As the higher education sector starts to plan its next budget cycle and many may need to make savings, there is a concern about the impact of any cuts on students and how this could negatively affect their university experience and performance.
Universities are bound to look at a range of options to save money, especially given the stormy operating context. But one less-often highlighted aspect of university finances is the cost (and benefit) of the additional financial support universities devote to many of their students. Through cash, vouchers and other means, many universities provide financial help to support with the costs of living and learning.
Using Universities UK’s annual sector figures as one indicator, roughly 5% of universities’ overall expenditure has gone towards financial support and outreach, equivalent to around £2.5 billion. Although some of this money will inevitably not go directly to students themselves, this is still a significant amount of spending.
There are, naturally, competing tensions when it comes to considering any changes to targeted financial support. With significant financial pressures on students, exacerbated by the cost-of-living crisis, there is always a very justifiable case for more money. However, with the significant financial pressures universities are facing, there is an equally justifiable case to control costs to ensure financial sustainability. Every university has to manage this tension and trade-offs are inevitable when understanding just how much financial support to give and to whom.
In many respects, the answers to those questions are partially governed by Access & Participation Plans, with the clear intention that these financial interventions really change student outcomes. However, properly measuring those outcomes is incredibly difficult without a much deeper understanding of student ‘need’ – and understanding these needs comes from being able to identify student spending behaviour (and often doing this in real-time).
It always amazes me that some APPs will state that financial support ‘has had a positive impact on retention’ and some quite the opposite and I think part of this is a result of positioning financial support from the university end of the telescope rather than the student end.
Understanding real and actual ‘need’ helps to change this. Knowing perhaps that certain groups (for example Asylum Seekers or Gypsy, Roma, Traveller, Showman and Boater students) across the sector will have similar needs would be helpful and data really help here. Having, using, and sharing data will allow us to draw a bigger picture and better signpost to where interventions are most effectively deployed so those particular groups of students who need support are achieving the right outcomes.
Technology is at hand to help: Open Banking (for example) is an incredible tool that not only can transform how financial support can be delivered but also helps to build an understanding of student behaviour.
Lifting the bonnet and understanding behaviour poses additional questions, such as: When is the right time to give that support? And what form should that support take?
I am a big proponent of providing financial support as soon as a student starts. When I talk to universities, however, it is clear that the data needed to identify particular groups of students are not readily available at the point of entry and students’ needs are not met. Giving a student financial support in December, when they needed it in September, is not delivering at the point of student need, it is delivering at the point where the university can identify the student. I think there is a growing body of evidence that suggests the large drop off in students between September and December is, in part, because of this.
Some universities in the sector give a small amount of support to all students at the start of the year, knowing that by doing so they will ensure that they can meet the immediate needs of some students. But clearly, some money must also go to those who do not necessarily need it.
However, and this is where the maths comes in, if the impact of that investment keeps more students in need at university, then I would argue that investment is worth the return. And the maths is simple: it really doesn’t take many additional students to stay to have a profoundly positive impact on university finances. Thus it is certainly worthy of consideration.
To me, this is about using financial support to drive the ultimate goal of improving student outcomes, especially the retention of students between September and December, which is when the first return is made, where the largest withdrawal is seen and where the least amount of financial support is given.
As to the nature or format of support: of course, in most cases, it is easier to provide cash. However, again, this is about your investment in your student, and, for example, if you have students on a course with higher material and resource costs, or students who are commuting, then there is an argument to consider more in-kind support and using data to support that decision.
Again, I am a proponent of not just saying ‘one size fits all’. Understanding student need is complex, but solutions are out there. It is important to work together to identify patterns of real student need and understand the benefits of doing so.
My knowledge draws on JS Group’s data, based on the direct use of £40 million of specialist student financial support to more than 160,000 students across 30 UK universities in the last full academic cycle.
The real positive of this is that everyone wants the same goal: for fewer students to withdraw from their courses and for those students to thrive at university and be successful. We need to widen the debate on how financial support is delivered, when, and in what format to draw together a better collective understanding of student need and behaviour to achieve that goal.
This blog is by Jo Johnson, Executive Chairman of FutureLearn, a Member of the Council of the Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology and a Visiting Professor of King’s College London. He served as Universities and Science Minister under David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson.
There’s plenty to like about the Office for Students’ proposed new five year strategy, now out for consultation and being debated in Parliament on the 30 January.
Best of all, to my mind, is that the Teaching Excellence Framework is at the heart of the regulator’s new integrated approach to quality. Given the interests ranged against it, few would have put money on the TEF making it to the tenth anniversary of the Green Paper that made the case for it.
We’re a long way from 2017 when ‘abolish TEF’ was Labour policy – the new Government and the OfS deserve credit for recognising that if it didn’t exist, they would surely be designing something very much like it.
There is, however, one major problem with the regulator and that’s the OfS’s failure to support the innovation vital to our success as a knowledge economy.
Competition and choice were enshrined in the General Duties of the new regulator, in the very first lines of the Higher Education and Research Act (2017), with an importance second only to the need to have regard to institutional autonomy.
Which is why the recent decision to ‘pause’ applications to the Register and for Degree Awarding Powers (DAPs) from new entrants, so the OfS can focus on the financial sustainability of some woebegone incumbents, is a shockingly poor one.
It pains me to see the OfS give up on supporting start-ups and with such an embarrassingly weak justification for doing so.
A few trailblazers – including the Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology, the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering, the London Interdisciplinary School and The Engineering & Design Institute: London – have in recent years managed to acquire their own DAPs, highlighting in their different ways the value that new providers can bring.
Such are the procedural barriers to entry the OfS has erected that new entrants invariably have to take on expensive consultants who advise them to shape themselves as much as possible in the cookie-cutter mould of existing institutions.
I said that this pause was a shocking decision. In fact, it is sadly all too predictable.
As Independent Higher Education has been saying to anyone who will listen, OfS service standards for those seeking registration or DAPs have long been lamentable, promises of better performance have not been kept (despite a hike in OfS fees) and this pause and warning of a ‘staggered’ (ie even worse service) approach to re-opening in the future represents a new low.
There seems always a ready excuse for the OfS not focusing on innovation and deprioritising this part of its statutory duties – first it was the task of getting existing providers on the Register, then the COVID maelstrom and now the need to deal with the financial troubles of some providers paying the price for weak financial management and poor governance.
This is a worrying pattern – and, given that new providers recruit more than most from disadvantaged and underrepresented groups, it will also, if it persists, make it harder for the new Government to achieve its ambitions for widening participation and access to higher education.
I cannot imagine the pause would withstand legal challenge if tested.
That might well become necessary.
For there is reason to fear the pause will become semi-permanent.
That’s because there is no sign that financial pressures on institutions will have abated by August, when the OfS says it will start to gradually re-open the window for applications for registration and DAPs. Indeed, there is every chance, unless the government commits to annual inflationary increases in tuition fees, that a number of providers will be much further up the creek by then than they are now.
As I say, the OfS is under a statutory obligation, set out in the Higher Education and Research Act, to support choice and innovation in provision.
It’s not a perfect analogy, but imagine Ofgem, which has similar duties to enable competition and innovation, refusing to allow in new suppliers of renewable energy. Or Ofcom turning away broadband start-ups. Surely, that would be unthinkable. For that matter, how is this pause consistent with Sir Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and the business secretary urging watchdogs to tear down the regulatory barriers that hold back economic growth, the ‘absolute top priority for the Government’?
It’s surely the opposite.
And, of course, the real irony is that freezing the OfS Register and DAPs in aspic will probably worsen financial sustainability rather than promote it.
Telling the world that the regulator is so snowed under with handling institutional failure that it can’t do the rest of its job sends a dismal message to international students, to the institutions bringing diversity to the sector and to investors interested in supporting English higher education.
