This guest blog was kindly authored by Vincenzo Raimo, an independent international higher education consultant
The UK government’s proposed 6 per cent levy on international tuition fees has added yet another layer of complexity to the already fragile international student recruitment landscape. The levy is intended to fund the introduction of targeted maintenance grants for home students, but for universities it represents an additional cost that could reshape recruitment strategies and, in some cases, make international activity unviable.
Higher education providers will not all respond in the same way. Their choices will be shaped by their position in the market, their pricing power, and their cost of acquisition (CoA) – the real cost of recruiting through to enrolment of each international student.
In a previous blog I set out five institutional archetypes in international student recruitment: Prestige Players, Volume Hunters, Strategists, Opportunists, and Outsourcers. These archetypes can help us think through the likely responses to the levy, and where the risks and opportunities lie.
Levy Responses: From Resilience to Retreat
Pass-throughs (High Brand, Low CoA): These are the strong Prestige Player institutions with the brand power to raise fees by 6 per cent (or more) without losing applicants. For them, the levy will likely be passed straight on to students. In fact, some may look back and wonder why they had not already increased fees earlier. The impact on recruitment will be minimal.
Squeezed Prestige (High Brand, High CoA): Some universities occupy a less comfortable position. They may have strong brands, but their recruitment costs are high often due to heavy scholarship spending and dependence on expensive marketing and recruitment strategies. They can pass on some of the levy, but margins will erode. Expect this group to look carefully at their agent portfolios, renegotiate commission deals, and cut back on scholarships. Opportunists often sit here, swinging between good years and bad.
Absorbers (Low Brand, Low CoA): A number of institutions will choose to absorb the levy, keeping international fees flat to remain competitive. Margins will tighten, but recruitment volumes are likely to remain stable. These are often Strategists or Outsourcers, who have already kept their CoA under control through efficiency or partnerships. They will see absorbing the levy as a necessary cost of staying in the game.
Exits (Low Brand, High CoA): For some, the levy may be the final straw. Institutions already dependent on discounting and agent commissions who charge low international fees to chase volume, may no longer see international recruitment as viable. Volume Hunters are the most exposed here. Their models are built on fragile margins, and the levy risks pushing them into unsustainable territory. For some, exit will not mean giving up on international students altogether. But it may mean dramatically scaling back, consolidating markets, and retreating from high-risk geographies.
Alternative Paths
Alongside these responses, two further groups are worth highlighting.
Innovators: Some universities will take the levy as a trigger to rethink their model entirely. Expect more to explore transnational education, offshore hubs, or pathway partnerships as a way of diversifying income and reducing exposure to UK-based fee inflation. Innovation may prove the most sustainable long-term response, if vice-chancellors and governing bodies have the stomach for it.
Niche/Selective Recruiters: For specialist institutions – arts, theology, agriculture, or mission-driven providers – international student recruitment has never been about volume. For them, the levy is simply the cost of doing business. They will continue to recruit selectively, valuing diversity and global presence more than surplus.
What Does This Mean for the Sector?
The archetype framework helps us see that there is no single sector response. Institutions will react in line with their pricing power, cost base, and strategic orientation. Prestige Players may pass through the levy with little concern. Absorbers will hold their nerve and tighten margins. Volume Hunters, by contrast, risk being forced out of the game altogether.
For these institutions, scaling back international recruitment will not just be a strategic shift but a financial shock. The loss of international fee income raises an uncomfortable question of how they will fill the gap – whether by yet more cost cutting, chasing riskier sources of income, or considering more fundamental changes to their operating models.
The levy therefore brings the deeper issue into sharp focus: the sustainability of international student recruitment. Chasing volume is no longer enough. Institutions must use this moment to confront the costs of recruiting and support these students, rethink pricing, and reconsider the value they offer. Those that do so will be far better placed to build resilient, sustainable futures in international education.
This HEPI blog was authored by Isabelle Bristow, Managing Director UK and Europe at Studiosity, a HEPI Partner.
The Universities UK Annual Conference always serves as a vital barometer for the higher education sector, and this year, few topics were as prominent as the role of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI). A packed session, Ethical AI in Higher Education for improving learning outcomes: A policy and leadership discussion, provided a refreshing and pragmatic perspective, moving the conversation beyond academic integrity fears and towards genuine educational innovation.
Based on early findings from new independent research commissioned by Studiosity, the session’s panellists offered crucial insights and a clear path forward.
A new focus: from policing to pedagogy
For months, the discussion around Gen-AI has been dominated by concerns over academic misconduct and the development of detection tools. However, as HEPI Director Nick Hillman OBE highlighted, this new report takes a different tack. Its unique focus is on how AI can support active learning, rather than just how students are using it.
The findings, presented by independent researcher Rebecca Mace, show a direct correlation between the ethical use of AI for learning and improved student attainment and retention. Crucially, these positive effects were particularly noticeable among students often described as ‘non-traditional’. This reframes the conversation, positioning AI not as a threat to learning but as a powerful tool to enhance it, especially for those who need it most.
The analogy that works
The ferocious pace of AI’s introduction to the sector has undoubtedly caught many off guard. Professor Marc Griffiths, Pro-Vice Chancellor for Regional Partnerships, Engagement & Innovation at UWE Bristol, acknowledged this head-on, advocating for a dual approach of governance and ‘sand-boxing’ (the security practice of isolating and testing to make sure an application, system or platform is safe) of new technologies. Instead of simply denying access, he argued, we must test new tools and develop clear guardrails for their use.
In a welcome departure from the widely used but ultimately flawed calculator analogy (read more here Generative AI is not a ‘calculator for words’. 5 reasons why this idea is misleading), Professor Griffiths offered a more fitting one: the overhead projector. Like PowerPoint today, the projector was a new technology that was a conduit for content, but it never replaced the core act of teaching and learning itself. AI, he posited, is simply another conduit. It is what we put into it, and what we get out of it, that matters.
Evidenced insights and reframing the conversation
The panel also grappled with the core questions leaders must ask themselves. Stephanie Harris, Director of Policy at Universities UK posed two fundamental challenges:
How can I safeguard my key product that I am offering to students?
How can I prepare my students for the workforce if I don’t yet know how AI will be used in the future?
She stressed the importance of protecting the integrity of the educational experience to prevent an ‘erosion of trust’ between students and institutions. In response to the second question, both Steph and Marc emphasised the answer lies not in specific tech skills, but in timeless critical thinking skills that will prepare students not just for the next three years, but for the next 15. The conversation also touched upon the need for universities to consider students under 16 as the future pipeline, ensuring our policies and frameworks are future-proof. Steph mentioned further prompts for leaders to think about as listed in a UUK-authored, OfS blog Embracing innovation in high education: our approach to artificial intelligence– which was given a commonsense shorthand by Steph as ‘have fun, don’t be stupid!’.
