounds or student clubs are included, the video subtly highlights key differentiators such as diversity, inclusivity, and student support services.

    Highlighting Unique Selling Points (USPs)

    Some institutions weave their USPs directly into their holiday messaging. Loyola Marymount University’s business school did this creatively with a festive jingle that spotlighted the school’s mission and LA location. Similarly, the University of Georgia released a video featuring the excitement of acceptance letters, reminding viewers of the transformative power of education.

    Boosting Reach and Engagement on Social Media

    Posting your holiday video on YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok can significantly increase impressions and engagement. These platforms are ideal for spreading festive content organically, with the potential to reach prospective students through shares, likes, and algorithmic boosts.

    Humanizing Your Brand

    Holiday videos put a friendly face on your institution. Whether it’s professors sending greetings, mascots dancing, or students sharing traditions, this content feels personal. Boston University’s College of Arts & Sciences, for example, created a multilingual video featuring holiday wishes from staff and faculty, an inclusive gesture that made the school feel warm and welcoming.

    Standing Out in the Recruitment Cycle

    Not every school produces a holiday video. Doing so, especially with creativity, helps differentiate your institution. A joyful, thoughtful video signals school spirit, attention to detail, and a people-first culture. In short, holiday videos serve as soft-sell marketing: warm, memorable, and brand-enhancing.

    Creative Holiday Video Ideas (Even on a Small Budget)

    Producing a standout holiday video doesn’t require a Hollywood budget, just heart, creativity, and smart use of the resources at your disposal. In fact, many of the most engaging school holiday videos are simple in execution but rich in authenticity and charm. Here are cost-effective ideas to inspire your next festive project:

    1. Leverage Student Talent

    Involve students in video creation, whether through filming, editing, animation, or music. Georgia State University’s College of the Arts, for example, produced a delightful animated video created entirely by students and alumni. It doubled as a class project and portfolio piece. Similarly, student musicians can perform holiday tunes as soundtracks, adding personality while saving on licensing and production costs.

    2. Use Smartphones and Free Tools

    A smartphone, a tripod (or steady hand), and free apps like iMovie or TikTok are all you need. Many schools shoot short clips of decorated halls, festive events, or faculty greetings using DIY techniques. Planning your shots ahead of time and keeping edits tight will go a long way in producing polished results.

    3. Keep It Short and Focused

    Short videos (under 60 seconds) are cheaper to make and often more effective online. UWE Bristol, for instance, shared a short clip of its lit Christmas tree and the season’s first snow, a serene moment that resonated with viewers. Viewership stats show drop-off rates after two minutes, so brevity is best.

    4. Pick a Simple Theme

    Stick to one clever idea. Clackamas Community College parodied Home Alone with its president on an empty campus, while James Madison University reimagined ’Twas the Night Before Christmas for finals week. Both relied on humor, recognizable formats, and minimal props, proving that creativity trumps complexity.

    5. Crowdsource Clips

    Ask students and staff to submit short videos or photos answering a seasonal prompt (“What’s your favorite winter tradition?”). Compile the submissions into a festive montage with background music. UNC Greensboro’s Bryan School used this approach for a holiday tips video, creating a lively, inclusive piece with no production costs.

    6. Repurpose Existing Content

    Footage from recent concerts, service events, or campus celebrations can be repackaged into a highlight reel. Layer in a new narration or a simple greeting to refresh the narrative and give it a festive twist.

    7. Add Holiday Magic with Simple Effects

    Basic editing tricks, like sparkles, snowfall overlays, or festive text, can elevate even the simplest shots. Trent University created a magical moment by using a glowing book effect in its holiday greeting. Free overlays and royalty-free music can help polish your final product without added expense.

    8. Embrace Authenticity

    When production quality is limited, lean into warmth and sincerity. A candid thank-you message from your president or a casual walk through campus celebrations can feel more genuine, and often more engaging, than a heavily scripted production.

    Ultimately, holiday videos are about joy, gratitude, and connection. With a little planning and a lot of heart, even a small-budget project can leave a lasting impact.

    Optimal Length and Platform: Making Sure Your Holiday Video Hits the Mark

    When planning a holiday video, two key questions often come up: How long should it be? And where should it be posted for the best engagement? Getting these right can make a big difference in how your video performs.

    Ideal Length

    The sweet spot for holiday videos is typically between one and three minutes. Shorter videos tend to perform better across all platforms. Data shows that videos under one minute retain up to 70 percent of viewers, while completion rates drop sharply after the two-minute mark. Unless your content is highly compelling, longer videos are at risk of losing viewers before the message is delivered.

    Platform-Specific Strategy

    Each social platform has its own best practices. TikTok and Instagram Reels are ideal for short-form content under 60 seconds. Facebook and YouTube are more accommodating for videos in the one-to-three-minute range. If your video is for social sharing, create a quick version under a minute. For website placement or email campaigns, a slightly longer version may be appropriate.

    Editing for Pace and Impact

    A well-edited video can deliver a meaningful message in a short amount of time. Quick cuts, engaging visuals, and upbeat music help keep viewers interested. If you have a lot of content, consider creating a teaser or trailer version for social media, with a call to action to watch the full video on your website.

    Aim for clarity, energy, and brevity. Your audience will appreciate a concise, thoughtful message that respects their time.

    Best Platforms for Sharing School Holiday Videos

    To maximize the reach and impact of your holiday video, share it across multiple platforms. Each channel offers unique advantages:

    YouTube
    YouTube is essential. It functions as both a content hub and a search engine, making it ideal for embedding on your website and sharing in emails. Optimize your video with a descriptive title, a thoughtful caption, and tags that include your school’s name and keywords like “holiday video” or “seasonal greeting.” YouTube is particularly effective for reaching a wide audience, including prospective students, alumni, and the public.

    Facebook and Instagram
    These platforms are perfect for community engagement. Upload the video directly to Facebook for better reach and visibility in the algorithm. On Instagram, short videos (under 60 seconds) work well as Reels or posts. For longer content, consider sharing a teaser with a link in your bio or stories. Both platforms allow easy sharing, which helps spread the message organically.

    Twitter (X)
    While not a primary video platform, Twitter is useful for posting short clips or teasers, especially if you want to reach media or partners. Keep videos under the platform’s time limit, or link to the full version elsewhere.

    TikTok
    If your school has a presence on TikTok, share a short, creative version of your holiday message here. This could be a behind-the-scenes moment, a student-led skit, or a festive transformation. TikTok content thrives on authenticity and trend alignment, making it a powerful tool for reaching Gen Z.

    School Website and Emails
    Feature your holiday video prominently on your homepage, news section, or in year-end emails. A dedicated landing page adds a professional touch and provides space for a message or photo gallery.

    Final Tip
    Use strong thumbnails and captions. A festive visual and on-screen text can capture attention and ensure your message gets across, even when the sound is off.

    Planning and Timing: When to Start Working on Your Holiday Video

    Timing is crucial to producing a successful school holiday video. Here’s how to ensure your video comes together smoothly and on schedule.

    Begin Early in the Fall
    Start brainstorming in September or October. This gives you time to develop the concept, write a script, recruit participants, and schedule filming. If your video needs approvals from administration or marketing, building in lead time is essential. Early planning also allows for creativity; you’ll have time to troubleshoot or reshoot if needed.

    Work Around Academic Calendars
    Aim to film before the busiest part of the term. November is ideal, before finals and year-end events begin. If you plan to include winter decorations, schedule shoots for late November when the campus is typically dressed for the season.

    Target a December Release
    The first two weeks of December are the sweet spot. Audiences are still engaged, and the festive mood is building. Releasing too late, such as during winter break, means missing students and staff who have already checked out for the holidays.

    Leave Time for Editing and Approvals
    Once filming is complete, allocate at least one to two weeks for editing and stakeholder review. You’ll need time for feedback, fine-tuning, and adding polish such as titles, transitions, music, and captions.

    Consider a Campus Premiere
    Launch your video at a holiday event or on the last day of classes. Play it on big screens or in student lounges to create buzz, then share it widely online.

    Promote Everywhere All at Once
    Coordinate your launch across YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, email newsletters, and student portals. Simultaneous posting helps your video gain traction and reach the widest audience.

    Learn for Next Year
    After launch, note what worked and what you’d change. Holiday videos often become annual traditions, and each cycle brings opportunities to refine the process.