The OfS should hit the unpause button.
If it won’t do that, then it must at the very least during this period of pause make clear that it will be open for business for m&a (ie entities needing to transfer DAPs and UT from ailing institutions) that prevents financial risks from crystalising.
The risk otherwise is that institutions at risk of failure cannot seek timely OfS approval for the transfer of their DAPs / UT to white knights that want to come to their rescue.
How would that be in the student interest?
The OfS should be able to walk and chew gum, especially as it sets its own resource envelope, in agreement with DfE, through the level of fees that it charges those it regulates.
If it can’t work out how to multi-task and really has to redeploy staff to financial sustainability, it should first deprioritise some of the newer headline-grabbing conditions of registration it has imposed in response to ministerial whims du jour, before it walks away from the actual statutory duties given to it by Parliament.
Finally, failure to discharge the responsibilities Parliament has given it should be a source of considerable embarrassment to the OfS given the turf war that it has waged over the quality function.
The long pause raises real questions about the sustainability of the OfS’s refusal to appoint a new quality body to take on the role played by the Quality Assurance Agency after it was de-designated in March 2023.
If the OfS can’t promptly resume one of the most important duties given to it in HERA, it should run a quick process to find a new Designated Quality Body, so that some other organisation can get on with it.
By Professor Amanda J. Broderick, Vice-Chancellor & President at the University of East London.
It wasn’t so long ago that universities across the UK were rallying to preserve the graduate visa route, a vital lifeline for international students and higher education. When the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) concluded there was no significant abuse of the pathway and recognised its immense value, the sector exhaled a collective sigh of relief. Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) underscored this conclusion: 80% of international students leave the UK within five years of arrival.
But amidst this hard-fought victory, a critical oversight emerged. In our defence of the graduate visa, we inadvertently highlighted the transient nature of international students in the UK, risking the perception of them as only economic contributors rather than showcasing the profound, enduring responsibilities we owe to them as alumni – and their broad value. The reality is, universities have a far greater role to play in empowering international graduates to thrive – not just within the UK, but globally.
A Broader Vision for Graduate Support
International students arrive with diverse ambitions. Some envision building careers in the UK, while others plan to apply their skills back home. Regardless, the implicit promise of higher education remains the same: their degree must unlock opportunities and enable them to succeed, whether they are in Hyderabad, Atlanta, Cairo or Athens. But how effectively are we fulfilling this promise?
We are getting better as a sector at having frank conversations about support for international students while at university – HEPI and Uoffer Global’s recent report on integration challenges facing Chinese students by Pippa Ebel is a good example of this. But as these students graduate, their needs evolve.
Economic growth is the mantra of the UK government, but this will remain a distant dream if we do not focus on global skills as part of the solution. Business and industry are competing internationally for talent and innovation, and as such, global employability and enterprise are an integral part of the education agenda.
To truly fulfil our responsibilities, universities must look beyond the campus experience and address the evolving, global needs of their international alumni. This involves building a bridge between academic learning and the economic, cultural, and professional landscapes of not only the UK but our alumni’s home countries too.
UEL’s Global Employability Model
At the University of East London (UEL), this principle is central to our mission. My recent visit to India for the UEL 2024 India Summit offers a case study in how universities can redefine global graduate support. With over 8,000 Indian students in 2024, UEL’s commitment to fostering long-term success is clear. The Summit – spanning Chennai, Hyderabad, and Vadodara – brought together leaders from academia, government, and industry to explore partnerships that align a UEL education with India’s economic and societal needs.
A key outcome of the Summit was the launch of the UEL India Industry Advisory Board. This pioneering collaboration between alumni, industry leaders, and academic experts provides strategic direction on UEL’s curriculum development and enterprise initiatives aligned to India’s workforce demands, while also offering alumni robust post-graduation support. Another important engagement took place at T-Works Innovation Centre in Hyderabad, where we worked with international stakeholders on the practical steps UEL can take to bridge the gap between academia and industry. The result: stronger industry ties, better-prepared graduates, and increased support for retaining high-value talent, reducing brain drain and supporting local innovation.
These efforts are not isolated. UEL has long been engaged in projects that foster international employability, including partnerships with Tamil Nadu’s government, where we hosted a hackathon and work placement initiative for computer science and engineering students. This initiative resulted in work placements for alumni based in Chennai, opening up career pathways in sectors such as robotics and AI.
UEL’s forward-thinking approach also extends beyond such events – our international employability offer begins during a student’s degree, with Careers in India mentoring panels and an employer webinar series, opportunities for students to connect with industry professionals and gain insights into fields such as business, HR product design, and digital marketing in India. This support does not finish after graduation; our offer to global alumni includes post-graduation employability boosters, lifelong access to career support portals with free resources, and business incubation and acceleration.
Perhaps most importantly, we also offer a programme of peer-to-peer mentoring, facilitated by our India alumni chapter and bolstered by our Industry Advisory Board, creating a supportive network that fosters continuous learning and career advancement. Unlike many universities, where alumni engagement is viewed primarily through a philanthropic lens, at UEL it is integral to our mission of creating real-world impact. By empowering our international alumni to ‘pay it forward’, we generate a virtuous cycle of mentorship, opportunity, and success. Through our alumni’s success, we amplify the value of a UK degree, not just for the individual, but for their home countries and the global economy too.
Rethinking Metrics of Success
Alongside universities’ own work to ensure they support global graduate employability, we must also look to the role of other stakeholders in this endeavour. As policymakers and universities work together to shape the future of higher education, we must advocate for more nuanced metrics to capture the true global success of our graduates. The Graduate Outcomes Survey (GOS), while valuable, is insufficient to capture the global impact of UK higher education. Refined metrics that capture the contributions of international students to both the UK and their home countries could better highlight the profound influence of UK higher education on a global scale. This data is critical not only for refining university strategies but also for safeguarding the UK’s reputation as a global leader in higher education.
David Willetts’ recent report with the Resolution Foundation also raises issues with the GOS, pointing out that ‘many graduates are on a long and not necessarily straightforward route to a career,’ and that ‘assessing where they are at 15 months is premature’. This is surely even more pertinent for many of our international graduates, whose circumstances may not be accurately captured by a one-size-fits-all survey. Our support for these students must be based on their specific contexts as much as possible – including how we measure success.
Above all, the responsibility to support international graduates does not end at graduation. The world is changing, and the future workforce demands new skills and global collaboration. By supporting international graduates throughout their careers, we help them not only succeed but also lead the way in shaping the jobs the world needs tomorrow. In partnership with business, government, and stakeholders beyond, we can ensure that our international graduates are equipped to thrive in a rapidly evolving global economy – both for their own success and for the benefit of communities worldwide.
At UEL, we are committed to this vision. By nurturing a cycle of mentorship and opportunity, we aim to empower our alumni to transform their communities and industries. Their success is our success – and a testament to the enduring value of UK HE. It’s time for the sector to embrace its role as a global enabler, ensuring that every graduate not only thrives but becomes a beacon of the UK’s educational excellence around the world.
Today’s weekend reading was written by Dr Andrew Woon, Senior Lecturer in Strategic Management at Queen Mary, University of London.
Generative AI is revolutionising industries, with education at the forefront of this transformation. Traditional models of knowledge acquisition are being challenged as AI redefines how we access and process information.
As AI becomes more accessible and accepted by the public, its potential to reshape the majority of jobs in the market has become increasingly evident. Consequently, AI literacy has emerged as a foundational skill for careers and entrepreneurship. Given that universities are not only institutions of learning and development but also the cornerstone of a nation’s competitive advantage, the impact of AI on education attracts significant attention.