The session drove home the importance of evidence-based insights. Dr David Pike, Head of Digital Learning at the University of Bedfordshire, shared key findings from his own research comparing student outcomes for Studiosity users versus those of non-Studiosity users, stating that the results were ‘very clear’ that students did improve at scale. He provided powerful data showing significant measurable academic progress, along with a large positive correlational impact on retention and progression. Dr. Pike concluded that, given this demonstrated positive impact, we should be calling the technology ‘Assisted Intelligence,’ because when used correctly, that is exactly what it is.
A guiding framework of values
To navigate this new landscape, Professor Griffiths laid out seven core values that must underpin institutional policy on AI:
Academic integrity: Supporting learning, not replacing it.
Equity of access: Addressing the real challenge of paywalls.
Transparency: Clearly communicating how students will be supported.
Ethical Responsibility
Empowerment and Capability Building
Resilience
Adaptability
These values offer a robust framework for leaders looking to create policies that are both consistent and fair, ensuring that AI use aligns with a university’s mission.
The policy challenge of digital inequality
The issue of equity of access was explored in greater detail by Nick Hillman, who connected the digital divide to the broader student funding landscape. He pointed out that no government had commissioned a proper review on the actual cost of being a student since 1958. With modern student life costing upwards of £20,000 annually if a student wants to involve themselves fully in student life. He made a powerful case for increased maintenance support to match an increased tuition fee, which would also help prevent further disparity between those who can afford premium tech tools and those who cannot. This highlights that addressing digital inequality is not just a technical challenge; it is a fundamental policy one too.
In closing
The session’s core message was clear: while the rise of AI has been rapid, the sector’s response does not have to be only reactive. By embracing a proactive, values-led approach that prioritises ethical development, equity and human-centric learning, universities can turn what was once seen as a threat into a powerful catalyst for positive change.
Studiosity is AI-for-Learning, not corrections – to scale student success, empower educators, and improve retention with a proven , while ensuring integrity and reducing institutional risk.
Universities and colleges today face a highly competitive recruitment environment. Declining enrollment trends, shifting demographics, and the rise of alternative education options mean institutions must work harder than ever to connect with prospective students. Traditional outreach methods alone are no longer enough.
That’s where digital marketing for universities comes in. By leveraging the right mix of online strategies, higher education institutions can build brand awareness, generate qualified leads, and foster lasting relationships with students. From content marketing and SEO to social media and data-driven analytics, digital tools give schools the power to meet prospective students where they are: online.
In this blog post, we’ll break down eight proven digital marketing strategies tailored for universities. Along the way, we’ll answer common questions—like what exactly digital marketing in education means and how much universities invest in it—to give you a clear, actionable roadmap for success.
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
Understanding Digital Marketing in Higher Education
What is digital marketing in education? Digital marketing in education is the use of online channels—such as websites, SEO, social media, email, and digital ads—to promote programs, connect with prospective students, and engage alumni. Unlike other sectors, the “product” is not just a service but an experience and long-term investment, so messaging must inform, inspire, and build trust.
Why is digital marketing for universities so critical now? The stakes are high. With declining enrollments and growing skepticism about the value of a degree, institutions are investing heavily in outreach. According to SimpsonScarborough’s 2019 State of Higher Ed Marketing report, universities typically allocate between $429 and $623 per enrolled student each year to marketing efforts. The University of Maryland Global Campus, for example, committed $500 million over six years, half dedicated to digital ads.
Digital channels offer clear advantages: precise targeting, interactive storytelling, and measurable results. More importantly, they allow two-way communication—helping schools nurture relationships from first contact through enrollment, turning digital marketing into both a recruitment engine and a trust-building tool.
Below, we outline 8 proven digital marketing strategies for universities and colleges. These strategies have been tested in the education sector and shown to drive results – whether it’s increasing website traffic, applications, or student engagement. Along the way, we’ll highlight real-world examples (with sources) from reputable institutions to illustrate how each strategy can be put into practice.
1. Content Marketing and Search Engine Optimization (SEO)
In higher education, content is king. Universities that create valuable, student-focused content build trust and attract more applicants. Effective content marketing means answering the questions students and parents are already asking—through program pages, blogs, testimonials, videos, guides, and virtual tours.
SEO ensures this content gets discovered. When prospects search “best MBA in Canada” or “colleges with digital marketing programs,” optimized titles, headings, and keywords help your institution appear in results. Consistent updates, quality backlinks, and keyword-rich program pages boost visibility even further.
Example: Boston University runs an extensive content hub (“BU Today”) that publishes daily stories about student life, wellness, careers, research and more. This on-site news magazine – featuring contributions from students, faculty, staff, and alumni – builds trust and drives organic traffic by answering the questions prospective students are asking. BU Today’s engaging content strategy not only informs and inspires readers, but also strengthens the university’s visibility in search results through fresh, keyword-rich stories.
Students spend countless hours on social media, making it one of the most powerful tools for higher ed marketing. Platforms like Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and LinkedIn allow universities to showcase campus life, share authentic stories, and build community long before students arrive on campus.
Tailor content to each platform: Instagram thrives on visual storytelling, TikTok on fun, viral content, YouTube on long-form video, and LinkedIn on alumni success. Meeting students where they are ensures your message resonates.
Authenticity wins: Many schools hand over the reins to students for “takeovers.” For instance, Babson College used Instagram takeovers for Q&As, giving prospects a candid look at campus life. Spelman College maximizes Instagram’s features—Stories, Highlights, and IGTV—to create a polished yet authentic presence that builds trust.
TikTok’s rise: Universities like Oxford and Indiana University leverage TikTok trends to humanize their brand and showcase student enthusiasm, boosting engagement dramatically.
The payoff is real: John Cabot University increased applications by 42% after ramping up its social media presence. Done right, social platforms don’t just market a school—they cultivate belonging and amplify word-of-mouth.
Example: John Cabot University, an American-accredited university in Rome, overhauled its social media strategy to engage prospective students and saw remarkable results. By partnering with Higher Education Marketing and tailoring content to its audience, JCU achieved a 300% increase in applications coming directly from social media and a 42% overall rise in student applications. In practice, this involved creating more audience-targeted posts and campaigns that funneled followers to the admissions site – demonstrating how active social engagement can translate into measurable recruitment gains.
Organic content builds long-term visibility, but paid digital advertising delivers immediate reach. Pay-Per-Click (PPC) ads—on Google, Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, or YouTube—allow universities to target demographics, locations, and search intent with precision.
Search ads help institutions appear at the top of results for competitive terms like “MBA program online” or “study in Canada.” Even major universities bid on their own branded keywords to capture applicants searching directly for admissions. These ads often lead to optimized landing pages designed to convert interest into inquiries.