    Examples of Outstanding School Holiday Videos 

    Looking for inspiration for your school’s next holiday video? These 10 standout examples from colleges and universities around the world illustrate the wide range of creative approaches available. From lighthearted skits to heartfelt messages, these videos show how festive storytelling can connect and delight on any budget.

    The University of Vermont

    The University of Vermont’s 2025 holiday greeting video, titled “Holiday Gratitudes, from UVM to You,” compiles touching moments of gratitude from across the campus community. It features students, faculty, and staff expressing what they’re most thankful for amid warm, wintry scenes of campus. This uplifting montage works as a holiday message because it fosters a sense of community and reflection, leaving viewers feeling appreciative and connected.

    YouTube videoYouTube video

    Source: YouTube

    Camosun College

    Camosun College’s 2025 holiday video features President Dr. Lane Trotter delivering a warm thank-you to the community and a hopeful outlook for the year ahead. Filmed at the new John Horgan Campus, the video highlights the resilience and spirit of the Camosun community. This personal approach works because it puts a familiar face front and center, making the gratitude and optimism feel genuine and resonant.

    Source: Facebook

    University of Toronto (New College)

    New College at the University of Toronto’s 2025 holiday video takes an inclusive approach, uniting heartfelt greetings from alumni, donors, faculty, staff, and students into one festive montage. This warm compilation works well because viewers see themselves represented, which truly reinforces a sense of belonging for all and community pride during the holidays while celebrating the entire New College family’s diversity.

    YouTube videoYouTube video

    Source: YouTube

    Simon Fraser University

    Marking SFU’s 60th anniversary, the 2025 holiday video asks the community, “What is your favourite holiday tradition?” and features students, faculty, and alumni sharing cherished customs old and new, showcasing SFU’s rich tapestry of celebrations. 

    This concept shines by inviting personal storytelling and nostalgia. Celebrating both long-held and emerging traditions creates a warm, inclusive atmosphere that honors the university’s history and diverse holiday spirit.

    YouTube videoYouTube video

    Source: YouTube

    Quinnipiac University

    Quinnipiac University’s 2025 video, “Home for the Holidays,” mixes fun and heart by having Boomer the Bobcat (the mascot) host a festive holiday party. It’s designed to capture the sense of belonging the community gave the new president and her family. 

    This “home” narrative works because a beloved mascot and charming storyline showcase the university community as a family, yielding a feel-good message full of school spirit and inclusivity.

    YouTube videoYouTube video

    Source: YouTube

    Kutztown University

    Kutztown University chose a daring and endearing route this time. Seeking to do something different, the university settled on recreating scenes from some of the most beloved Christmas movies (including, you guessed it, Home Alone), with Kutztown University President Dr. Phil Cavalier dressed as the protagonists each time. 

    Later on, the president appears alongside the student government president and secretary to wish everyone in the community a safe, happy holiday. The simplicity of this concept is its strength: uniting administrators and students in one sincere greeting makes it feel authentic and inclusive to the whole K.U. family.

    YouTube videoYouTube video

    Source: YouTube

    Widener University

    Widener University’s 2025 video, “Holiday Lights: A Chester & Melrose Story,” is a playful short film starring the university’s lion mascots, Chester and Melrose. Framed as a mini holiday movie (even earning cheeky “reviews” like “the purr-fect holiday movie”), it follows the mascots on a festive adventure to light up campus. 

    This fun approach brims with school spirit and works by using mascots in a humorous narrative that makes the message memorable.

    Source: Facebook

    University of St Andrews

    The University of St Andrews’ 2025 festive video celebrates tradition with a beautiful performance by the St Salvator’s Chapel Choir set against a festively decorated campus. It also thanks the global St Andrews community for their support. 

    This concept succeeds by showcasing a cherished university tradition (the chapel choir), evoking nostalgia and pride. The blend of music, scenery, and gratitude creates a heartfelt connection with alumni and students around the world.

    YouTube videoYouTube video

    Source: YouTube

    Loyola Marymount University (College of Business Administration)

    LMU’s College of Business Administration goes musical with a catchy holiday jingle. Students wrote and performed custom lyrics (set to a familiar holiday tune) that highlight the school’s programs and its Los Angeles locale. The video feels like a mini music number. A group of business students don Santa hats and LMU gear as they sing about CBA’s offerings, from entrepreneurship to the sunny L.A. campus,  all to the melody of a well-known Christmas song. It’s professionally shot but student-driven. 

    Notably, LMU credited two student marketing interns for leading the production, emphasizing the student involvement. It’s catchy, festive, and informative. The jingle sticks in your head while subtly conveying the college’s strengths (academic programs, location, vibe). This fun approach differentiates LMU CBA from more standard greetings. Plus, showcasing student talent (both on camera and behind the scenes) sends a message that CBA is a creative, close-knit community, one that knows how to celebrate in style.

    Source: Instagram

    Make Sure To Spread Your Message This Festive Season

    The holiday season is a meaningful opportunity for schools to highlight community, values, and accomplishments in a creative and heartfelt way. A thoughtfully produced holiday video can engage students, alumni, faculty, and prospective families alike, while reinforcing your school’s brand and culture.

    As we’ve seen, schools don’t need a big budget to make a big impression. With early planning, creativity, and collaboration, even small teams can produce memorable content that brings people together. Whether your video is humorous, reflective, musical, or student-led, the most impactful ones are authentic and community-driven.

    So gather your creative team, involve students and staff, and let your school’s spirit shine. Your holiday video won’t just be a seasonal greeting; it will become a tradition, a marketing asset, and a lasting keepsake.

    Are you looking for education marketing services?

    Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Question: What is a holiday highlight video for schools?

    Answer: A holiday highlight video is a short, engaging piece of content that schools create to celebrate the festive season while reflecting on the year’s milestones. Blending seasonal charm with storytelling, these videos typically showcase memorable moments, achievements, and community messages, wrapped in a festive tone that resonates with audiences across generations.

    Question: Why should colleges and universities create holiday videos for their community?

    Answer: Producing a holiday video might seem like a lighthearted tradition, but it holds serious strategic value for educational institutions. From strengthening community ties to enhancing your brand visibility.

    Question: How can a school use holiday videos to support student recruitment and brand awareness?

    Answer: Schools can use holiday videos to showcase campus culture, student life, and values in a warm, authentic way. These videos humanize the brand, create emotional connection, and give prospective students a real glimpse of the community, helping strengthen brand awareness and support recruitment decisions.

     



    Source link

  • How business school research can power inclusive and sustainable regional growth

    How business school research can power inclusive and sustainable regional growth

    This blog was kindly authored by Jack Harrington, CEO, Emma Parry, Chair and Katy Mason, President, British Academy of Management.

    Chartered ABS recently published its Business Schools as Engines of Growth report. This work provides a much needed look at the social and economic value of Business Schools. It paves the way for likely changes in the policy landscape.

    Here, we focus on why Business Schools are so well placed to deliver on so many policy priorities. Among other things, Business Schools are a channel through which social science research can change lives for the better.

    Business Schools across the UK are situated in very different kinds of regional economy. At a time of immense disruption – from climate shocks to technological transformation – our business schools must reimagine their role in helping shape the future of regional economies. The ‘Business Schools as Engines of Growth, Opportunity and Innovation’ report, published as a supplement to Universities UK’s 2024 Blueprint for Change, rightly positions business schools as more than excellent educators. Crucially, they are also strategic collaborators in place-based transformation, driving a new kind of socio-economic growth.

    The report calls to deepen research partnerships between business schools, local businesses, and policymakers. This is not just a question of economic necessity (though the productivity gap between UK regions remains stark). It is, most importantly, a question of social responsibility. We must place people and planet at the heart of our research agendas, building new understandings of inclusive, sustainable growth that reflect the urgent challenges of our time.

    From knowledge to impact: research that makes a difference

    Business and management research is often undervalued in national Research & Development debates. This is surprising, given it plays such a pivotal role in enabling the adoption and use of technical innovations as viable, scalable, and ethical elements of our everyday organisational practices and social lives. Research insights from UK business schools are already helping local firms adopt digital tools, improve leadership, decarbonise operations, and engage communities more inclusively.

    Programmes such as the Help to Grow: Management course, delivered by Small Business Charter-accredited schools, demonstrate how research-informed education can empower SME leaders to drive digital adoption and productivity. IPSOS evaluation shows 91% of participants report improved leadership and growth capabilities.

    This is just the tip of the iceberg. Research conducted through Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTPs), place-based innovation catalysts, accelerator and labs offers a roadmap for changing the way business schools can act as “anchor institutions” in their regions to drive positive change.