As an educator, I believe that AI has lowered the barriers to accessing knowledge and education, enabling more students, especially those who previously lacked opportunities to benefit. On the other hand, AI has also raised the bar for teaching, as the accessibility of information and knowledge is transforming traditional teaching and learning paradigms. To excel as a teacher today, one must possess not only subject expertise but also advanced pedagogical skills and the ability to stay current with emerging trends.
I echo the sentiments of computer scientist Professor Argamon, who views AI as a technology that can make education more human-centred rather than replacing teachers. AI enables educators to focus on the most critical aspect of their work—teaching and mentoring students rather than merely delivering courses. By leveraging AI, teachers can spend more time engaging with students and actively supporting their holistic development.
AI should not simply be seen as a new complementary skill but as a driving force for educational transformation. Our education system must evolve from a focus on traditional knowledge-based learning outcomes to prioritising skill development, reflective thinking, and innovation-driven learning. This shift will better prepare students to adapt to future challenges and enhance their competitiveness.
The Latin root of the word ‘curriculum’ is ‘currere’, meaning ‘to run’. In academic contexts, a curriculum is defined as a learning plan consisting of a series of activities and courses. Our education system has overly prioritised credit accumulation, often neglecting the ethos of lifelong learning and the importance of continuous self-improvement. Therefore, I advocate that education should not merely be a three- or four-year programme but rather the starting point of a lifelong journey encompassing both depth and breadth of learning in knowledge and skills.
The rapid development of AI should serve as a catalyst for everyone to pursue personal growth. As Professors David Lefevre and David Shrier of Imperial College Business School have suggested, we need to refocus curricula on skills and capabilities that are challenging for AI to replicate. This shift aligns with a move toward more personalised, socially focused, and mentorship-driven education models. Such a transformation would fundamentally change traditional teaching and learning methods, equipping students to better face future challenges.
The greatest value of universities lies in their role as intellectual hubs that foster curiosity, critical questioning and new creation. Universities should teach students to think independently rather than simply follow instructions. Our education system must stop producing “cookie-cutter” graduates who cannot compete with AI.
With the rise of online education and the prevalent use of AI, traditional higher education models are facing unprecedented challenges. Higher education institutions are caught in a paradox: on one hand, they require significant resources to retrain staff in new pedagogies and upgrade facilities; on the other hand, they are grappling with the pressures of cost-cutting. Therefore, balancing cost-effective solutions with quality education remains one of the greatest dilemmas for higher education institutions.
I believe fostering deeper collaboration with industry is a viable way forward to mitigate the financial pressures associated with AI investment. By engaging with industry-specific AI tools, students gain valuable exposure and hands-on learning experiences that better prepare them for employment. At the same time, employers benefit from graduates who not only meet their expectations but also possess the skills to excel in their roles.
In conclusion, the mission of education must focus on cultivating well-rounded individuals equipped with critical thinking, adaptability, curiosity, and a strong sense of social responsibility. By embracing AI as a transformative force and equipping both staff and students with the right mindset and values, universities can empower their graduates to thrive in an ever-evolving world. This approach will ensure that education remains relevant, impactful, and aligned with the demands of the future.
This blog was written by Rose Stephenson, Director of Policy and Advocacy at HEPI.
Free speech is back in the news. Implementing the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was paused shortly after the general election to allow time for the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Philipson, to consider whether the law should be repealed.
Many expected that to be the case and were perhaps surprised to hear that the Government will implement the ‘Free Speech Act’ after all – with only two measures being considered for repeal – the duties placed on Student Unions and the statutory tort (the proposed legal route for individuals who suffer a loss due to a breach of their free speech). Bridget Philipson announced in the House of Commons that she proposes ‘keeping a complaints scheme in place with the OfS’. This scheme will consider complaints from staff, external speakers and university members, but not students (who can seek external review of a complaint with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education – the OIA). There are a couple of nerdy regulatory points to note here:
There is still the possibility of the following scenario: A student raises a complaint of harassment from a member of staff. The institution concludes that the staff member did harass the student, and the staff member receives a written warning. The student believes that the outcome of the case was inappropriate and (following an unsuccessful appeal) takes the complaint to the OIA, who upholds the complaint and instructs the institution to compensate the student financially. The staff member feels that their free speech has been impinged by this process and raises a complaint with the OfS, who considers the complaint justified and instructs the institution to compensate the staff member financially. Therefore, we end up with a perverse scenario where two external bodies reach contradictory conclusions about the same event.
The OfS will not have a duty to assess every complaint it receives; rather, it will have the power to consider complaints. Bridget Philipson’s speech specifically mentioned the OfS not having to assess poorly put-together or nonsensical complaints. However, a robust, published decision-making framework will need to outline which cases the OfS will consider and which it will not, lest it be perceived that this loophole could be influenced by political persuasion.
Policy wonks and those who must implement this legislation in institutions wait with bated breath….
The quite extraordinary amount of time this legislation took to pass, plus the stopping and starting of its implementation, gave me time to ponder its practical implementation. I wonder if the focus of the free speech debate has missed the mark.
Thousands of column inches have been dedicated to discussing free speech in university, including my own previous blog series:
Much of the discussion has focussed on individual speakers being invited to campus to speak on particularly polarising topics. This may be an important part of promoting free speech, but if it doesn’t change anyone’s mind, is it just someone shouting into the void? Creating an in-person version of Twitter is unlikely to effectively promote free speech if only those who already agree with the speaker attend and those who feel offended by the topic or the speaker stay away. By almost solely focusing on this approach, we risk missing a significant opportunity.
I’ve reflected on the circumstances that have led me to change my mind or opinion – or just to be genuinely interested in someone’s different belief or values system. It was not someone yelling polarising opinions but a considered conversation with someone who thinks differently from me. I have the genuine privilege of working with colleagues from across the political spectrum and engaging in debate and discussion, often publicly, on a daily basis. My ideas and beliefs are constantly challenged and given a chance to develop.
One of the first lectures of my PGCE explained that ‘unlearning’ is much harder than learning. Therefore, if your pupils already believe that they know something, it is much more difficult to change their perception than to paint information on a blank canvas.
If we truly want to promote free speech, we have to teach the skills of unlearning: curiosity, open mindedness, resilience and tolerance. This isn’t to say that all students should change their minds or perceptions. This might happen, but what we also need to develop is the curiosity to understand why someone thinks or believes differently from us. What led them to this belief? Why is it important to them? And, in turn, why do we hold the belief that we do? What led us to that viewpoint and why is it important to us?
I appreciate that this becomes more complex when students’ own identities may be intertwined with these topics. While the right to speak freely is crucial, the choice to disengage from a topic that causes deep distress should also be respected. However, there are myriad interesting and challenging topics we can explore to learn from one another. One memorable experience from my time at the University of Bath was when a student explained to me that she found it patronising and incorrect for UK universities to teach that democracy was always the right way to organise society, especially when she observed greater poverty and inequality in the UK than in her home country. This didn’t alter my view on the importance of democratic rights or that it is the best way to organise society – but I’m so grateful that my ingrained belief and perception were challenged in this way and that I had the opportunity to consider an entire societal structure through the perspective of someone from a different background to my own.
This conversation occurred by chance. As universities strive to promote free speech amidst the new registration requirements, how can we encourage the sharing of diverse, and at times challenging, opinions? Additionally, how can we teach the skills not only to debate our own views but also to listen to the opinions of others? Stimulating debate is, of course, the foundation of university teaching and research, and many institutions create spaces for this to occur daily. However, with ongoing criticism that universities are stifling debate and the new regulations coming into effect, providers will need to formalise and promote these opportunities. (Please write a blog for us if you would like to highlight your best practice in this area!)