Social ads provide granular targeting. The takeaway? With smart targeting, strong creative, and optimized landing pages, PPC can deliver measurable results in recruitment, even on modest budgets.
Example: Laurier employs highly targeted PPC advertising to reach international prospects in key markets. In partnership with HEM, Laurier runs country-specific campaigns on Google and Meta (Facebook/Instagram), even narrowing ads to specific cities to maximize relevance. For example, prospective students in India, Nigeria or Vietnam might see ads for Laurier programs, and search ads ensure Laurier appears for queries like “study in Canada university.” This precise targeting has boosted Laurier’s lead generation from countries such as India, Bangladesh, Ghana and more, illustrating how PPC can efficiently capture students in different regions.
Email remains one of the highest-ROI tools for higher ed recruitment. When a prospect shares their email, it creates an opportunity for personalized, direct communication that nurtures them through the enrollment journey.
Lead nurturing works best through sequenced emails—welcoming inquiries, highlighting programs, showcasing campus life, and reminding applicants to complete next steps. Segmentation and personalization make campaigns more effective: tailoring messages by program, audience type, or student behavior ensures relevance and boosts engagement.
Automation tools like HubSpot or Slate allow universities to trigger timely follow-ups—such as reminders for incomplete applications or pre-visit info before a campus tour. Done well, email serves as the connective tissue of digital strategy—tying content, events, and ads into one cohesive student journey.
Example: Michael Vincent Academy, a private vocational school in Los Angeles, streamlined its recruitment process by implementing a customized CRM with marketing automation. The academy uses an automated system (HEM’s Mautic CRM) to follow up with every inquiry, score leads, and send sequenced emails. Routine tasks – from welcome emails to application reminders – are now handled automatically, allowing staff to spend more time on personal outreach to high-value prospects. The impact is significant: key elements of the follow-up workflow are now automated, improving efficiency and ensuring no prospective student falls through the cracks.
Pro Tip: Don’t overload inboxes—send 1 email every 7–10 days, keep designs mobile-friendly, and always include a clear call-to-action.
5. Website Optimization and User Experience (UX)
Your website is your digital campus, often the first impression prospective students have. A well-optimized site improves engagement and conversion by guiding visitors smoothly through their journey.
Mobile-first design is non-negotiable. With most students researching on phones, responsive layouts, fast load speeds, and intuitive navigation are critical. Google also rewards mobile-friendly sites in search rankings.
Clear navigation helps diverse audiences—prospective undergrads, grads, parents, international students—find relevant information quickly. Saint Louis University, for example, introduced an interactive admissions page with customizable “pathways,” simplifying content discovery and personalizing the student journey.
Engaging media like photos, videos, and virtual tours immerse visitors in campus life, while CTAs such as “Request Info” or “Apply Now” nudge them toward action.
Example: University of North Dakota undertook a comprehensive website refresh that yielded strong results in both engagement and conversions. The new site introduced a powerful “Program Finder” tool giving prospective students one central place to discover academic programs by interest. The homepage and navigation were reorganized around key audiences (prospective undergrads, grad students, parents, etc.), making it easier for each group to find relevant info. UND also weaves in student stories and news in a way that reflects student life and values, rather than just facts. This focus on UX paid off: after launch, UND saw organic traffic climb and a 62% jump in undergraduate inquiries year-over-year, all while many peer institutions saw declines. It underscores that a fast, intuitive, mobile-friendly site can be a university’s best recruitment tool.
Pro Tip: Audit your site regularly—outdated info or broken links can undo even the best design.
6. Search Engine Marketing (SEM) and Local SEO
Search engine marketing ensures your institution is visible when prospective students actively look for programs. Beyond broad SEO, local optimization and targeted campaigns make a significant difference.
Local SEO helps capture location-based searches like “MBA in Toronto” or “universities near me.” Universities should claim and update their Google Business profiles, add campus photos, respond to reviews, and use city/region keywords across their site. For multi-campus schools, create individual location pages optimized with local terms.
Long-tail keywords are equally powerful. Students often search specific queries like “best undergraduate business programs for entrepreneurship.” Creating FAQ pages, blog posts, or landing pages around these terms captures highly motivated prospects. Likewise, many universities now optimize program pages with alumni career outcomes and salary data to rank for career-focused searches.
Example: Cumberland College, a career college in Montréal, used SEM and on-page SEO to significantly boost its visibility and inquiries. With expert help, Cumberland optimized its website content (in English and French) and refocused its keyword strategy – plus ran complementary Google Ads – to capture more search traffic. The impact was dramatic over a short period: organic web visitors rose by 27.5%, and overall leads (inquiries) jumped by 95% after the campaign, compared to the previous year. Even more striking, leads coming specifically from organic search increased nearly five-fold (a 386% increase) as Cumberland climbed higher in search results.
Pro Tip: Align SEM campaigns with the admissions cycle—boost spend before deadlines to capture undecided applicants.
7. Video Marketing and Virtual Engagements
In the digital era, video has become an incredibly powerful medium of digital marketing for colleges, and universities are uniquely positioned to leverage it. From campus tour videos and student vlogs to recorded webinars and live-streamed events, video marketing allows prospective students to experience a taste of campus life and academics from anywhere in the world. It’s engaging, shareable, and often more memorable than text.
Campus tours and virtual experiences: When students cannot visit in person (due to distance or as we saw during pandemic lockdowns), a virtual tour is the next best thing. Many universities now feature immersive 360-degree virtual campus tours on their websites. These let users “walk” through the quad, peek into classrooms, dorms, and labs, all from their computer or phone. It’s an interactive way to showcase facilities and atmosphere. Even a simple narrated campus tour video on YouTube can be effective – guiding viewers through major spots on campus while current students or staff explain highlights.
Storytelling through students: Prospective students trust their peers. “Day in the life” vlogs or testimonial clips highlighting internships and career outcomes resonate strongly. Short, authentic videos often outperform highly produced pieces.
Example: Montgomery County Community College (USA) grabbed attention with an award-winning recruitment video campaign. Their 30-second video spot, “You in Motion,” is a high-energy montage that inspires viewers to envision their success at the college. In that half-minute, the video communicates key value props – an affordable, top-notch education; extensive support resources; and a wide range of programs – all set to uplifting visuals of campus and student achievements. The campaign succeeded in exciting prospective students and driving home the message that at Montco you can “make your own momentum”. It’s a prime example of how concise, well-produced video content can boost a school’s appeal and conversion rates.
Source: YouTube
Takeaway: Video marketing builds trust through storytelling, making your institution both relatable and aspirational.
8. Data Analytics and Continuous Optimization
A major advantage of digital marketing for colleges is the ability to measure performance in real time. Universities that actively track and optimize campaigns consistently outperform those that rely on static strategies.