    A new narrative for business research

    If we are serious about creating a fairer economy and a more inclusive society, then the UK’s business schools and their research must be seen as essential infrastructure for inclusive and sustainable regional development.

    Fortunately, this is largely a matter of valuing what we already have. As the white paper shows, Business Schools often provide the most visible way in which the social sciences inform decision-making and operational life in organisations across the UK. Business Schools offer the networks, the expertise, and the commitment to act as coordinators between science, society, and markets, and the skills to drive the co-production of new kinds of knowledge and imaginaries for a better future.

    There is still more that business schools can do. We need to be much better at enabling and valuing interdisciplinary, engaged research that supports public and private sector leaders navigating complexity. We need to help early-career researchers to collaborate beyond the academy. And we need to rethink impact, not just as ‘REF returns’, but in terms of supporting the development of better jobs, fairer systems, and stronger communities.At a time when the Higher Education is in financial crisis, and the economy is struggling to grow, investment has never been so urgent.

    Source link

  • That’s All, Folks? Five points of note about higher education in 2025

    That’s All, Folks? Five points of note about higher education in 2025

    Nick Hillman, HEPI’s Director, takes a look at some of the changes affecting higher education in 2025. (These remarks were originally delivered to the Executive Advisory Council of HEPI Partner Ellucian on the evening of 15 December 2025.)

    Room at the top

    The higher education sector continued to see huge churn in those who oversee it during 2025. In the middle of last year, we had a change of Government; in the middle of this year, we saw a new Chief Executive at UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) when Professor Sir Ian Chapman succeeded Professor Dame Ottoline Leyser, and a new Chair in the Office for Students (OfS), when Professor Edward Peck replaced the interim Chair, Sir David Behan.

    Then last month, we heard that John Blake, the Director for Fair Access and Participation, one of the three really big executive jobs at the OfS, had stood down with pretty much immediate effect – with John’s predecessor, Professor Chris Millward, taking back the reins.

    And we end the year with the news that the hardest job in the whole of English higher education is soon to fall vacant, as the Chief Executive of the OfS, Susan Lapworth, will stand down at the end of her four-year term in charge. So one thing seems certain: 2026 will see a continuing shift in the OfS’s priorities.

    There are other personnel changes I could mention too, such as the incoming CEO of the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA), Kathleen Fisher, who will take over early in the new year. 

    It feels like we have had a new broom in other respects too. While our two main Ministers in Whitehall, Baroness Smith (Minister for Skills) and Lord Vallance (Minister for Science), remain in place, their jobs have changed significantly as a result of the reshuffle forced on the Prime Minister when Angela Rayner resigned.

    Jacqui Smith is no longer just a Minister in the Department for Education as she was at the beginning of the year; she is now also a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions. Meanwhile, Patrick Vallance is not just a Minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology; he is also now a Minister in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.

    If, like me, you thought it was all a bit of a mess before – with the teaching functions of higher education separated from the research functions of universities at a ministerial, departmental and quango level – it is undeniably even more of a mess now.

    And who knows what the 2026 elections in Scotland and Wales will mean for oversight of higher education, not to mention the local elections in England? (Look out for some HEPI output on Wales early in 2026.)

    Incoherence?

    Perhaps the biggest higher education news in 2025 was the Post-16 Education and Skills white paper. Certainly, Ministers had seemingly spent the previous 12 months and more responding to every tricky higher education and skills question by telling people to wait for this all-important document. Yet when it appeared, many felt it was a bit of a damp squib.

    The clue to the problem lies in the Foreword to the white paper, which is signed by three different Secretaries of State: the Rt Hon. Bridget Phillipson MP, Secretary of State for Education; the Rt Hon. Pat McFadden MP, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; and the Rt Hon. Liz Kendall MP, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. On reading the document, it seemed a bit too obvious who had overseen which bits with some frustrating cracks between the different sections. Together, the ideas seemed to be less than the sum of their parts, as they did not really add up to a truly coherent new plan in the way white papers are meant to.

    For example, the white paper urged institutions to change direction, for example by doing less (labelled ‘specialisation’) and also, perhaps contradictorily, collaborating more. But the white paper lacked the clear incentives necessary for institutions to overcome countervailing pressures, such as those that come from market competition, institutions’ own statutory charitable responsibilities, a shortage of resources, a highly unionised workforce and the priorities of league table compilers.

    In the cold light of day, the top line of the white paper seemed to be ‘we want you to use your autonomy to do what we want you to do’, but with little in the way of policy levers or new funding to persuade institutions to do something radically different from what they have been doing.

    As I noted in one blog before the white paper came out, this is the same challenge that Lionel Robbins wrestled with over 60 years ago, for the Robbins report concluded:

    it is not reasonable to expect that the Government, which is the source of finance, should be content with an absence of co-ordination or should be without influence thereon. … where free discussion is not sufficient to elicit the desired result in the desired time, it is still possible, and may often be expedient, to attempt to secure it by special incentives. … in emphasising the claims of academic freedom, we stipulate that they must be consistent with the maintenance of coherence throughout the system as a whole.

    It is not only me who sees these sorts of problems with the white paper by the way. For example, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has said:

    the proposals do not always add up to a coherent overall strategy. There is insufficient indication of how the different reforms connect, or strategic vision for how key trade-offs in the system will be resolved.

    Thinking about this whole issue more parochially, it strikes me that there is an analogy with think-tank land. HEPI is an autonomous independent charity, just as most universities are. If Ministers were suddenly to declare that think tanks should specialise and collaborate, I suspect it would only happen if this were in line with each organisation’s charitable objectives and strategy, if each organisation’s Trustees agreed and if there were sufficient resources to make it feasible. It certainly would not happen just because Ministers say it should.

    Resources

    Yet to be fair to the Government, they did use the Post-16 white paper to do something important and overdue that the previous Government repeatedly chickened out of doing: raising tuition fees in line with inflation. This will protect the unit-of-resource spent on students to some degree and is aligned with the sector’s lobbying, so the representative bodies and mission groups have generally felt obliged to welcome the news.

    But in truth, the extra money is chicken feed because it merely beds in the real terms cuts that have occurred since 2012 and takes no account of rising costs, including those imposed on the sector by the current Government, such as higher National Insurance payments. Any university on the cusp of discussing a breach of convenant with their main lender is unlikely to feel in a much more secure position now than before the tuition fee rises were announced.

    And this year, we also had the announcement and then fleshing out of another new cost in England’s new International Student Levy, to be set at a little under £1,000 per student. When this was first announced, many people I know seemed to think it was such a mad idea it could never be implemented. But never underestimate the disdain for universities among some policymakers, especially when they are under pressure from a resurgent populist right. While it continues to seem mad to most of us that we would voluntarily self-impose a big new tariff on one of the most successful export sectors of our whole economy, it does tell us something about current political realities and also reminds us we live in a world of ever higher borders in which global conflict sadly no longer looks so unlikely.

    When it comes to the other big resource issue of student living costs and maintenance support, 2025 saw no change to the way that we deal with rising living costs among students, with the only clear commitment to continued increases in line with forecast inflation, which tends to run far behind real inflation and is anyway a continuation of the status quo dressed up as something new.

    Our research from August of this year suggests students need around £20k a year, twice as much as the standard maximum maintenance loan, to take part fully in university life. Our numbers are used by the Foreign Office for international scholars but not (yet) by the Department for Education for home students. So no wonder, as the HEPI / Advance HE 2025 Student Academic Experience Survey as well as our more recent work with a diverse group of four universities led by the University of Lancashire shows, two-thirds of today’s undergraduates now take part in paid employment during term time.

    Personally, I would like to see a modern version of the Anderson Committee, which sat from 1958 until 1960 and which considered student living costs in detail, leading to the first set of national rules on maintenance support. However, we should not kid ourselves on the likelihood of this happening: the same arguments that are used against increases to the benefits bill will likely continue to be used against changes to students’ maintenance costs at a time when there is such a big deficit and when we are spending so much on debt interest as a country.

    In the absence of better maintenance and at a time of rising unemployment, my best guess is people will still choose to go to higher education but may look for cheaper ways to live as a student, such as living at home. It had been said that, ‘You can see the commuter student everywhere—except in the student data‘ but it now appears as if the data might be catching up too. Last week, UCAS noted:

    31% of UK 18-year-old accepted applicants indicated in their UCAS application that they intended to live at home this year – a record high and a slight increase on 30% in 2024. This compares to 22% a decade ago, with the number of young people planning to live at home climbing steadily since 2016.