In the age of disinformation, where critical thinking is increasingly important, how can we expect students to critically analyse information shared by others if they cannot first critically analyse their own thoughts?
Personalized, timely, and relevant communication is key to engaging prospective students and meeting enrollment goals in higher education.
Effective strategies rely on immediacy, relevance, automation, and trackability, ensuring impactful and consistent interactions.
Omnichannel outreach, using a mix of email, SMS, print, and digital platforms, enhances visibility and builds trust by meeting students where they are.
Connecting with prospective undergraduate students in meaningful ways requires a thoughtful blend of strategy, immediacy, and personalization. Gone are the days when generic messaging could effectively spark interest or drive engagement. Today’s prospective students expect communications that reflect an understanding of their individual needs, aspirations, and priorities and their value to your institution.
Institutions aiming to enhance their enrollment strategies must adopt a more data-informed and strategic approach to communication. This means reaching out with the right message, at the right time, and through the right channels.
Laying the Foundation for Communication Success
Effective communication with students is built on four key principles: immediacy, relevance, automation, and trackability. Each element plays a critical role in ensuring that interactions resonate with students and influence their decision-making process.
Immediacy: Quick and timely responses that change as students’ behaviors change demonstrate attentiveness and can make a significant impression on prospective students. Delays in following up on inquiries or campus visits risk the loss of momentum and interest. Statistics show that the school that responds to inquiries first is more likely to convince that student to enroll.
Relevance: Tailored, personalized communication should go beyond basic name inclusion. Students expect messages that address their specific interests. Misaligned content, such as sending information unrelated to a student’s expressed major, can quickly undermine trust.
Automation: Streamlined, automated workflows keep communication consistent and dependable, even during staff transitions or times of high demand. Manual processes, such as college fair follow-ups that sit unprocessed for long periods, can derail engagement. Automation prevents these bottlenecks, enabling timely responses even when staff are unavailable.
Trackability: Monitoring communication effectiveness helps institutions refine their strategies and optimize ROI.
By integrating these principles, higher education institutions can deliver a cohesive and impactful communication strategy that strengthens student engagement and builds trust.
The Importance of Omnichannel Outreach
While email has long been—and remains—a cornerstone of communication, relying on it exclusively is no longer sufficient. The sheer volume of emails students receive daily makes it easy for even the most well-crafted messages to be overlooked. To stand out, institutions must adopt an omnichannel approach with campaigns that combine email with print materials, SMS messaging, voice blasts, digital ads, social media engagement, and microsites, all tailored to student interests.
Each channel serves a unique purpose for student engagement in higher education. Print materials, for example, are particularly effective at involving families in the decision-making process. A well-designed brochure placed on a kitchen table can spark conversations among family members, especially parents, who are often key influencers in the college selection process.
Similarly, integrating consistent, tailored messaging across multiple channels ensures that students receive a seamless experience. Whether they encounter an institution on social media, via a targeted ad, by SMS message, or through an email campaign, the message should feel cohesive and tailored to their interests. Omnichannel strategies, timed appropriately through the enrollment timeline, not only improve visibility but also demonstrate an institution’s commitment to meeting students where they are, thus building trust and rapport.
Leveraging Data for Personalization
Modern communication strategies must be rooted in data. By analyzing student preferences and behaviors, institutions can craft messages that resonate on an individual level. With data-informed insights, institutions can identify what matters most to prospective students—whether that’s career outcomes, financial aid, or specific academic opportunities—and address those priorities directly.
For example, students interested in STEM programs may be more receptive to communications highlighting research opportunities and faculty expertise, while first-generation students may appreciate messages emphasizing affordability and support services.
To further maximize impact, institutions can use surveys and initial engagement data to tailor their outreach strategies, which allows them to deploy resources efficiently while maintaining relevance. For example, expensive print materials can be reserved for students who show strong interest in particular programs, while a social media campaign may be more appropriate for inquiries earlier in the enrollment cycle.
Real-time data tracking lets institutions segment their strategies dynamically. If a particular campaign underperforms across the board or for certain cohorts of students, modifications can be made immediately to better align with student preferences. This agility is essential for maintaining relevance and impact throughout the recruitment cycle.
Building a Sustainable Communication Infrastructure
Sustainable communication strategies rely on the integration of advanced tools and technologies. While a customer relationship management (CRM) system lays a strong foundation, institutions often need more specialized solutions to elevate their outreach efforts. Liaison offers a suite of products designed to enhance and streamline communication and enrollment strategies, including:
Enrollment Marketing (EM): Liaison’s EM software and marketing services help institutions manage and analyze personalized, automated omnichannel campaigns, ensuring consistent and effective messaging across multiple channels.
Othot: This AI-driven tool leverages predictive and prescriptive analytics to optimize communication strategies and enrollment decisions, tailoring outreach to align with student behavior and institutional goals.
Centralized Application Service (CAS): By simplifying the admissions process for students and providing institutions with tools for marketing, data management, and application processing, CAS supports efficient communication with applicants.
By incorporating these technologies, along with Liaison’s CRMs, institutions can maintain a seamless and unified communication flow so that prospective students receive timely, relevant, and personalized messages. These solutions also allow institutions to monitor campaign performance and adjust strategies in real-time, maximizing the effectiveness of resources and making messaging more impactful for target audiences. This integration reduces reliance on fragmented workflows, preventing gaps or delays caused by disconnected platforms.
Aligning tools and strategies across departments using Liaison’s technologies keeps messaging consistent and impactful, even as prospective students engage with multiple touchpoints throughout their journey.
Achieving Long-Term Engagement
Effective communication with students is about building relationships that extend beyond the initial stages of recruitment. Institutions that invest in understanding and addressing the unique needs of their prospective students position themselves as partners in their academic journey.
By delivering personalized, timely, and relevant messages through multiple channels, institutions can foster deeper connections and enhance student engagement in higher education. As the competitive landscape of enrollment continues to shift, adopting a strategic and data-informed approach to communication will remain essential for success.
Ready to elevate your communication strategies? Discover how Liaison’s advanced tools and technologies can transform how you connect with prospective students. From personalized, omnichannel campaigns to data-driven insights, our solutions help you engage students meaningfully and meet your enrollment goals. Contact us today to learn more.
About the Author
Craig Cornell is the Vice President for Enrollment Strategy at Liaison. In that capacity, he oversees a team of enrollment strategists and brings best practices, consultation, and data trends to campuses across the country in all things enrollment management. Craig also serves as the dedicated resource to NASH (National Association of Higher Education Systems) and works closely with the higher education system that Liaison supports. Before joining Liaison in 2023, Craig served for over 30 years in multiple higher education executive enrollment management positions. During his tenure, the campuses he served often received national recognition for enrollment growth, effective financial aid leveraging, marketing enhancements, and innovative enrollment strategies.
As Chief Information Officer, PJ Hemmaway is driving innovation at Manchester to future-proof the university and deliver the best possible day-to-day experience. In this recent interview with Melissa Bowden, Content Writer at Kortext, he shared insights on creating a sector-leading learning environment where everyone can thrive. PJ Hemmaway will be speaking at Kortext LIVE in Manchester on 6 February 2025: you can register here.
Building resilient and flexible systems
The University of Manchester has a bold ambition: to ‘be recognised globally as Europe’s most innovative university’. Since 2022, Hemmaway has been tasked with realising this vision, leading the institution’s digital transformation as Chief Information Officer.
‘As CIO, I have two core aims,’ he says. The first is ‘keeping the operational lights on’ so the university functions effectively now. The second is ensuring ‘we’re future ready – not just for one, three or five years, but for the next fifteen to twenty years’. For Hemmaway, this means making decisions that deliver long-term value, not just quick wins, and taking calculated risks.