With tools like Google Analytics, CRMs, and marketing automation, schools can monitor conversions such as info requests, applications, and event signups, while attributing results to specific channels. For example, McGill University’s School of Continuing Studies implemented eCommerce-style tracking with HEM, enabling them to connect digital ad spend directly to applications and enrollment outcomes.
Example: McGill’s School of Continuing Studies struggled to connect its digital ad spend to actual enrollments – until it implemented an advanced analytics solution. Working with HEM, McGill SCS set up eCommerce-style tracking (via its Destiny One online registration system) to measure exactly how ads and web campaigns translated into applications, registrations, and revenue. This involved configuring Google Analytics and tag manager to capture each student touchpoint and conversion. The result was a newfound ability to make data-driven decisions on marketing: McGill can now see ROI by campaign and optimize accordingly, rather than guessing.
Optimization goes beyond tracking. A/B testing landing pages, refining email subject lines, or adjusting ad targeting can deliver significant lifts in conversions. Ultimately, analytics turn insights into action. By continuously refining campaigns based on real results, institutions ensure smarter spending, better engagement, and stronger recruitment outcomes.
Bringing It All Together
Digital marketing is no longer optional for universities—it’s the foundation of how students discover, evaluate, and choose their educational path. From content marketing and social media engagement to PPC, email nurturing, and data-driven optimization, each strategy plays a role in building trust and guiding prospects through the enrollment journey.
The institutions that succeed are those that take an integrated approach: aligning their website, campaigns, and student communications to deliver a consistent, authentic experience. Real-world examples—from Boston University’s content hub to McGill University’s data-driven enrollment gains—show how strategy translates into measurable results.
Ultimately, digital marketing is about connection. By telling authentic stories, engaging students where they are, and continuously refining based on analytics, universities can cut through the noise, reach the right audiences, and build relationships that last well beyond enrollment.
Done right, digital marketing doesn’t just attract students—it creates advocates who carry your institution’s story forward.
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
FAQs
Q: What is digital marketing in education?
A: Digital marketing in education is the use of online channels—such as websites, SEO, social media, email, and digital ads—to promote programs, connect with prospective students, and engage alumni. Unlike other sectors, the “product” is not just a service but an experience and long-term investment, so messaging must inform, inspire, and build trust.
Q: Why is digital marketing for universities so critical now?
A: The stakes are high. With declining enrollments and growing skepticism about the value of a degree, institutions are investing heavily in outreach.
Q: How much do universities spend on digital marketing?
A: Universities now spend between $429 and $623 per enrolled student, per year on marketing.
In recent weeks, the plight of Gazan students and scholars accepted to UK universities has gained attention in British and international media. These individuals are recipients of highly competitive scholarships such as Chevening, as well as other academic awards. They have earned their place at some of the most prestigious institutions in the United Kingdom. Their achievements are remarkable by any standard, but especially so given that they were reached under the harshest conditions imaginable: the collapse of Gaza’s educational infrastructure under bombardment, the absence of functioning universities, and the daily struggle for survival amidst man-made famine and starvation, displacement, and violent death.
Yet despite this extraordinary resilience, these students faced the risk of losing their places before they could even set foot in the UK. The obstacle was not academic performance or funding but rather a bureaucratic and logistical impasse deriving from the Home Office requirement to provide biometric data. Following the brutal assault by Hamas and other armed organisations on Israeli civilians and military bases on October 7th, 2023 and the horrific devastation Israel has unleashed on the Palestinians in Gaza since, the Visa Application Centre (VAC) in Gaza has been closed, thus preventing biometric processing.
Support for Gazan Students
As Israeli academics organised under the banner of the Black Flag Action Group, opposed to the ongoing war in Gaza, we mobilised in support of these students. Over 140 signatories, including Israeli students and scholars at British universities as well as Israeli graduates from British universities, urged the UK government to act decisively and inclusively. In our open letter, we stressed that no administrative hurdle should prevent prospective students from taking up the places they have already earned. When laboratories, libraries, lecture halls and archives lie in ruins, the opportunity to study abroad is not just a personal achievement; it constitutes a lifeline for the ongoing intellectual and professional life of Gazan Palestinians. To have denied these students their places would have been to contradict the UK’s own commitments under schemes like Chevening, which are premised on the idea that education can foster leadership, dialogue, and international understanding.
Window of Hope and Future Implications
On 3 September 2025, the UK government announced that it would expedite visas for Chevening scholars and others to travel to a third country for biometric processing. We were also very relieved to hear that a group of 34 Palestinian students with places at UK universities have safely arrived in the UK to begin their studies after being evacuated from Gaza last week. These are surely welcome steps, but urgent policy questions for higher education in the UK still remain, including what seem to be the remaining rules preventing students from Gaza from bringing family members with them. In fact, as recently reported by the BBC at least four mothers and one father have so far declined places because they would not leave their children behind. As the recent public discussion shows, these go beyond the immediate emergency and touch on structural issues that universities and government alike must confront:
Visa and Mobility Frameworks: Current biometric requirements are ill-suited to situations of war and humanitarian crisis. Universities and advocacy groups must press the Home Office to establish flexible, transparent, and accountable procedures for students from conflict zones.
Equity of Access: Scholarship schemes such as Chevening are designed to promote global leadership. Yet their credibility is undermined if access is contingent not only on merit but also on whether students can survive a war zone and navigate opaque visa procedures.
Moral Responsibility of universities to students and their dependents: UK institutions that have offered places to Gazan students cannot treat their admission as symbolic. They must actively lobby the government, provide legal and financial assistance, and ensure that students’ right to education is not hollow.
The plight of Gazan students is not an abstract problem. It is about gifted men and women who have already demonstrated courage, brilliance, and commitment. Universities, civil society, and policymakers have an ethical obligation to work together to ensure that the promise of higher education for Gazan students in the British system of higher education will not be abandoned at the very moment it is most needed.
Nick Hillman, HEPI Director, bottles his thoughts about this year’s Labour Party Conference.
As multiple fringe events showed, when it comes to higher education the Labour Conference was very busy, with notably more vice-chancellors in attendance than in days of yore.
My Conference sojourn started on Saturday with a trip to Liverpool’s famous Cavern Club to watch the brilliant in-house Beatles tribute band. At the time, I mused about which fab-four song might best sum up the next few days. ‘Taxman’ perhaps?
(If you drive a car) I’ll tax the street
(If you try to sit) I’ll tax your seat
(If you get too cold) I’ll tax the heat
(If you take a walk) I’ll tax your feet
In fact, when it came to higher education, the big news was a giveaway rather than a new tax. I’ll always remember where I was when Margaret Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister (in the Manchester University Students’ Union shop). Perhaps education policy wonks will similarly always remember where they were when they heard maintenance grants were on their way back (albeit for a second time – they were last reintroduced in the mid-2000s before being abolished a decade later).