    Young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds are also more likely to live at home. In total, 52% of UK 18-year-olds in IMD Quintile 1 indicated they planned to live at home compared to 17.9% of UK 18-year-olds in IMD Quintile 5. By nation, this means IMD Quintile 1 in England are 3.5 times more likely to live at home, SIMD Quintile 1 in Scotland are 1.7 times more likely and WIMD Quintile 1 in Wales 2.3 times more likely. There is no difference between NIMDM Quintiles 1 and 5 in Northern Ireland.

    The pipeline

    Another big event in higher education in 2025 was Keir Starmer’s ‘bold new target’, made at the Labour Party Conference, to get ‘two-thirds of young people participating in higher-level learning – academic, technical or apprenticeships – by age 25’.

    Personally, I welcome this, though it is important to note it is not actually that ambitious but rather a continuation of the direction of travel of the last few decades. Oddly, the new target was dressed up as an attack on Blair’s 50% target, long since surpassed. Either we have to wonder whether the Government’s heart is really in it or, more likely, whether they thought they were performing some clever-clever political trick in announcing a progressive target in a regressive way.

    Either way, to hit the target we need to make further strides in widening participation. And one disappointment this year was a continuing failure to grip the educational underperformance of boys, a long-term interest of HEPI and the theme of a report we published in March of this year.

    When Ministers want positive headlines in right-of-centre media, they tend to speak out about the educational underachievements of white working-class boys, including in August of this year during exam results season. So I was presumably not the only person to be disappointed that October’s Post-16 white paper or November’s Government-commissioned Curriculum and Assessment Review and associated Government response did not include clear measures aimed at addressing the issue.

    Sadly, this fight needs to go on – and that is one reason why, last week, we published a blog by the author of some vitally important new research from the Netherlands proving the achievement gap between boys and girls is ‘larger in favour of girls in countries where women are more strongly overrepresented among secondary-school teachers’.

    Technology

    Given my audience, I touch upon my fifth and final topic of technology, including AI, a little trepidatiously. But I do not want to leave it out because the appetite for discussing it is huge: HEPI has been going nearly 25 years and our most well-read piece of output ever is the 2025 wave of our annual survey on students’ use of generative AI, which came out in February of this year. Similarly, our most well-read full-length HEPI Report of 2025 was our collection with the University of Southampton on AI and the Future of Universities, which looked at how AI could change everything from strategic planning, through teaching, to university research.

    So the march of AI continues at pace, but it still feels as if no one has fully worked out what it all means yet, including for education. Alongside all those hits on our AI work, for me 2025 will also partly be remembered for some pretty embarrassing AI cock ups, including:

    One of the more interesting books I read this year, and one which I reviewed for the HEPI website, was More Than Words: How to Think about Writing in the Age of AI by John Warner.

    In this book, the author upends one traditional approach to AI by arguing that it is wrong for students to think generative AI is good for creating an initial draft. Instead, he argues the first draft is the most important draft ‘as it establishes the intention behind the expression.’ In other words, just as we might expect a musician to use technology to hone a song they have written; we would probably approach a song that was entirely created by AI from the ground up with a little more scepticism about its originality or authenticity. 

    You may or may not think I am right about this but you can come to your own judgement later this week when our last publication of the year (and one of the biggest we have ever done) appears. This gathers together 30 of my book reviews about higher education that have appeared on the HEPI website and other outlets over the past 13[ years, since 2012/13 when those higher tuition fees first began. After all, our goal as a think tank is to make people think; it is not to tell people what to think. So do look out for this new publication on Thursday.

    Finally, let me end by thanking everyone who has supported our work in whatever way in 2025 and wishing all our readers the very best for the Christmas and New Year break.

    Source link

  • Global lessons for the UK: how Singapore and India are embedding AI in education

    Global lessons for the UK: how Singapore and India are embedding AI in education

    This blog was kindly authored by Dr Karryl Kim Sagun Trajano (Research Fellow, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Dr Gayatri Devi Pillai (Assistant Professor, HHMSPB NSS College for Women, Trivandrum), Professor Mohanan Pillai (Pondicherry University), Dr Hillary Briffa (Senior Lecturer, Department of War Studies, KCL), Dr Anna Plunkett (Lecturer, Department of War Studies, KCL), Dr Ksenia Kirkham (Senior Lecturer, Department of War Studies, KCL),  Dr Özge Söylemez (Lecturer, Defence Studies Department, KCL), Dr Lucas Knotter (Lecturer, Department of Politics, Languages, and International Studies University of Bath), and Dr Chris Featherstone (Associate Lecturer, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of York).

    This blog draws on insights from the 2025 BISA-ISA joint Workshop on AI Pedagogies: Practice, Prompts and Problems in Contemporary Higher Education, sponsored by the ASPIRE (Academic Scholarship in Politics and International Relations Education) Network.

    As the UK continues to work out how best to regulate and support the use of AI in higher education, other countries have already begun to put their ideas into practice. Singapore and India, in particular, offer useful contrasts. Both link technological innovation to questions of social inclusion, though they do so in different ways: Singapore focuses on resilience and lifelong learning, while India emphasises access and the use of vernacular languages. Comparatively, their experiences show how education policy can harness AI to advance both innovation and inclusion, making technological progress a driver of social cohesion. British tertiary education institutions have, for a long time, drawn international lessons mainly from their close western neighbours, but it would be wise to broaden their horizons.

    Singapore: AI for resilience and lifelong learning

    Singapore’s approach to AI in education is rooted in its Smart Nation 2.0 vision, which emphasises the three goals of “Growth, Community and Trust”. The government aims to develop a digitally skilled workforce of 15,000 AI practitioners by 2027, linking education reform to national capability-building. Within this framework, AI pedagogy is closely tied to the idea of social resilience, which is understood in Singaporean policy as the capacity of society to remain cohesive, adaptable, and functional in the face of disruption.

    This vision is implemented through a coordinated ecosystem connecting local universities, AI Singapore (AISG), and the SkillsFuture programme. SkillsFuture uses AI-driven analytics to personalise re-skilling courses, design decision-making simulations, and encourage collaboration between government, industry, and academia. The Centre for Strategic Futures extends this agenda by promoting “AI for personal resilience”, framing digital competence as part of civic participation and collective preparedness.

    Even so, workshop discussions highlighted persistent challenges. Access to elite universities remains uneven, and foreign workers are largely excluded from many lifelong-learning initiatives. Participants also noted that AI training tends to focus on technical ability, leaving less room for ethical debate or critical reflection. To some extent, the drive to innovate has moved faster than efforts to make AI education fully inclusive or reflective.

    Singapore’s experience nonetheless illustrates how AI can be built into the wider social purpose of education. For the UK, it offers a reminder that digital innovation and civic responsibility can reinforce one another when universities treat learning as a public good. Graduates who understand both the capabilities and the limits of AI are better equipped to navigate complex socio-political, and technological environments. When built into lifelong-learning systems, AI education helps create the networks of knowledge and trust that make societies more adaptable and resilient.

    India: AI for inclusivity and vernacular access

    If Singapore shows what is possible through tight coordination in a small, centralised system, India demonstrates how the same principles are tested when applied across a country of continental scale and diversity. India’s National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 sets out a comprehensive vision for transforming the education system to meet the demands of a rapidly changing global economy. It aims to raise the higher education gross enrolment ratio to 50% by 2035 and introduces flexible, learner-centred degree structures designed to encourage creativity and critical thinking. Artificial intelligence is central to this reform, “catalysing” both curricular innovation and system-wide modernisation.

    The National Digital Education Architecture (NDEAR) and the AI for All initiative embed AI within educational design and delivery. The University of Kerala’s Four-Year Undergraduate Programme (FYUGP), implemented under the NEP in 2024-25, is demonstrative of how these reforms are taking shape. AI tools now support continuous assessment, effectively and efficiently enabling educators to tailor material to individual learning needs and diverse assessment methods. These developments signal a wider shift in pedagogy, from one-off examinations toward continuous and formative evaluation that prioritises understanding and reflection.

    At the heart of the strategy lies India’s focus on linguistic and cultural inclusion. NEP 2020 mandates the use of regional languages in instruction and assessment, aligning with government programmes that promote vernacular content and accessible digital platforms. This multilingual approach helps extend higher education to students previously marginalised by linguistic barriers, while AI-assisted translation and adaptive interfaces further improve access for learners with disabilities.