Over the last two years, Hemmaway has been implementing several high-level technology strategies, all of which are underpinned by a focus on resilience and flexibility. One project has enhanced digital capabilities by laying ‘foundational building blocks’, such as a new enterprise service management system and a new integration platform, that ‘allow us to streamline workflows and improve access to services that align to our one university theme,’ he says.
Hemmaway’s philosophy of ‘buy, don’t build’ is central to achieving his aims. ‘In the university sector, we’ve got very intelligent people who love to build things,’ he says, ‘but that creates technical debt, skills debt and data debt.’ Instead, he prefers a modular, scalable approach. ‘One of the reasons Manchester’s technology transformation has been so successful is that we’ve been modular and had small pilots – we’ve built on those and we’ve delivered’.
Enhancing institutional intelligence
The next stage of Hemmaway’s digital transformation strategy involves modernising Manchester’s existing data infrastructure. This means replacing older systems, which he prefers to describe as ‘heritage’ rather than ‘legacy’ technology. ‘I’ve got a lot of colleagues who implemented this technology,’ he explains, ‘and it’s part of our heritage as an institution’.
Data is ubiquitous in higher education, yet many universities are still not leveraging it effectively. ‘As a sector, we’re not capitalising on the data we’ve got,’ says Hemmaway, ‘whether it’s research outputs or data from teaching, learning, and professional services ecosystems’.
In response, Hemmaway is keen to foster a culture of data sharing. ‘Gone are the days where we want people to be holding their silos of data,’ says Hemmaway. Instead, by integrating data from multiple sources across the institution and then leveraging analytics tools, the university can benefit from powerful insights into areas like student retention, outcomes and wellbeing.
Bridging the digital divide
People are ‘at the heart’ of Manchester’s strategic plan, with its vision of students and colleagues working together ‘as one connected community’. For Hemmaway, a personal focus on equity and inclusion informs his stewardship of the university’s digital transformation too.
He shares, ‘I come from a humble background but, thanks to my dad, I was very fortunate to have a computer in the late 80s’. When Hemmaway started his career in a bank, this early access gave him an advantage over colleagues who were still unfamiliar with the Internet.
‘It created an imbalance in terms of those that ‘could’ – a digital divide,’ he says. A similar gap is emerging now, with the rapid proliferation of generative AI tools. ‘It is critical to provide equitable access,’ Hemmaway states, ‘otherwise we’re going to see that digital divide again’. But access alone is not sufficient; institutions must help users develop digital confidence too.
As part of this, Hemmaway encourages a risk-based culture of experimentation. ‘Most organisations are risk averse and they lose opportunities,’ he says. Instead, he has been selecting new products – including AI tools – and inviting colleagues to try them out in a trusted and supported environment. Feedback from these trials informs further product development.
Successfully implementing new technology
When asked for advice on technology adoption, Hemmaway emphasises collaboration. ‘My biggest piece of advice is to work with partners’, he says. For him, that means having a network of go-to peers and finding trusted vendors who understand the higher education sector.
Hemmaway is now keen to explore partnering with Kortext, after seeing a demonstration of Kortext fusion – a unified strategic platform developed in collaboration with Microsoft. Following a conference, he was motivated to find a solution built on Microsoft Fabric and ‘I nearly broke my number one principle,’ he jokes. ‘I thought we were going to have to build it, not buy it’.
However, the introduction to Kortext fusion was ‘serendipity’. Going forward, Hemmaway will be working closely with Kortext and Microsoft to explore how the platform can help Manchester to enhance data-driven decision-making and enhance the student experience. He adds, ‘this technology could also help me accelerate my digital-first strategy’, seeing it as a foundation to support flexible and inclusive education with equitable access for all.
The benefits of a unified platform align with Hemmaway’s final thoughts. ‘The world is a complex place,’ he says, ‘and we need to simplify it’. For him, ‘simplification is a number one priority’ for successful digital transformation. Without this, he says, ‘we won’t be efficient, we won’t be flexible, and we won’t have inclusive education in a digital-first environment’.
Join PJ, HEPI Director Nick Hillman and other education and technology expert speakers at a series of three events for HE leaders hosted at Microsoft’s offices in London, Edinburgh and Manchester during late January and early February. Find out more and register your free place here.
Authenticity has become a cornerstone of successful education marketing campaigns. Nothing speaks louder to prospective students than real experiences shared by current students. That’s why we recommend the combined use of two powerful tools: student ambassador programs and user-generated content (UGC).
These strategies harness the voices of your students to create compelling, authentic narratives that resonate. In this blog, we’ll explore the enrollment-boosting potential of student ambassadors and UGC for education marketing, the benefits they offer, and actionable steps to integrate them into your strategy. Let’s get started!
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
Understanding the Role of a Student Ambassador
What is a student ambassador? A student ambassador is a current student who represents your institution in various capacities, from marketing and recruitment to campus events. These individuals are typically chosen for their enthusiasm, communication skills, and ability to connect with diverse audiences.
What do student ambassadors do? As the face of your school, student ambassadors embody its culture and values, offering prospective students and their families an authentic glimpse into campus life.
The roles of student ambassadors are varied. They may host campus tours, participate in Q&A sessions during open houses, or even create content for your social media platforms. By sharing their personal experiences, they help humanize your institution, breaking down barriers and building trust.
Source: University of Waterloo
Example: On its website, the University of Waterloo has a dedicated page for members of its community who are interested in its student ambassador program. This page details the role of a student ambassador, the requirements for candidates, their workload, and compensation. When you launch your student ambassador program, use site content to provide vital information to potential candidates and the students they’ll support in their roles. Use social media to keep your audience updated on the application process and involve student ambassadors in content creation to establish a relationship between them and the rest of your student body.
Reach out for help implementing effective enrollment-boosting digital marketing strategies!
What Is User-Generated Content (UGC)?
User-generated content (UGC) refers to any content created by your students, alumni, or even staff, rather than your marketing team. This can include photos, videos, testimonials, social media posts, or blogs that showcase their authentic experiences. Unlike polished advertising campaigns, UGC is often raw and unfiltered, making it highly relatable and trustworthy.
Now that audiences are bombarded with promotional material, UGC stands out. It delivers a level of authenticity that professionally crafted content simply cannot replicate. For prospective students, seeing someone “just like them” thriving at your institution can be the deciding factor in their enrollment journey.
Source: University of Oxford | TikTok
Example: Take a look at the comments on this TikTok video. The bottom one shows how many prospective students are turning to current students for advice and insights into their journey with your institution. This “day in the life” video from a University of Oxford student offers a glimpse into campus life from a personal perspective. Videos shared on a student’s personal page often feel more genuine since they don’t come across as promotional content.
That’s not to say your school shouldn’t engage with these posts! Use hashtags, like #universityofoxford, to find UGC created by your community and reshare it on your school’s profile. To encourage more of this content, promote specific hashtags and even run contests or challenges to inspire creativity and engagement.
The Benefits of Student Ambassadors and UGC
Though their methodology is different, both student ambassador programs and UGC help to tell your school’s unique story authentically.
These methods are particularly effective at humanizing your school’s brand. Discover some more of the unique benefits you can see when you combine these strategies correctly.
Authenticity and Trust: Both student ambassadors and UGC provide unfiltered insights into your institution. Prospective students are more likely to trust the words of a peer than a marketing brochure. When real students share their stories, it creates a sense of transparency and trust.
Increased Engagement: Content created by student ambassadors and peers often performs better on social media platforms. Audiences are more likely to engage with posts that feel genuine and relatable. This increased engagement can translate to higher visibility for your institution.
Cost-Effectiveness: Leveraging the voices of your students can reduce the need for extensive advertising budgets. While there may be costs associated with training or compensating ambassadors, the return on investment through increased applications and enrollment often outweighs the initial expenditure.