In my case, I was with dozens of others in a fascinating HEPI fringe event on students’ cost of living, chaired by my colleague Rose Stephenson and featuring Alex Stanley (NUS), Gavan Conlon (London Economics) and Nic Beech (University of Salford). This came hot on the heels of two other HEPI fringe events – one on public opinion and higher education featuring a bevy of vice-chancellors and another with Cambridge University Press and Assessment on ‘Quality Matters’.
It was no surprise the news about maintenance grants won a spontaneous round of applause. It reminded me of the cheer I got during a speech to the University of Derby in 2016, when I read out the breaking news that UKIP’s Leader had just stood down (‘Nigel Farage resigns’, the Guardian reported, ‘after “achieving political ambition”’).
In both instances, the initial reaction was premature. Brexit was not the end of Faragism and it quickly became clear in Liverpool that the return of maintenance grants is not quite what it first seemed either.
Access to our colleges and universities shouldn’t just be for a wealthy few.
That’s why I’m bringing back maintenance grants for those who need them most.
Labour is ambitious for all our young people, no matter their background. I’m putting our values into action.
Most people who have calculated the cost of reintroducing grants have assumed it would cost something in the region of £2 billion a year. However, Ministers plan to fund the new grants via the proposed levy on international students’ fees, which is expected to raise around £600 million. So entitlement to the new means-tested grants will, it turns out, be limited by students’ course choice. You will be quids in only if you are studying what the politicians want you to study.
As I noted at the King’s College London Policy Institute fringe meeting on Wednesday afternoon, funding the new grants from the new levy may seem like clever politics, at least inside Number 10 and the Treasury and also perhaps by anyone seeking election as the Labour Party’s Deputy Leader.
Students and vice-chancellors have been desperate for grants to return and rightly so – for the reasons why, see our recent report on a Minimum Income Standard for Students with TechnologyOne and Loughborough University. But the levy / tariff / tax on international students is hated by those same students and vice-chancellors, putting them in something of a bind when it comes to responding to the Government’s announcement.
Not only do international students typically come from countries that are poorer than the UK, but they are already subsidising UK research and the teaching of domestic students. Now they are expected to contribute towards the day-to-day living costs of poorer home students too (just so long as those UK students are studying courses deemed to be of most economic value). Just how broad do Ministers think international students’ shoulders are?
Many of them come from wealthy backgrounds but some do not have very deep pockets and none is obliged to study in the UK rather than elsewhere. So our higher education institutions are unlikely to be able to pass on the full 6% without seeing a drop in demand.
It was great to witness so many backbench Labour MPs, like Alex Sobel, Daniel Zeichner, Abtisam Mohamed and Dr Lauren Sullivan, advocating for UK universities across the conference fringe programme. But more generally, there were parts of the Conference that felt flat as well as parts that were presumably in line with what the organisers wanted – including the Leader’s big set-piece speech. Starmer’s big reveal was the rejection of the ancient 50% target for young people’s participation in higher education in preference for a new target ‘That two-thirds of our children should go either to university… Or take a gold standard apprenticeship.’
The Prime Minister would be unlikely to welcome the comparison but this reminded me of nothing so much as David Cameron’s pledges as Prime Minister. In 2013, for example, Cameron said: ‘I want us to have as a new norm the idea that in school, everybody, everyone who can, either takes that path on to university, or takes that path on to an apprenticeship. You should be doing one or the other.’
The challenge is not coming up with such commitments; it is delivering them. Fewer adults are doing apprenticeships now than when David Cameron spoke, despite the introduction of an Apprenticeship Levy. Perhaps Starmer can succeed where Cameron and his successors failed…
At the end of the Conference, I was left feeling the biggest omission compared to past Labour Conferences was a clear and broad narrative about His Majesty’s Official Opposition: the Conservative Party. If the choice facing the country really is between ‘division’ and ‘decency’, as Keir Starmer says, then might not the best way to defeat division be, as with Le Pen in France or the AfD in Germany, for centre-right and centre-left parties to act together?
If Tony Blair and William Hague can work together, surely this is not impossible? But – and this is a personal opinion only – I left Liverpool wondering if the main problem for today’s Labour leadership is that they have spent the last 15 years making such strong criticisms of their bedfellows in the mainstream centre of British politics that they are unable to admit they may now need to work with the centre-right to stave off their worst fears.
Then again, perhaps today’s Tory Party also cannot see that the opposite of division is not so much ‘decency’ (however much we might want that) as collaboration. We’ll find out for certain next week as the policy caravan moves across the north-west to Manchester for the Conservative Party Conference. Do come to HEPI’s event there if you can – it is outside the secure zone so no expensive pass is needed.
Carole Cox, HEPI’s Events and Communications Administrator (and HEPI’s biggest Beatles’s fan) explains why Liverpool is the perfect place for day-trippers and long-stayers.
The City of Liverpool has the biggest single collection of Grade One listed buildings than any other English city outside London and it was named the European Capital of Culture in 2008. A football mecca, it also boasts a plethora of museums, including the World Museum, the International Slavery Museum, the Museum of Liverpool, Tate Liverpool and the Merseyside Maritime Museum.
It is also an interestingly quirky place, which harbours some amazing public toilets (you read that right). For example, if you ever happen to drop into the Philharmonic Dining Rooms in the Georgian Quarter, feel free to admire the famous Grade I-listed urinals in their pink marble splendour.
And then, there is the deservedly famous Mersey Beat. Liverpool and The Beatles, these are words that go together well.* The Liverpudlian group are considered the best-selling band in music history, hailed as pioneers who revolutionised the music industry and popular culture.
In summary, Liverpool is a ‘blast’ in more ways than one: a city which does not shy away from its heritage, a city with so much to offer culturally, but also a windy city open to the strong maritime winds gusting from the docks. Which may be why the French translation of the 1964 Beatles film A Hard Day’s Night is Les Quatre Garçons Dans Le Vent, a French colloquial idiom for their growing popularity – which, when translated word-for-word, awkwardly reads as ‘the four boys in the wind’.
* ‘these are words that go together well’ are lyrics from the 1965 Beatles song Michelle (Lennon/McCartney).
This blog outlines a speech given by Professor Sasha Roseneil, Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of Sussex at a HEPI panel at the Labour Party Conference on the 29 September 2025
‘How can universities win back public support?’ was the question set for a panel discussion of Vice-Chancellors at the 2025 Labour Party Conference yesterday. But, with all due respect to HEPI’s Director, Nick Hillman, who posed this question, I do not accept its premise.