    As with Singapore’s efforts, however, India’s reform agenda is not without its shortcomings. The NEP reflects the aspirations of a growing middle class and the logic of global competitiveness, raising concerns about commercialisation and uneven implementation, particularly at scale. Still, it represents one of the most ambitious efforts worldwide to connect digital innovation with social justice through deliberate policy design. For the UK, the lesson is clear: technological efficiency must be matched by cultural understanding and genuine inclusion, ensuring that advances in AI expand participation in higher education rather than deepen existing divides.

    Comparative insights for the UK

    Singapore and India approach AI in education from very different starting points, and each offers lessons worth considering. Singapore demonstrates the impact of close coordination between government and universities, supported by steady investment in applied research. India, meanwhile, is emblematic of how digital inclusion can extend beyond elite institutions when policy design takes account of linguistic diversity and regional inequality.

    For the UK, these examples point to a shared message: progress depends on coherence. Many initiatives already exist, from Joint Information Systems Committee Jisc’s advancement of the digital capabilities framework to Advance HE’s support to prepare for an AI-enabled future and the Russell Group’s guidance on generative AI, but they remain generally disconnected to date.

    Learning from Singapore and India could help the UK move towards a more consistent approach. That might involve:

    • developing a national framework for AI in higher education that sets clear expectations around ethics and inclusion;
    • funding staff training and digital literacy programmes inspired by Singapore’s emphasis on lifelong learning;
    • supporting multilingual and accessible AI tools that mirror India’s focus on linguistic and regional diversity;
    • building evaluation mechanisms to understand how AI adoption affects equality of opportunity.

    In the end, the challenge is less about technology, and more about governance. The UK has the capacity to lead in responsible AI education if policy connects local innovation to a national vision grounded in fairness and public trust.

    Source link

  • What does it mean to be a specialist anyway?

    What does it mean to be a specialist anyway?

    Over the weekend, HEPI published a blog continuing the conversation about knowledge vs skills, and a blog on governance.

    This blog was kindly authored by Emma Maskell, Head of Student and Academic Services, Norland.

    As we all digest the recent Post 16 Education and Skills White Paper and what it means for us, we reflect on what it means to be a ‘specialist’ and how we think about our distinctive roles in the system. Here, we discuss what it means to be a specialist and the implications for the higher education landscape now and in the future.

    In the UK and Australia, we are seeing a shift in central government narrative towards achieving impact through specialisation. It was a key feature of the recent Post 16 Education and Skills White Paper and in proposals from the landmark Strategic Examination of Research and Development in Australia. But can we all be specialists, and by whose definition are we being defined?

    Specialisms are nothing new. Many universities started off as specialist institutions. The ‘red brick’ universities were set up in response to the regional demand for scientific and technical skills in the 19th century.  Nearly a hundred years later, the Robbins report created a new wave of civic universities responding to a need for greater advanced technical skills in the workforce.

    However, following the lifting of the student number cap and a prolonged period of below-inflation tuition fee increases, we are in an age where many universities have had to diversify and broaden their provision to survive. This shift has led institutions to adopt a more generalist, one-size-fits-all approach, often at the expense of their specialist identities. This has often meant chasing the same students, the same research grants and so on. So, have we lost sight of what makes us special?

    What’s so special about you?

    By most people’s definition, Norland College would constitute a specialist higher education institution. For over 130 years, we have been pioneering early years education and care. Indeed, when you ask most people about specialist institutions, it is our subject specialisms which most commonly define us.

    But there are other ways providers can and do specialise. This is the type of specialists the white paper appears to refer to – defined by the type of research we do, our civic mission, serving the communities we belong to or our focus on outstanding teaching and learning.  Let’s not forget industry; the recent white paper was very clear that institutions should be working in conjunction with industry to deliver the skills needed for the delivery of the industrial strategy.

    For Norland, it is not only our subject specialism that sets us apart, but also how we deliver our curriculum. Our unique four-year integrated programme – which combines degree-level academic training with rigorous vocational preparation and hands-on experience – equips our graduates with unparalleled industry-specific knowledge and practical skills. This is Norland’s ‘golden triangle’ of knowledge and understanding, skills development and practical application.

    The government is concerned that in the current landscape, providers with similar offerings are chasing the same students, and there has been insufficient focus on each institution’s core purpose.  The government’s vision is that providers will be able to leverage specialisms whilst working more closely together to create a compelling regional offer that supports students and drives growth, building on existing good practice across the sector.

    Norland is a great example of how specialist providers can and do thrive. Our students see our specialisms as our superpower, enabling them to achieve their life goals now and into the future. We have a unique offering with a strong core purpose through our community activities, student placements and graduate nannying opportunities via our agency, which in turn supports students and drives economic growth that complements the wider regional offer. We work closely with our neighbouring higher education providers. You might say that, under the current proposals, Norland is a model student.

    Yet, being a specialist is not without its challenges. As others have pointed out, there is a risk that, rather than resolving cold spots, specialisation risks exacerbating these where providers exit certain subjects or research focus.  If specialist providers withdraw from certain regions, some areas could be left without any early years provision. As a result, students unable to relocate may lose access to these subjects, limiting social mobility. Alternatively, less well-funded research that might not be ‘REFable’ is dropped, restricting innovation and knowledge creation in vital subjects like education.

    The right funding model will also be crucial for specialists to continue to succeed. Like the majority of the sector, Norland is a not-for-profit higher education provider. In some ways, we are fortunate as an ‘approved’ fee category provider that we can set our own fees, which cover the additional costs associated with our golden triangle, particularly in relation to the resource-heavy nature of our practical course. However, our students are only able to take out the basic student loan, needing to fund the difference themselves. This is a significant barrier to social mobility and equality of opportunity.  Becoming an approved (fee cap) provider would not resolve this, as we could no longer charge the higher fees to cover the cost of the very things which make our curriculum specialist and unique. It’s catch-22!

    In summary

    In recent years, the sector has sought to become more generalist in response to the reduction of specialist subject funding, competition for student numbers and the need to diversify income streams.  Up to now, market forces have largely driven this trend of generalisation of the sector. To achieve the aims of the Post 16 Education and Skills White Paper, the Government should work with the sector to ensure that any funding model allows providers to focus on their core purpose and what makes them special, or we risk perpetuating the status quo, undermining the Government’s aims to support the development of the skilled workforce the economy needs. This way, everyone can benefit from the transformative power of high-quality skills and innovation-led practice.   

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Governance: a new salience

    WEEKEND READING: Governance: a new salience

    Author:
    Mary Curnock Cook

    Published:

    This blog is kindly authored by Mary Curnock Cook CBE, Chair of the Governing Body at the Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology, NED at the London Interdisciplinary School and Council member at the University of Leicester, and HEPI Trustee. 

    Governance in higher education may have been quietly rising up the regulatory agenda recently, but at the 2025 AdvanceHE Governance Conference, it felt as if it had reached peak salience in the general discourse about the future of the sector.  Both higher education and Skills Minister, Baroness (Jacqui) Smith of Malvern, and Office for Students (OfS) Chair, Professor Edward Peck, were present to lend weight to the arguments for strengthening higher education governance.  

    Baroness Smith cited weaknesses of governance, including financial oversight (and ensuing precarity), optimism bias in recruitment forecasting, franchising scandals, and the lack of understanding of the cumulative impact of risks. She challenged governing bodies to play their part in reshaping the sector in response to the Skills White Paper.  The message was clear: universities are autonomous institutions, and she is expecting them to step up to collaborate with further education institutions and employers to meet the 2040 target of two-thirds of young people reaching at least Level 4 by age 25.  Government had announced inflation-related tuition fee rises to support this. 

    In his wide ranging ‘in conversation’ piece with AdvanceHE governance guru, Aaron Porter, the OfS Chair set out the regulator’s thinking on strengthening governance.  As a former vice-chancellor himself, Professor Peck knows that co-regulation with the sector will go down better than prescription, so the OfS is supportive of the current Committee for University Chairs (CUC) review of the HE Code of Governance and is collaborating with the sector on this and other initiatives to improve governance.  It is important, he suggested, for the CUC to get this right to avoid the need for a material increase in regulatory oversight of governance arrangements in universities, rather than the more risk-based model of regulation in this space which the OfS wants to test with the sector. He also expects the new CUC code to suggest arrangements that will provide assurance to the OfS and others that agreed governance standards across the sector are being met and improving. 