Community Building: By involving students in your marketing efforts, you foster a sense of pride and belonging. Ambassadors feel more connected to your institution, and their enthusiasm is infectious, positively influencing both their peers and prospective students.
How to Build a Successful Student Ambassador Program
Building a student ambassador program involves creating a structured initiative that aligns with your school’s marketing goals and fosters authentic engagement. A successful program requires careful planning, clear objectives, and ongoing support to empower ambassadors as true representatives of your institution. Here, we’ll walk you through the essential steps to design and implement a program that connects with prospective students and amplifies your school’s story.
Define Clear Objectives
Clear objectives are the cornerstone of a student ambassador program, aligning with your marketing goals and guiding ambassadors toward success. Start by clearly outlining the program’s purpose. For example, increasing applications, enhancing campus tour experiences, or boosting social media engagement.
This clarity of intent should be paired with measurable goals, to help ambassadors understand what success looks like. Measurable goals could be increasing tour attendance by 20% or generating a set number of social media posts each month
Tailor these objectives to match the unique strengths of each ambassador, assigning roles that play to their talents, such as public speaking for campus tours or storytelling for blog posts and videos. Providing a clear role description that details their responsibilities, tasks, and time commitments is equally critical to avoid confusion and set expectations.
To foster motivation, explain the “why” behind their tasks, helping them see how their efforts impact prospective students, build trust in the institution, and contribute to enrollment goals. Regular check-ins or feedback sessions can also ensure ambassadors stay on track, allowing for adjustments and maintaining engagement. With clearly defined objectives and the right support, ambassadors can confidently represent your institution and drive meaningful results.
Recruit the Right Ambassadors
Select ambassadors who reflect the diversity and values of your institution. Look for individuals who are enthusiastic, articulate, and comfortable sharing their experiences. Peer recommendations, faculty referrals, and application processes can help identify the best candidates.
Foster Collaboration
Facilitate collaboration between ambassadors and your marketing team. Regular meetings can help align their content with your broader campaigns while maintaining authenticity. Ambassadors should feel supported but not micromanaged.
Source: University of Windsor
Example: The University of Windsor demonstrates trust in its student ambassadors with a unique feature on its website. It allows current and prospective students to select an ambassador to chat with for answers to their school-related questions. To replicate this success, implement a comprehensive training program to ensure consistency and quality. Clear expectations enable your ambassadors to take on key responsibilities confidently, delivering a strong return on your investment.
Provide Comprehensive Training
Familiarize Ambassadors with Your Institution’s Key Messaging and Values Begin by familiarizing ambassadors with your institution’s key messaging and values. This includes providing them with a clear understanding of your school’s mission, vision, and what sets it apart from competitors. Equip them with talking points about academics, extracurricular offerings, campus facilities, and student life, ensuring consistency in how they communicate your brand. Role-playing exercises can be particularly effective here, helping ambassadors practice delivering messages in a variety of scenarios, such as open houses, campus tours, or online Q&A sessions.
Train Ambassadors on Social Media Best Practices Training should also include social media best practices, especially if ambassadors are creating content for your platforms. Teach them how to craft posts that are engaging and aligned with your school’s tone and style. Provide guidelines on appropriate language, photo and video quality, and compliance with privacy policies.
Develop Public Speaking Skills Since many ambassadors will engage with prospective students and families in person, public speaking training is invaluable. Help them refine their communication skills with workshops that focus on clarity, confidence, and storytelling. Encourage them to share personal anecdotes about their experiences at your school, as these authentic stories are often the most memorable. Practice sessions with constructive feedback can significantly boost their comfort in delivering presentations or handling impromptu questions.
Build Soft Skills for Diverse Audiences Effective training also involves building soft skills like empathy, adaptability, and cultural awareness, especially for ambassadors interacting with diverse audiences.
Include scenarios that challenge them to navigate different cultural perspectives or address sensitive questions tactfully. By fostering these skills, you ensure ambassadors can create welcoming and inclusive experiences for prospective students and their families.
Incorporate Interactive Training Methods To make training engaging and practical, use a mix of interactive methods such as role-playing, group discussions, and hands-on activities. Incorporate real-world examples and success stories from past ambassadors to inspire new recruits and show them what’s possible. Providing a training manual or digital resource hub can also serve as a handy reference for ambassadors as they grow into their roles.
Provide Ongoing Support and Refreshers Finally, ongoing support and refreshers are critical. Schedule periodic check-ins to provide additional guidance, address challenges, and celebrate successes. The more prepared they are, the more effectively they’ll represent your school.
Empower Ambassadors to Create
Empowering student ambassadors to create their own content is one of the most effective ways to showcase the authentic, lived experiences that resonate with prospective students. By trusting ambassadors with creative freedom, you enable them to craft content that feels genuine and relatable—qualities that polished marketing campaigns often struggle to replicate.
Start by encouraging ambassadors to focus on their personal experiences and unique perspectives. Heartfelt testimonials are another powerful form of content. Whether it’s a written story, a video, or a social media post, ambassadors sharing their personal journeys—why they chose your school, how it’s impacted their lives, and what they’ve learned—can create an emotional connection with viewers.
To provide inspiration and structure, consider giving student ambassadors a content calendar – a detailed content plan that outlines the where, what, and when of your posts. Highlighting diverse voices within your ambassador team ensures a broad range of experiences and perspectives are represented, appealing to a wider audience.
Celebrate Their Contributions
Recognize and reward your ambassadors for their efforts. This can range from financial compensation to exclusive perks like access to networking events or career development opportunities. Publicly celebrating their work reinforces their value and motivates others to get involved.
Source: New York University
Example: Here, New York University’s School of Global Public Health welcomes a new student ambassador, celebrating her accomplishments in the field, describing her role in the NYU community, and directing the audience to her student blog post. In addition to monetary rewards, student ambassadors appreciate public acknowledgments of their contributions.
Measure Success
Track the impact of your ambassador program using metrics such as social media engagement, website traffic, and application rates. Use this data to refine your approach, ensuring continuous improvement.
Incorporating UGC into Your Marketing Strategy
A UGC marketing campaign can be a goldmine for schools looking to leverage their communities to tell their story. By encouraging students to share their experiences, you tap into a wealth of relatable and engaging material that resonates with prospective students. Let’s explore how to integrate UGC into your marketing strategy for maximum impact.
Create Opportunities for UGC
Encourage your students to share their experiences by hosting contests, themed hashtag campaigns, or student takeovers on social media. The more accessible you make the process, the more likely students are to participate.
Source: Caleontwins | TikTok
Example: Here, Humber College has paid well-known influencers to promote a contest called Humber Bring It. The aim was to showcase all the unique skills students brought to their community. In their video, the Caleon twins shared all the essential details of the contest such as the deadline, prizes for winners (a 5000 dollar tuition credit or a laptop), and the hashtag that each contestant should use. Contests like this are the perfect way to create a UGC buzz around your institution.
Showcase UGC Across Platforms
To maximize the impact of user-generated content (UGC), feature it prominently across your marketing platforms. Incorporate student stories, photos, and videos on your website’s homepage, within program pages, and in blog posts to provide a genuine glimpse into campus life. Social media channels are another natural home for UGC, where they can drive engagement and create relatable touchpoints with prospective students. Consider integrating this content into admissions brochures, emails, and campus tour presentations to ensure consistent messaging.
Before sharing any UGC, prioritize student consent. Always seek permission from contributors, clearly explaining where and how their content will be used. Providing written guidelines and gaining explicit agreement ensures transparency and builds trust. By celebrating your students’ experiences respectfully and prominently, you showcase your school’s vibrant community and also create a foundation of authenticity and ethical storytelling that resonates with your audience.