There is compelling evidence from multiple sources to suggest that key stakeholders – students, prospective students, parents, and grandparents – are strongly supportive of higher education.
First and foremost, students are very positive about their experience at university. The overall positivity score in the 2025 National Student Survey, which gathers the opinions of all final year students, was 86%, with 87% of students positive about teaching on their course, and 88% reporting that they felt able to express their ideas, beliefs and opinions at university. All over 85%. And HEPI and Advance HE’s 2025 Student Academic Experience Survey found that, whilst tuition fees are clearly not popular, more students consider that they receive good value for their fees than not – 37% versus 29% feeling that they receive poor value for money.
Second, young people continue to want to go to university: the number of people applying to university was 1.3% higher for 2025 entry than the year before, with a record number of 18-year-old applicants, and 2% increase on 2024, and a 4.7% increase in the number of 19-year-olds (and only mature student applicants declining).
And, according to a recent YouGov survey sponsored by University Alliance, members of the public across the political spectrum overwhelmingly want university for their loved ones: 84% of parents and grandparents want their children to go to university, and only 8% are against. Amongst Conservative voters, 90% want their children or grandchildren to go to university, the same as Green voters, slightly higher than the 89% of Labour voters, and slightly lower than the 93% of Liberal Democrat voters, with 72% of Reform voters also wanting their young family members to go to university.
The YouGov survey didn’t ask why – but I would suggest that it is implicitly understood by members of the public that higher education opens up worlds and improves lives for individuals, and that graduates are generally wealthier over their lifetimes, healthier, and happier than non-graduates. People might not have read David Willetts’ report for the Resolution Foundation but they seem to have tacit knowledge of its findings.
So where does the idea that universities have lost public support come from?
Above all, it comes from the media – from a cacophony of newspapers that feed a daily diet of anti-university stories, circulating and recirculating the same ideas. It is my contention that these stories are grounded in one key thing – a more or less explicit rejection of the democratisation and expansion of access to higher education that has taken place over the past twenty years, and that has been part of the wider processes of cultural and social liberalisation and equalisation that have been in train since the late 1960s.
Steeped in nostalgia for the days when higher education was the preserve of a privately and grammar school educated elite, some newspapers hark back to a time when university guaranteed access to the upper echelons of society. Their view is often based on an implicit understanding of university education as being about the reproduction and transmission of established bodies of knowledge, and thus the wider status quo. From this standpoint, they have waged a long and relentless campaign against universities. Universities are presented as one of the biggest social problems of our time, as the propagators of ‘woke ideologies’, as the source of blame for the reduction in the graduate premium, and for the failure of some graduates to rapidly realise their career or income aspirations.
Such stories are written by journalists who almost all went to university themselves (although to a limited range of universities) and have children whom they expect to go to a similarly limited range of universities. It is other people’s children going to university that is the problem, taking places away from those who should naturally enter their preferred universities. And it’s the ideas and identities that those young people might encounter, and that they might develop for themselves, at university that concerns them.
There were, of course, similar concerns several decades ago about what went on in the new universities that were established in the 1960s – but far fewer young people were exposed to the university experience in those days and it cost the public purse much less to educate them. But perhaps most importantly, the middle class was rapidly expanding and the middle class parents’ ‘fear of falling’ – that their children will not achieve the social and economic status that they have been born into – was not at all prevalent in the way that it is today.[1]
Those earlier generations of students were, of course, also much more generously supported in their studies, and therefore much more able to take full advantage of all that higher education had to offer, and much less likely to have to undertake the very significant amount of paid work that today’s students are doing – at very real cost to the time they have for independent study. And they didn’t have to pay the fees that lead to questions about student attitudes to value for money.
And so there is now a discourse that suffuses public culture that going to university is a waste of time and money, that only some universities are worth going to, and only some courses are worth studying. And, by implication, only some students are worth educating to a higher level. The more young people go to university and the more widespread across society the expectation and desire to go to university, the louder and more vociferous the attacks on higher education.
The idea that universities lack public support also provides ‘look over here’ distraction from the real problem that faces higher education – an unprecedented funding crisis. Across the country, universities are engaging in repeated rounds of ever deeper cuts, losing thousands – tens of thousands – of highly skilled jobs, and closing courses and departments. There is no national oversight of the impact of this on subject provision across the country, on students’ ability to access higher education in the full range of subjects locally (which impacts disproportionately on students from lower socio-economic backgrounds and from marginalised groups, who are much more likely to study close to home), on regional economies, and on our sovereign capability in critical industries and priority growth areas.
Last week’s report from the Institute of Physics sounded the alarm bell in relation to the health of this vital, foundational STEM discipline, and the British Academy has done the same for the humanities and the social sciences – particularly modern foreign languages, linguistics, anthropology and classics, with English, history and drama likely to follow soon.
If this were any other sector in which the UK was an undisputed world leader, and the rapid helter-skelter unplanned contraction which will cause enormous harm to the economies and civic life of cities and regions around the country, there would be stories in the news every day about the crisis. And there would be urgent government action to intervene.
Instead, universities are lambasted every day in the press and then told by government that we are independent autonomous bodies that need to solve our financial problems ourselves. This is despite the fact that universities are increasingly heavily regulated, and despite our main sources of income being home student fees, which are determined by government, and international student fees, the source of which has been under attack because international students are an easy target in the context of commitments to reduce net migration, and which is further threatened by the imposition of an international student levy.
The reality is that universities cannot solve our problems ourselves, either individually or collectively. We are all seeking greater efficiencies. We are all looking at how we can cut back on everything that is not absolutely essential to the student experience in the here and now.We are all considering carefully how we might collaborate with others to do more with less. Research is being radically squeezed, and labs and equipment are not being repaired and renewed, in order to try to ensure our financial survival.
But what now really must be called out is the failure of the competitive quasi-market model under which higher education operates. It is this that is source of our problems, and we need government to act.
The question then really should be: how can universities win government support to enable us to fulfil our primary purpose of education and research for the common good?
And the answer to that has to be by means of careful, rational, evidenced argument – with a flourish of rhetoric – of the sort that universities were established to propagate and which is so vital to the future of liberal democracy. We need to articulate and demonstrate our value, our vital importance, and our need for calm, considered and creative policy attention.
The global excellence of UK universities rests on decades, and in some cases, several centuries, of public investment in knowledge creation and learning for the public good. But that quality is in imminent danger. We urgently need government action to support our universities to continue conducting the world-leading research, catalysing the growth-producing innovation, and providing the transformative education and advanced skills that we are capable of doing – before it is too late.
There is active, deliberate government-led destruction of higher education and research taking place elsewhere. Don’t let’s do that here too by falling for the idea that the public doesn’t care about universities, and by failing to act in time.