    Professor Peck said that too much of the regulatory compliance weight has been on the Accountable Officer role in the past.  He wants chairs to be empowered and governing bodies to see themselves as more central to the leadership and success of an institution.  And, in recognition of governing bodies stepping up to their roles, he says he has changed his mind about remuneration.  “Chairs and Audit Committee Chairs should be paid,” he said, noting the significant responsibilities they undertake. 

    This shift in the locus of accountability was signalled in November when Professor Peck wrote to chairs of institutions setting out the five risk areas that the OfS is currently focussed on.  These were: financial pressures, significant change programmes, third-party and off-campus delivery, misuse of public funding and legal compliance with freedom of speech legislation. 

    The letter said:

    In this context, the job of a governing body becomes increasingly important and demanding. [W]e agree with the view expressed by some in the sector that standards of governance are not consistent and, in some respects, may benefit from overall improvement.

    At the conference, he went further, pointing to the dangers of group-think in the sector, and directly questioning why members of Universities UK are the vice-chancellors themselves rather than the institutions they lead.  He points out that there are no independent members of the UUK Board as all the board members are vice-chancellors. Chairs of governing bodies had been forced to set up their own group, the CUC, outside of the UUK tent.  He doubted that UUK agendas and policy positions were much discussed at governing body meetings.  The challenge was implicit – what does it say about university governance if chairs are collectively excluded from discussions about sector policy, and are discussions with government about policy constrained by the lack of externality in UUK’s constitution?

    The conference also covered a lot of detailed ground about governance in the sector – the size of governing bodies, the balance of work done in sub-committees vs the board, governance of academic quality, the skills and expertise of board members and so on. And the findings of the Gillies Report about governance failures at the University of Dundee were never far from the conversation.  But with the weight of a ministerial address and the punchy input of the new Chair of the OfS, governance in HE takes on a new significance.  The framing of the CUC’s work on the Higher Education Code of Governance as a ‘refresh’ is perhaps understating the importance of this work.  

    HEPI has recently published a report on designing effective student governance, and a policy note on the ethical reform of university governance.

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Hard, Soft, Green, Mad, AI: The Skills Squeeze

    WEEKEND READING: Hard, Soft, Green, Mad, AI: The Skills Squeeze

    This blog was kindly authored by Dr Fadime Sahin, Senior Lecturer in Accounting and Finance at the University of Portsmouth, London.

    According to the latest available data, approximately 264 million students worldwide were enrolled in higher education in 2023. Reasons for attending include the desire to acquire knowledge and skills, enhance employment prospects, boost social mobility and contribute meaningfully to society. Nearly three million students were enrolled at UK higher education institutions in 2023/24 (the most recent figures).

    The role of universities is increasingly debated across public discourse, shaping policy documents and household discussions, considering the tension between traditional academic skills, employability demands, sustainability imperatives and the accelerating influence of AI. The skills agenda currently sits at the heart of policymaking in England due to the skills gap facing the UK. The Lifelong Learning Entitlement, a flagship UK policy initiative that was introduced as a central plank of this agenda, seeks to expand access to flexible, modular study across a lifetime, reinforcing the policy emphasis on reskilling and employability.

    In a recent HEPI blog, Professor Ronald Barnett argued that policy discourse speaks almost exclusively of skills (employability, reskilling, skills gap) – the new currency of education – moving away from education and knowledge acquisition; while academic discourse speaks of education, but rarely of skills, especially in the humanities and social theory, resulting in a polarised and disconnected debate.

    Dr Adam Matthews, in another HEPI blog, echoed that policy discourse has become increasingly concerned with doing (skills) rather than knowing (knowledge). He analysed both the Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper and TEF (2023) submissions and found a similar imbalance: ‘skills’ outnumbered those to ‘knowledge’ by a ratio of 3.7, even higher among large, research-intensive universities that might be expected to focus more on knowledge production. The Post‑16 Education and Skills White Paper used the word ‘skills’ 438 times, but ‘knowledge’ only 24. The shift has been shaped by economic and growth imperatives, accountability and the instrumental role of universities for economic and social engineering, however it also risks eroding universities’ identity as knowledge producers. The same pattern is evident in the WEF’s Defining Education 4.0: A Taxonomy for the Future of Learning, which references ‘skills’ 178 times, but ‘knowledge’ only 32.

    In a blog post, Professor Paul Ashwin cautioned that a tertiary education system built only on skills, without knowledge, will deepen inequality and suggested a knowledge-rich understanding of skills. He stressed that skills without knowledge are hollow and insufficient, because they lack the contextual and disciplinary knowledge that makes them meaningful and adaptable. He pointed out that the Skills England report champions skills, but offers little clarity on what they actually mean. The listed skills (teamworking, creative thinking, leadership, digital literacy, numeracy, writing) are generic and detached from a specific context.

    The knowledge society was built on this promise. Yet in a post-truth era, that promise is faltering. Over the years, the emphasis on knowing – the pursuit of structured, disciplinary knowledge – has diminished, eroded by information overload, easy accessibility, erosion of trust in experts and an increasing policy focus on application and skills, even before the advent of AI. This decline sets the stage for Ashwin’s concern that a skills‑only system risks becoming hollow and inequitable.

    Understanding skills

    Amid this tension, it is useful to trace how different categories of skills have been constructed and prioritised within higher education.

    Hard skills

    Over the decades, hard skills have dominated classrooms, a result of education systems built around industrial-era priorities, reinforced by measurability bias through standardised testing and the privileging of tangible qualifications. These skills refer to technical, tangible, quantifiable,  job-specific and measurable abilities that are closely linked to knowledge acquisition and reflected in formal qualifications. Hard skills include coding/programming, engineering, data analysis, bookkeeping/accounting, foreign languages and other technical and occupational skills. Yet, the balance has shifted in recent decades as employers and policymakers emphasise 21st‑century competencies, including soft skills, green skills, digital and global skills and now increasingly AI skills. The fastest-growing skills (AI) category in higher education did not exist in mainstream curricula three years ago.

    Soft skills

    Soft skillshave long been undervalued and sidelined in classrooms. Strikingly, the term itself was first formalised not in education by the U.S. Army in 1972, when the Continental Army Command defined interpersonal and leadership capabilities as ‘soft skills.’ What began as military doctrine has since become central to employability discourse. Soft skills are interpersonal, intangible, non‑technical, transferable and context‑dependent abilities. They are closely linked to personal attributes and social interaction and reflected in behaviours, relationships and adaptability rather than formal qualifications. Soft skills can be categorised as personal qualities and values; attitudes and predispositions; methodological and cognitive abilities; leadership, management and teamwork; interpersonal capabilities; communication and negotiation; and emotional awareness and labour.

    Digital skills and AI literacy

    Computer literacy emerged in the 1980s and 1990s; with the spread of the Internet, this evolved into digital literacy, which in turn laid the foundation for today’s broader category of digital skills. The digital revolution prompted reforms. The core 21st-century digital and global skills include technical proficiency, information literacy, digital communication and networking, collaborative capacity, creativity, critical thinking, problem‑solving, intercultural understanding, emotional self-regulation and wellbeing. Since the end of 2022, the rapid uptake of generative AI tools has further expanded this landscape, introducing new forms of AI literacy and human-AI collaboration as essential competencies.

    Green skills

    Beyond interpersonal competencies, sustainability imperatives have introduced a new category: green skills. Green skills have emerged as a central focus in policy frameworks, driven by growing awareness of climate change, environmental degradation and the imperative of sustainability. Green skills refer to ‘the knowledge, abilities, values and attitudes needed to live in, develop and support a society which reduces the impact of human activity on the environment’, together forming green human capital. Green competencies are increasingly linked not only with green jobs, but with the broader transition toward sustainable economies. Green skills include technical and practical (heat pump installation, domestic recycling, energy grid engineering, peatland restoration), enabling skills (project management, collaboration, public engagement, digital skills) and knowledge and attitudinal capacities (carbon and climate literacy, systems thinking, environmental stewardship).

    Mad skills

    Alongside sustainability imperatives, a newer emergent HR discourse is the so‑called ‘mad skills’ – unconventional, disruptive and non-linear thinking or experiences in a rapidly changing labour market. Mad skills stem from personal passions, hobbies, creative ventures or extraordinary experiences or resilience stories. Although mad skills haven’t found its place in academic literature, it might have become part of the vocabulary of recruiters.