Maintain Quality Control
While UGC is inherently less polished, maintaining a level of quality ensures it aligns with your institution’s values and messaging. Begin by establishing clear guidelines for students contributing content.
These guidelines should outline your school’s tone, branding, and expectations for appropriateness, while still encouraging creativity and individuality. For example, provide tips on photography and video basics, such as lighting and framing, to enhance visual appeal without compromising authenticity.
Review content before publication to ensure it represents your school positively. This doesn’t mean heavily editing or sanitizing the material—rather, it’s about ensuring the content reflects your institution’s culture, is free of inappropriate language or imagery, and avoids unintentional misrepresentation.
Offering feedback to students can also be a valuable learning experience, helping them refine their work while staying true to their voice. By balancing authenticity with quality, you showcase the best of your community in a way that’s both relatable and professional.
Engage with UGC Creators
Show appreciation for students who contribute content by engaging with their posts, sharing their work, or even spotlighting them in dedicated campaigns. This not only boosts their morale but also encourages others to participate.
Use UGC to Tell Stories
Go beyond individual posts by weaving UGC into cohesive narratives. For example, compile videos and testimonials into a series showcasing different aspects of campus life. Storytelling adds depth and emotional resonance to your campaigns.
Bringing It All Together
Student ambassador programs and UGC are avenues for building authentic connections with your audience. By leveraging the voices of your students, you showcase your institution’s unique story in a way that resonates deeply with prospective students and their families.
At Higher Education Marketing, we specialize in helping schools like yours unlock the potential of these strategies and many others. Whether you’re just starting or looking to refine your approach, our expertise ensures your campaigns drive meaningful engagement and results.
Your students are your greatest storytellers. Let their voices elevate your brand and inspire the next generation to join your community.
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a student ambassador?
A student ambassador is a current student who represents your institution in various capacities, from marketing and recruitment to campus events.
What do student ambassadors do?
As the face of your school, student ambassadors embody its culture and values, offering prospective students and their families an authentic glimpse into campus life.
Yesterday, we published a piece by SOAS Vice-Chancellor Adam Habib and Lord Dr. Michael Hastings, Chair of the SOAS Board of Trustees, on equitable transnational partnerships. In today’s piece, Dana Gamble, Policy Manager (Skills, Innovation and International) at GuildHE and Dr Esther Wilkinson, Director of Innovation and Learning at Royal Agricultural University and Chair of the GuildHE International Network, look again at international partnerships and how institutions can be proactive and productive on the international stage.
It is not news that the higher education sector’s relationship with international activity is strained, from recruiting students to delivering research and innovation partnerships with institutions overseas. While significant financial pressures have built up through institutional reliance on international student fees, this is far from the only headwind the sector currently faces on international delivery. Recent political motivations and wider geopolitical factors have contributed to policy churn on visa policies and delayed, or scrapped, funding arrangements such as Horizon Europe and the European Regional Development Fund. Ultimately, this landscape has led institutions to prioritise developing short-term partnerships to solve long-term problems. These forces combined are affecting the UK’s global reputation as a competitive destination for education and research.
Looking back to inform the future
It is important to reflect and scrutinise how we got here. In a context where the UK has the lowest levels of public spending on tertiary education in the OECD, the UK’s higher education institutions have strategically used international activity to fill financial shortfalls. Whether that might be international student fees to fill deficits in domestic teaching and research income or transnational delivery to increase income without the overheads, these interventions have typically been siloed ventures designed specifically to fill gaps.
With this approach running out of steam for many, institutions are turning the dial towards focusing on responsible, holistic and trusted partnerships with international institutions that contribute to multiple, mutual aims. This approach, in the long term, should stimulate a steadier international partnership environment that does not rely on quick-fix activity to shoulder the UK’s funding deficits. While many higher education institutions have embraced this type of internationalisation, specialist and vocational institutions often already excel in this area, particularly when creating strong, skills-based, and mutually beneficial partnerships due to their strong links with industry and communities.
Specialist and vocationally-focused institutions have international reach and relevance
These institutions often operate in sectors where local and global contexts are deeply intertwined. Whether addressing global environmental challenges, healthcare crises, or creative and technological innovation, a responsible international partnership should consider not only the exchange of knowledge but also the socio-economic and environmental implications of that exchange.
By focusing on real-world skills and sector-specific expertise, these institutions bring a practical dimension to international collaborations that go beyond traditional learning, innovation and research, offering valuable lessons on how to engage globally to tackle economic and social issues with purpose.
RAU shows how holistic international collaborations can deliver impact
The GuildHE member, the Royal Agricultural University (RAU), has a long history of establishing, nurturing and successfully developing long-term strategic partnerships. Agriculture, climate change and food security are global issues that require international collaboration to address critical challenges across rural development, land management and sustainable farming practices.
RAU has multiple partners including in China, Uzbekistan, the United Arab Emirates (Sharjah) and Ukraine. It is one of the most trusted UK education providers in China and has been awarded the highest accolade by the Chinese Ministry of Education for its provision, the only specialist UK university to have this status in China. In Uzbekistan, RAU is a founding partner of the International Agricultural University, an institution jointly established with the Uzbek Government to ensure students have access to high-quality education to contribute to the economic, social, and cultural development of the country. RAU’s research, training, exchanges, and teaching partnerships with Sumy National Agrarian University in Ukraine have steadily built maturity. The partnership has led various international projects such as the evaluation of the damage to Ukrainian soil due to the current conflict, which has helped ensure the long-term viability of the agricultural economy in the country. RAU has worked to support Sharjah in establishing the University of Al Dhaid, enabling capacity building, development and delivery of education in sustainable agriculture, a feature of RAU’s ability to be flexible and agile due to its size.
RAU takes particular pride in the breadth and depth of its global relationships, with a synergistic and strategically aligned approach. Through such broad, multifaceted collaborations, RAU provides expertise and knowledge to help develop global agricultural sectors while enriching the educational experience of its students. As demonstrated in this example, vocational and specialist institutions are making particular efforts to establish, maintain and refresh international partnerships for longer-term benefits, focusing on multi-pronged international collaboration, enhancing cross-cultural understanding, and driving global innovation.
Expanding international partnerships takes work but can pay dividends
The internationalisation of higher education will always be shaped by global politics; education, work and skills policy; and the financial state of the sector. To reach stable waters through these domestic and global pressures, higher education institutions need to re-focus on their institutional strengths and start becoming proactive internationally. This can only be achieved, however, through supportive government policy that does not continue to discourage the sector from investing in sustainable, long-term and effective partnerships. This predominantly means establishing financial security for the full diversity of the sector to protect the foundation of specialist industries, and the future of the public sector and student choice – both domestically and internationally.
Additionally, reform is needed to the research and innovation system so it purposefully generates economic and social impact for all sectors, and on all scales. And finally, the development of properly-resourced, effective student and staff exchange programmes is needed to provide equality of opportunity for students at every institution, with intention.
With this government’s plans to link immigration policy more closely to skills policy and labour market pressures through Skills England, as well as the ambitions of the industrial strategy, higher education needs to be acknowledged as the future of economic growth through its role in the development of the workforce, diffusion of applied research and as leaders of global innovation. With this critical role, a holistic approach to partnerships will be vital to the effective implementation of these new strategies, and in helping to maintain the UK’s reputation as a global leader in learning, innovation and research.
By Adam Habib, Vice-Chancellor at SOAS University of London, and Lord Dr. Michael Hastings of Scarisbrick CBE, Chair of the Board of Trustees at SOAS.