[1] Ehrenreich, Barbara. Fear of falling: The inner life of the middle class. Twelve, 2020
This HEPI blog was kindly written by Mike Boxall, writing in a personal capacity.
According to the latest survey by PA Consulting, over 90% of university vice-chancellors endorse a call for ‘fundamental system reforms’ to secure the survival of their sector against what they universally regard as an unprecedented combination of existential threats and challenges. Yet the responses seen from across the sector to date have been distinctly conventional and, in a literal sense, conservative: cost-cutting, portfolio rationalisation, recruitment freezes and redundancies, and forgone investments. While undoubtedly necessary in some cases to stave off short-term financial crises, such measures hardly represent transformational innovations; indeed, almost half the survey respondents predicted that their institutions would look and feel much the same in ten years’ time as today. As one vice-chancellor put it:
We have been propping up a 20th-century system that is no longer fit for the purposes of the early 21st century
Meanwhile, policymakers in the Department of Education and the Office for Students are busily preparing contingency measures against the heightened risk of multiple institutional failures and institutions plan for continued retrenchment. Big questions remain unanswered: Why might ‘fundamental system reforms’ be needed? What could (or should) a fundamentally reformed higher education system look like? And how might it be brought about in an era of continued fiscal and policy austerity?
Unlike just about every other sector facing seismic shifts in their markets and operating environments, universities have remained uniformly committed to what many regard as self-limiting and increasingly outdated business models:
Reliance on providing essentially similar subject-based courses to limited cohorts of school-leavers, largely neglecting the more diverse learning needs of much larger populations of in-career professionals and their employers.
Adherence to misleadingly named ‘full-time’ study schedules typically limited to 30 weeks a year or less, with single annual entry points and campuses and facilities largely empty of students and staff for almost half the year.
A deficit-based business model in which devolved expenditure plans are set (and spent) separately from confirmed earnings, often resulting in unexpected year-end shortfalls and relying on cross-subsidies from international student fees to balance budgets.
Over 150 autonomous and self-determining universities competing with one another for shares of largely fixed or even shrinking markets and funding sources, with success judged more in terms of reputational standings than by the quality and social value of their services.
It must be acknowledged that, despite these self-imposed limitations, the current university system has defied repeated prophesies of its demise. It has survived largely intact for many decades, with few provider closures or even forced mergers, and continues to recruit almost 1.5 million domestic and international students each year, generating over £55 billion in revenues. A handful of global institutions with annual incomes exceeding £1 billion or more may be considered too big and important to fail, and indeed these few continue to do relatively well, often at the direct expense of less-favoured rivals. However, many, perhaps even most, others face a future of chronic struggles to cover inexorably rising costs and to protect their shares of markets eroded by new competitors and alternative options for students, employers, knowledge users and public programmes. Survival for these providers through continued efficiency drives might be possible, but it won’t be fun; nor will it be sufficient to secure the pivotal roles of universities in educating and informing an increasingly complex and precarious world.
The roles and contributions of universities in today’s and tomorrow’s learning society are no less important than in the past, but they will be different. In particular, they have a unique responsibility for sustaining human and social intelligence in the face of impersonal AI and related technological advances. To fulfil this role, universities must move beyond the limitations of their legacy models, expanding their roles within national and localised ecosystems to promote:
Lifelong and continuous learning and professional development for all adults, from post-secondary to late-career stages, and from initial formation to periodic upskilling and personal renewal, facilitated and supported through the Lifelong Learning Entitlement and related schemes
Cumulative and personalised learning attainments, embracing the rounded acquisition and development of knowledge, competences, experience and personal development, incorporating micro-credentials and stackable awards on the lines proposed by the OECD
Variety and choice of accessible pathways through different modes of provision for useful learning as and when sought by individuals and employers, embracing universities, colleges, training providers and online services, as is being developed in Greater Manchester
Funding and economic structures based on the value and benefits of different modes of learning provision, shared equitably between individuals, employers, civic authorities and the State, on the lines explored by the UNESCO Innovative Funding for Education project.
While fully articulated and integrated learning and skills ecosystems built on these principles may seem a long way off, the examples cited show that prototypes can already be seen in localised initiatives and emerging proposals across the international tertiary formation landscape. A variety of models built around these principles might emerge, displaying the characteristics of complex adaptive systems: self-organising and dynamic networks of diverse partners and stakeholders, producing emergent results in response to changing experiences.
Unpredictable and sometimes surprising outcomes of these kinds cannot easily be planned or fitted into pre-determined blueprints. They are thus unsuited to the normal pattern of government policy interventions. Rather, the role of government should be to provide the enabling conditions and supportive frameworks (including funds) within which self-organising solutions can emerge. A good start would be to reduce the fragmentation of policy, funding and regulatory constraints to innovation and enterprise across existing learning and skills provision. The Commission on Tertiary Education and Research (Medr) in Wales offers a laudable start towards that end, now being emulated in the Republic of Ireland and in New Zealand.
System-wide reforms on this scale do not in any way diminish the importance or critical roles of universities in serving fast-changing national needs for advanced education and skills. What they would do would be to shift the debate on the health of higher education provision from its current focus on enabling universities to continue doing what they have always done, on their own terms, to redefining and consolidating their roles at the heart of sectoral or place-related advanced learning ecosystems. In spirit, if not in forms, this would represent returns to the principles on which most universities (both pre- and post-1992) were first established and which many would argue are needed even more today.
The blog was kindly authored by Jenny Shaw, Director of Higher Education External Engagement at Unite Students.
Thousands of new undergraduates are taking their first steps into higher education, but what has brought them there? Have they weighed up all the evidence, or have they followed their heart? The answer is, of course, much more complicated.
The Unite Students Applicant Index, in partnership with HEPI, has tracked the experiences of prospective students since 2022, and this year we asked applicants to tell us, in their own words, why they chose their first-choice higher education provider. An initial analysis seemed to hint at the Teaching Excellence Framework’s influence on international students, but a subsequent deep-dive using inductive coding found a more complex and sometimes surprising story that reveals applicants’ desires, concerns and ambitions.
Academic excellence
International applicants tended to use terms such as academic excellence, good quality teaching or that the provider was best or excellent for a specific field of study. Some expressed their admiration of academic staff: expert faculty; very excellent teaching team. A few Chinese students described their chosen provider as zhuānyè, translated as ‘professional’ but which also implies specialist expertise.
While a few UK students talk positively about teaching in general, for example great academics; good education, their comments more often refer to a specific course. Frequent comments such as top rated for my course or it’s good for psychology suggest that subject-level rankings hold more weight than overall teaching quality.