    Taken together, these categories illustrate the expanding and overlapping landscape of skills. Yet the very language we use to describe them is increasingly problematic. The label ‘soft skills,’ for instance implies that they are secondary, less important or less measurable than ‘hard’ skills, which risks undervaluing them. As AI increasingly automates hard skills (coding, data analysis, translation), the distinction begins to blur. What remains uniquely human – empathy, judgement, creativity – becomes central, better captured by the term ‘human skills.’ After all, we may end up dealing only with human skills and human‑AI collaborative skills.

    The role of the university

    Hard, soft, green, digital, global, AI… the list keeps expanding. Today’s workplace pressures candidates to master them all to stand out. These categories are overlapping and often co-developed. Universities, increasingly framed as providers of every imaginable skill, risk being reduced to training centres. When universities behave like training centres, the focus of education shifts from broad academic exploration, research and innovation to specific, narrowly vocational skill acquisition, designed for immediate employment needs. In the process, their identity as institutions of knowledge and civic purpose begins to erode. The problem is not the existence of these skills, but their policy dominance as output metrics. It is important to recognise that universities have historically embedded broad, intellectual and transferable capabilities alongside disciplinary knowledge; the current shift is toward narrow, vocational, immediately marketable packages. Cross-cutting skills are valuable when embedded within knowledge-led curricula, not as substitutes for knowledge production.

    Yet employment needs are never static. The skills taught today may lose relevance within five or ten years after graduation, with AI expected to further compress the lifespan of many skills. Universities will inevitably try to keep pace with the ever-evolving skills agenda, but graduates may still find themselves holding qualifications in skills that have become obsolete, even more so now with AI. This emphasis places considerable weight on cross-cutting competencies such as soft skills, green skills, digital/AI literacy and global awareness.

    However, in certain disciplines, e.g., accounting and finance, the accreditation requirements of major professional bodies (ACCA, CIMA, ICAEW) remain heavily exam‑driven, privileging technical knowledge and hard skills while leaving only a limited scope for the development of broader competencies. Universities do adjust, increasingly embedding diverse skills alongside technical skills, but structural constraints, sometimes necessary, remain.

    Changing student landscape adds a layer to this dynamic. HEPI’s 2025 Student Academic Experience Survey shows that almost 70% of full-time students in the UK – 65% of home students and 77% of international students – are engaged in paid employment during the academic term. More students are trading off study time for work to manage financial pressures. Students are now expected to master more skill categories than any previous generation, with less time to learn them. Universities must therefore navigate not only the shifting skills agenda, but also the reduced availability of students for independent study – and, in some cases, even class attendance – to develop these skills.

    Amid these pressures, universities are increasingly judged by the employment status of their graduates, yet such measures often ignore the realities of the job market, particularly for the young. A mismatch arises when well-prepared graduates with relevant skills remain unemployed, underscoring that graduate outcomes alone are not a reliable proxy for educational quality. In fact, the latest Graduate Labour Market Statisticsshow that only 67.9% of graduates in England were in high-skilled jobs in 2024. Nearly a third were in roles not requiring graduate-level skills. The proportion of graduates in high-skilled employment has hovered around 65–67% for a decade (2015-2024). The 2024 figure (67.9%) is the highest in the series, but only marginally above previous years. This pattern is not new. High-skilled employment rates for graduates were 69.5% in 2006, 67.3% in 2009, 65.3% in 2012 and 66.2% in 2015. In other words, for nearly two decades, the proportion of graduates entering high-skilled roles has remained stubbornly flat. This persistent underemployment, despite years of skills-focused reform, may challenge the assumption that expanding skills provision alone can resolve graduate underemployment.

    Universities find themselves caught between competing pressures: policymakers emphasising immediate employability skills; students juggling financial pressures and limited study time; and labour markets struggling to provide suitable graduate opportunities.

    This tension ultimately circles back to the principle of lifelong learning. We need to recognise that education cannot be reduced to a finite set of skills, but must remain a continuous process of adaptation, renewal and knowledge creation.

    Faced with the skills squeeze, it seems increasingly likely that ‘human skills’ and ‘human‑AI collaborations’ may matter most.

    Source link

  • AI meets the VLE: integrating an AI assistant at Saïd Business School, University of Oxford

    AI meets the VLE: integrating an AI assistant at Saïd Business School, University of Oxford

    This blog was kindly authored by Melissa Bowden, Senior Content Writer and Editor at Kortext.

    Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a distant concept in higher education. It’s here, and it’s already transforming the way institutions are delivering learning.

    At Oxford University’s Saïd Business School, an exciting new pilot is underway: a VLE-integrated AI assistant developed in collaboration with Kortext, Microsoft and Instructure. This initiative is more than a technology trial; it’s a strategic step towards realising Oxford’s ambitious AI vision.

    Starting the transformation journey

    The University of Oxford is a complex, devolved organisation with 26,500 students and 16,500 staff. The potential applications of AI across this ecosystem are vast – from accelerating research and processing data to enhancing student engagement and streamlining staff workflows. But with so many possibilities, the question is: where do you start?

    For Mark Bramwell, Chief Digital & Information Officer at Saïd Business School and Director of Strategic Digital Partnerships at the University of Oxford, one answer lies in the VLE. Integrating an AI assistant into their Canvas instance is a practical first step in a broader digital transformation strategy focused on agility, data and world-leading innovation.

    As Mark explains:

    AI will be core to our future. We need to equip our faculty, researchers, students and staff with the latest technologies – not just to make them more efficient today, but to also ensure they’re fully prepared with essential skills they’ll need in the workplace.

    The power of partnership

    Saïd Business School has been working in collaboration with Kortext, Microsoft and Instructure on the Canvas-integrated AI assistant pilot as part of its existing partnership.

    When establishing the pilot, there were three non-negotiables for Bramwell. The AI assistant must be seamlessly integrated into a student’s learning journey, use a ring-fenced secure data environment, and be interoperable with existing technologies at Oxford.

    With Canvas as the delivery platform, the AI assistant is available to students and faculty within their existing learning environment. All data is stored safely within the university’s domain and tenancy, complying with regulatory requirements. Finally, the pilot builds on Oxford’s long-standing strategic partnership with Microsoft as a natural evolution of its digital ecosystem.

    The pilot will span 1,200 students across all degree programmes, alongside faculty and instructional designers. For Bramwell, this project is:

    an exciting extension of our digital strategy and AI activities, leveraging the synergies that exist between our three tech collaborators.

    Data-driven insights for smarter course design

    It’s early days, but the pilot’s outcomes are greatly and positively anticipated. For Bramwell, one of the most beneficial aspects is the AI assistant’s ability to capture granular engagement data.

    Which content are students interacting with? Where are they disengaging? These insights can inform continuous improvement in course design and content strategy, enabling faculty to create responsive programmes relevant to student needs. They can also accelerate course development, with staff expertise complemented by AI-enabled tools and recommendations.

    Competitive advantage in a global market

    Higher education is an increasingly competitive sector, both in the UK and globally. Within this context, one of Saïd Business School’s ambitions is clear: to extend its reach through online learning and deliver an experience that reflects the name, brand and value of the University of Oxford.

    For Bramwell, personalised learning, enriched by data and analytics, is central to that differentiation.

    Our job is to make every learner better equipped for the world and the future of work than when they joined us.

    If we can do that, we’re doing our job.

    Looking ahead: the future of AI-enabled education

    The vision doesn’t stop there. Bramwell imagines a future where AI supports a student from ‘cradle to grave’, guiding their learning at every stage of their life.

    The possibilities are endless,but must be delivered within responsible, ethical frameworks.

    He also sees possibilities for global accessibility: ‘giving us the opportunity to take Oxford to learners, geographies and regions that may not have previously been possible’.

     By replicating faculty expertise globally, AI can help make education more inclusive and impactful than ever before.

    What happens next?

    The pilot’s impact will be measured through engagement metrics, content interaction and tangible efficiency gains for both students, instructional designers and faculty. Examples here might include learners using the AI assistant to summarise reading materials and save time, or staff asking the AI assistant for content recommendations to make the student experience more engaging.

    Bramwell is confident this is just the beginning. The next phase of AI-enabled learning at Oxford could involve developing truly personalised learning experiences, where learners construct and consume courses on their own terms – anytime, anywhere.

    A message for higher education leaders

    For other institutions, Bramwell offers a clear message:

    Don’t let governance and risk paralyse innovation. Experiment, innovate and play – but do it safely. Architect your approach within secure frameworks so you can learn without compromising data or trust.