The business model of English higher education is broken. We are not sure that this simple fact is sufficiently understood by all stakeholders in higher education. Do not mistake us: we all recognise the serious financial crises that most English universities are confronting. But this is not the same as understanding its causal features and what to do about it. The latest financial report from the Office for Students (OfS), released in mid-November, suggests 72% of English universities will be in deficit by the end of the academic year if they continue as is. It does not suggest much about how to address it. In fact, it does not even ask why the other 28% of universities are not in deficit. Is this because of their historical endowments or their specific student profile, or are they doing something the others are not?
But the OfS is not the only stakeholder reluctant to ask the hard questions: how we got here and what to do about it. This malady afflicts almost all other stakeholders. Let’s begin with the basics. Almost three decades ago, the British government committed to massifying education and ensuring that at least 50% of their school-leaving population had the privilege of going to university. The challenge was how to pay for it. They introduced fees, first as a small proportion of the actual cost in 2006, and then to cover the entire cost in 2012 (at least for Business degrees, Humanities and the Social Sciences). The popular backlash this generated, especially since almost all universities rushed to implement the maximum permitted fee, led the politicians to subsequently avoid increasing fees in line with inflation. The net effect was that within a few years, the actual cost of university education outstripped the fees.
The solution followed by most universities was to increase international fees and their intakes of foreign students. To attract more of these students, universities borrowed heavily, built shiny new facilities, expanded their pastoral services and grew their student numbers. This was assisted in part by the removal of student number caps on home students. Costs increased, and to cover these, more income was required, which led to even higher international fees and more foreign students.
All higher education stakeholders were complicit in this. The Government initially supported this solution because it obviated the need for more government subsidies and enabled foreign currency earnings. Vice-chancellors and higher education executives deluded themselves in thinking that the international postgraduate masters students came to the UK universities because of their institutions’ research reputations, even though survey after survey demonstrated that these students were increasingly attracted by the prospect of employment prospects and the post-study visa. Unions, both academic and professional service ones, acquiesced given that these international fees enabled higher salaries and subsidised greater research time for academics. There was even broader public support as it contained the fees for domestic students.
Until of course, a new breed of ethnically oriented right-wing politicians mobilised on the chauvinistic instinct of there being too many foreigners in Britain. This first manifested in Brexit, then China and subsequently all foreigner-bashing, and finally visa restrictions on dependents. The net effect was a dramatic fall in applications and enrolment of international students, with the ensuing financial crisis of universities in the UK. A positive spin-off of this state of affairs is that almost all stakeholders now recognise the flimsy fiscal foundation of universities. The negative feature is that it still has not generated an honest reflection and behaviour on the part of all stakeholders or a sufficiently deep deliberation on the business model of higher education in the UK and what to do about it.
Take, for instance, the stance of government. The Secretary of State for Education announced in the House of Commons on 4 November 2024 the first university fee increase for undergraduate students in eight years. Yet the Chancellor had increased the Employer National insurance a few days before from 13.8 to 15 percent. The net effect is a further loss of £59 million for universities in the UK from the 2025/26 academic year.
Neither is the debate in universities more imaginative on what to do about the financial crisis and the business model of higher education. University vice-chancellors and Universities UK have recognised the need to revert to greater public funding for higher education, although there is a broad recognition that this is an unlikely solution in the near future given the fiscal crisis of the state. They have suggested through individual vice-chancellor advocacies that universities would require the financial equivalence of £12,000 fees, but again, almost all recognise the political challenge of achieving this during a cost-of-living crisis. The reluctant fallback back? A retreat to international student fees by retracting or reforming the visa restrictions, thereby allowing for further increases in income from foreign students.
But this is just not a feasible solution for the long term. Higher education in the UK has priced itself out for ordinary international students looking solely for a higher education qualification. The only rationales for postgraduate master’s students accessing UK universities, given their high-cost structure, are either post-study employment or the learning of a specific qualification not available in alternative higher education settings. The former is increasingly becoming politically unfeasible, and the latter is not a sufficiently large market to financially sustain British universities.
This is in addition to the moral and commercial challenges of this business model. As we have suggested elsewhere, there should be serious objections to this model, which is effectively directed towards sucking out resources from countries far more impoverished than the UK, to essentially cross-subsidise domestic citizens. Moreover, it accelerates the brain drain, weakening institutional capacities and human capabilities in the majoritarian world at precisely the moment when such societies require an enhancement of capabilities to address the local manifestations of transnational challenges like climate change, pandemics, food insecurity and war.
Where to go from here, then? First, there is an urgent need for an honest conversation led by government without any smoke and mirrors on the fiscal latitude available to it and the consequences thereof for the financing of higher education. Second, there is a need for a thorough reflection on what has fiscally worked, and what has not in the recent past on the management and executive stewardship of universities in the UK. Third, there is a need for an honest discussion in universities on the fiscal viability of excessively small classes and unduly low staff-student ratios, 40% research time for all teaching and research contracts, and the importance of institutional differentiation in mandates and how these should speak to the former two elements. Finally, we need to think through the limits of cross-subsidising from international student fees and what new opportunities are opening up globally for fulfilling our institutional mandates.
One opportunity, that has not been sufficiently explored by British universities, is how to assist in the education and training of hundreds of millions of young people in the majoritarian world. This is an urgent necessity not only for the economic development of these societies but also for enabling societies across the world to manage the transnational challenges of our time, without which we may not survive as a human species. Obviously, this will not be possible on the existing cost structures or business models of higher education. But partnering with universities in the Global South, involving the joint development of curricula, co-teaching and co-assessment, could bring down cost structures of higher education. This could then feed into more reasonable fees being charged, thereby opening up new higher education markets for British universities. Cost structures could also be reconsidered in relation to scale. The more students there are within a program, limited to pedagogical requirements, the more cost per student is reduced, and the more competitive fees can become. New technologies involving online teaching and global classrooms, many of which were pioneered for our own students during the Covid-19 Pandemic, can make this equitable transnational teaching even more feasible.
Some forms of transnational teaching are already underway in UK universities. But these often take the form of online learning, overseas campuses and franchise models of higher education, all of which are only directed at obviating the financial challenges of British universities. While we would be reluctant to take rigid positions against these models – they may indeed be relevant in certain contextual circumstances – we do hold that the equitable partnership model identified above holds the pedagogical benefit of enabling learning that is both globally grounded and locally relevant. It also does not pit the financial security of British universities against that of universities of the majoritarian world. Essentially, these equitable teaching partnerships can pioneer one element of a new business model that enhances collaboration and mutual benefit for universities in the UK and the majoritarian world.
Such a model of higher education could also become part of the soft power arsenal of the UK. Increasingly, government has broached the idea of a global Britain. This would be a Britain recognised as a collaborative partner of other nations, enabling them to achieve their national objectives, while enabling itself to be economically competitive and socially responsive to both its own citizens and its international obligations. An equitable orientation to its higher education system would assist this strategic national agenda.
We are by no means suggesting that equitable transnational learning should replace all other forms of teaching in UK higher education. This would be unrealistic and, frankly, would violate the responsibility of British universities to be nationally responsive. Instead, we recommend that in the pursuit of a financially sustainable higher education system, a diverse set of income strategies – subsidy, domestic fees, international fees, ODL, executive education and equitable transnational educational partnerships – is required. This final strategy not only opens up a new higher education student market at a different price point but also enables us to square our imperative to be financially sustainable with our commitment to be socially and globally responsive.
The strategic challenge of managing higher education institutions in the contemporary era is the management of tensions between competing imperatives. It also requires thinking outside the box, innovating and finding new markets, and servicing these at new price points, while continuing to meet the social obligations implicit in the mandate of universities. This is what we believe is sometimes missing from the deliberations on making British universities financially sustainable. The debate can only be enriched and the recommendations made more robust if we are prepared to think beyond what we are comfortable with.