    This is a pivotal moment for higher education. AI isn’t a future trend, it’s a present reality. The question now is whether institutions will embrace it proactively or be left behind.

    Kortext is a HEPI Partner. Mark Bramwell is speaking at Kortext LIVE on 11 February 2026 in London. Join Mark at this free event to hear more about the pilot’s progress, the long-term vision, and why Kortext was selected as a key project partner. Find out more and secure your seat here.

    Source link

  • An opportunity to reset the higher education environment?

    An opportunity to reset the higher education environment?

    Author:
    Bahram Bekhradnia

    Published:

    This blog was authored by Bahram Bekhradnia, HEPI’s founder and President, and was first written before yesterday’s news about the Chief Executive of the Office for Students standing down at Easter 2026.

    The recently published OfS Strategy states that, in addition to being ambitious and vigilant, in future the organisation will be ‘collaborative’ and ‘vocal’ in promoting English higher education as a force for good. If that really is its intention, it will represent a huge and welcome change from its past behaviour. No doubt this new approach reflects that of a new Government and Secretary of State. But this leopard will not find it easy to change its spots so suddenly.

    These spots derive from the environment and ideology that gave rise to its creation. In that respect, the recent Post-16 Education and Skills white paper represents a great missed opportunity to correct one of the more egregious faults of the present regime – an ideology which underpinned the 2011 white paper and the changes that followed: the ideology of higher education as a marketplace

    The 2010/11 regime, enshrined in legislation and which continues even now, is based on the notion that higher education – indeed, perhaps education more generally – is a ‘product’ and that students are ‘consumers’ of that product.  And consequently, as is the case with respect to consumers of other monopoly (or monopolistic) products like gas, water, telecoms etc they need a ‘market’ regulator to protect their interests.  So in the same way as we now have Ofgem, Ofwat and Ofcom, we needed an OfStud.

    But even those other ‘Offices for’ recognise the need for a healthy sector and are concerned with the national interest and their sector as a whole. Not so the Office for Students, which has steadfastly avoided any concern to ensure that England has a healthy and successful higher education sector, but has focused firmly and exclusively on protecting student interests – or at least what it has perceived as being student interests.

    For more than a decade, its modus operandi has been to wag its finger sternly at higher education institutions and tell them that they must do better – however well they are doing – and to say nothing to advocate for higher education. Indeed, constantly telling universities that they must do better has fed the anti-university environment fostered by previous ministers (even the previous Prime Minister spoke of ‘rip-off degrees’) and a hostile press.

    The leadership of the OfS could not be expected to change its spots. New leadership was clearly required, and the replacement of the Chair represents a good start. But after more than a decade of undermining the higher education sector, it will take more than a new Chair at the top of the organisation to enable it credibly to discharge its new stated aim of being ‘collaborative’ and ‘vocal that higher education is a force for good’.

    New leadership is certainly required, but beyond that, the Government needs to create a body that is more than a regulator – one that has explicit responsibility for fostering the health of the sector as a whole and ensuring that England has the higher education sector that it needs. It should reject the ideology of higher education as a marketplace, of education as a product and of students as ‘consumers’ of that product.

    Source link

  • University lands: mapping risks and opportunities for the UK higher education sector (Part 3)

    University lands: mapping risks and opportunities for the UK higher education sector (Part 3)

    SUMS Consulting will host a webinar from 11:00 to 12:00 on Thursday 22 January 2026. The webinar will include a walkthrough of the report and online tool, and panel discussion featuring Nick Hillman OBE (Director of HEPI). Register here.

    This blog, kindly authored by Thomas Owen-Smith, Principal Consultant at SUMS Consulting, and William Phillips, Data Analyst at SUMS Consulting, is part of a three-part mini series on UK universities’ approaches to land use.

    Today’s final blog in the series focuses on opportunities and value. You can find part one of this series, which introduces the work, here. Part two of this series, focusing on risk, is here.

    The opportunity landscape

    2025 sees many higher education institutions looking for innovative approaches to rebalance their profile of income and costs.

    Universities’ estates might offer the potential to save hundreds of millions of pounds on energy costs through harnessing the sun and wind, as well as opportunities to play a role in the local and regional systems that will play an important role in the UK’s energy transition.

    Local and regional connectivity through infrastructure also brings opportunities around education, skills and jobs, as well as applied research, industry partnership and knowledge exchange. These offer means for institutions to nourish relationships with their local communities, with positive impacts on public opinion and consent around universities’ legitimacy and the public goods they bring to society.

    We have also explored opportunities around afforestation and the natural capital value of ecosystem services supplied by UK universities’ lands – which stands separate to the commercial land value. (And there are many additional opportunities which we did not have time to investigate in detail).

    Again, many institutions have already taken steps (in some cases over many years) around the opportunities outlined. Our mapping of sector land use cannot pick up these existing examples, but we have referred to some accessible cases in the report.

    We hope the insights of this work can help individual institutions which may not yet have engaged with these questions to understand their initial option space, opening the track to more detailed investigation; and support the higher education sector and policymakers to have more informed conversations about what these options may mean for decisions and guidance at the aggregate or whole-sector level.

    We also refer to sector resources around topics such as carbon credits, improving biodiversity and reducing impacts on nature (the greatest of which, for universities, are typically through their supply chains).

    Mapping opportunities and value

    Using our mapping tool, institutions can explore the potential of their estates for solar and wind energy generation, as well as suitability for broadleaf forest growth.

    These opportunities vary across the country according to latitude, topography, aspect and a range of local conditions and constraints. We used an assumptions-based approach, referring to sector-wide averages, to model the potential aggregate impacts of sector-wide uptake (noting that some institutions have already done this).

    If 10% of universities’ built land were equipped with solar energy installations, this could generate an estimated 208,826 megawatt-hours (mWh) per year. This would equate to around 2.9% of the sector’s total energy usage in 2022/23 (as reported by 135 institutions in the Estates Management Record). Based on current commercial unit rates for energy, this could achieve an annual saving of around £42 million on energy bills. It would also abate in the region of 47,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) annually, representing around 3.3% of the sector’s reported scope 1 and 2 emissions in 2022/23.

    If 10% of universities’ grassland was used for solar power generation, this could generate an estimated 189,360 mWh per year. This would achieve energy savings, financial savings and abatement of carbon emissions of a similar, slightly smaller magnitude than the estimates just above for built land.If the same percentage was used for wind generation, this could generate an estimated 19,920 mWh per year. This would achieve energy-saving, financial and carbon abatement benefits of roughly 10% the size of those set out for solar opportunities.

    Using carbon flux factors extrapolated from the UK Natural Capital Accounts, we also estimated the annual carbon sequestration of the university sector’s (core) estate as 3,162 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) per year. If 10% of universities’ grasslands were put to forests, this could sequester an estimated 571 tCO2e per year of greenhouse gases over a 40-year period, increasing carbon drawdown by around 18% annually.

    Although the potential carbon impacts would be smaller than those around renewable energy, afforestation would bring positive impacts for nature, biodiversity and the sector’s natural capital.

    Our natural capital calculations are based on a value transfer approach, which extrapolates generalised national-level data (also from the UK Natural Capital Accounts) to a local area based on the assumed ecosystem services supplied by one unit of land (typically hectares).

    We estimate the asset value of ecosystem services (including renewable electricity provisioning, water provisioning, air pollution regulating, greenhouse gas regulating, noise regulating, and recreation health benefits) provided by UK institutions’ lands at £248.5m. Of this, £147.4m (59.3%) is provided by built environment, £54.9m (22.1%) is provided by grass, £43.3m (17.5%) is provided by trees and £2.9m (1.2%) is provided by water. This is likely an underestimation.

    Why this matters for universities

    The way that we use land is a critical part of securing a sustainable future for the planet. In global terms, land use is a key driver of climate change and degradation of nature; but it can also be a solution to reversing these.

    There already exist both regulatory and market-based frameworks which reflect various dimensions of the value of natural capital and ecosystem services.

    Partially due to concerns around the credibility of commercial offsetting schemes, some universities have turned to approaches for carbon sequestration or “insetting” on their own lands, which allow for easier assurance and impact evaluation. We refer to some examples in the report.

    While still emergent, these developments represent attempts to account for the true value of nature and the cost of destroying it (which traditional accounting and financial systems fail to do effectively) and may bring new economic opportunities around the stewardship of nature and natural resources.

    Ultimately, everything depends on this.

    Source link