Additionally, about one in four international applicants, though a much smaller proportion of those from the UK, are primarily motivated by overall reputation or prestige. International applicants tend to cite the fame of their chosen university and its place in international or UK rankings. UK applicants tend to be less specific, for example good uni; its reputation and they sometimes use the Russell Group as a signal of high reputation. They also rely on word of mouth or their own perception: I’ve heard good things; It seemed the best.
Another common motivation for provider choice is linked to the course of study, independent of course quality. This theme includes the availability of specific or niche course, the structure or content of a course, or a provider that offers an appealing range of courses. For a few international applicants, the provider has been recommended to them for a specific subject discipline.
Location, location, location
UK applicants have similar motivations, but their choice is more likely to be contingent on location. This could take the form of having to choose the best option that is commutable: It has forensic psychology as a study choice and it isn’t too far from home; or the course being a co-equal motivator alongside the location: I like the course and the city.
Location more broadly is a major motivation for UK applicants both as a primary and a secondary factor. For some, this is driven by the need to find a provider that is within commuting distance. But the theme also includes the choice of a particular location among UK applicants that reflects their own priorities and lifestyle preferences. This is in line with the growing importance of independence as a motivator: elsewhere in the survey almost 3 in 10 cite becoming more independent as a top motivator for going into higher education. While location can be a motivator for international applicants it is much less common and can be linked to personal recommendations or links to family and friends.
A few applicants were motivated by the supportiveness of a provider. This included being diverse which we know from the Living Black at University report can be important to applicants from racially minoritised groups. Having good support for international students was also mentioned. A few spoke about mental health or disability support, or just the perception of the university and its staff being understanding or lovely.
Employability is a surprisingly rare motivator. While other survey questions show the importance of employability generally, it’s surprisingly absent as a reason to choose a specific provider. When cited, it usually relates to the university’s offer or services around employability skills. Only occasionally it relates to the university’s track record of graduate employment.
Vibe check
However, a more common theme is the nebulous ‘vibe’, a theme that covers a range of emotionally-driven motivations. This may be a particular aesthetic on campus, sense of good fit or a lifestyle preference, and is surprisingly popular as a primary factor as well as being a secondary consideration in combination with other motivations. You may recognise it as a factor in your own higher education choices – I certainly do.
When it comes to the vibe, international applicants have a greater tendency to reference culture and perceptions of reputation: It has a long history and some beautiful buildings; Because it suits my style and it one of the best universities; The building is full of cultural atmosphere. They also express less specific sentiments such as: Great atmosphere; Because it is my ideal university.
UK applicants are more likely to say the university feels like a good fit or a comfortable place: It had a very welcoming feel; It looks like somewhere I’d fit in. They also express reasons that are less specific: Quite lowkey; I like the vibe; It’s soooooo cute. This may be a reflection of the importance of belonging in the student experience, and the higher levels of anxiety about belonging found among UK applicants elsewhere in the survey.
However, the last word should go to the applicants, both UK and international, who simply loved their chosen provider.
“This was my first choice because it has always been my goal and dream.”
“I love it!”
For them, this was reason enough.
You can read more from the Applicant Index at this link.
This HEPI guest blog was kindly written by James Seymour, who runs an education consultancy focusing on marketing, student recruitment, admissions and reputation and Julie Kelly who runs a higher education consultancy specialising in registry and governance challenges. Julie and James have worked for a range of universities at Director level in recent years.
The Challenge
All through August and September, many admissions and faculty/course teams have been working hard to get thousands of new students over the line and onto the next stage of their lives. It is more than just their UCAS application, interview, selection and firm acceptance or journey through Clearing – they have to actually enrol and succeed too.
Many of these students are training to be nurses, teachers, paramedics, social workers and doctors amongst many other allied health professional and education courses. They all need to go through essential and important Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements and additional compliance checks, from passports, to Disclosure and Barring Service questionnaires, to health questionnaires and more. Many are mature students who must demonstrate GCSE or equivalent competency at Grade C/4 or above. They are less likely to have support navigating this process as they are less likely to be in full-time education.
Most of these applicants have already been interviewed, attended selection days or Multiple Mini Interviews – MMIs (like selection speed dating) involving lots of competency stations.
These health students also must apply for their Student Finance loans in good time to trigger the all-important £5K+ NHS learning support fund – essential to enable them to succeed and even get to their clinical placements via bus, train or car.
It’s a very onerous process for applicants, their supporters, and the academic, admissions, and compliance teams, who must arrange and record all of this.
Clearly, getting all this information recorded and verified is important, but does it have to be so admin-heavy and time-consuming? Are we putting up barriers and disincentives deterring students from starting their studies?
At present, we have an inconsistent mess, often involving email and incessant chasing.
There has to be a better way
Over the last 10 years we have been involved in a number of process improvement/student journey projects at a number of UK universities. In our experience it takes at least five times longer to admit a Nurse compared to a Business, Law or English student, and at least twice as long compared to a creative arts student who submits their portfolio for interview and review. Data from The Student Loans Company indicates that at least 25% of all new students only apply for their loans on or after results day in August – presenting real risk of delays in getting their money in time for enrolment.
Typically, only 85-90% of Nurses and other key NHS-backed students who have a confirmed UCAS place in August actually enrol in September. Another 3-5% have left before January.
This is not all about motivation or resilience – part of the issue is linked to getting these students over the line with all the additional hoops they have to jump through.
Another issue is around wasted resource across the sector and a poor student experience. A student typically applies to their five UCAS choices, and many universities undertake the additional PSRB checks during the admission process. A student is therefore having to supply their information to multiple institutions, which then need to be processed for students who may never actually enrol. Surely it is better for students to supply this information once during the initial application stage?
Postgraduate Teachers including PGCE and Teach First students have to navigate a gov.uk application process (rather than UCAS) which feels like completing your tax return. A daunting and clunky first step to train in one of the most important careers any of us will ever do. They also only get three choices for courses that start in early September – only 2-3 weeks after many final year degree results are confirmed, putting undue pressure both on students, schools and institutions alike.
It’s clear that in the context of improving efficiency, eventual enrolment and reducing stress for all, a more collaborative approach across UK HE and professional training would be a real win. The same issues apply for onboarding, applications and selection for degree and higher apprenticeships.
The NHS workforce plan signals a clear need to train more Nurses and other key NHS staff and we know that teacher recruitment targets have been missed again this year.
Solutions and Future Projects
In the context of collaboration between universities, NHS, UKVI, UCAS and DfE we propose some key, essential ways to improve the process and increase the pipeline of future health and education professionals.
Create a safe, secure one-stop shop for PSRB checks, uploads and compliance so that students do it once and can be shared with all their university choices and options. There are a number of Ed Tech companies as well as UCAS, providing portals for applicants and the Gov.uk system is already improving each year.
As well as the process, revisit the timeline for applications and compliance for NHS and other PSRB courses – if this is all checked and ready by April-May and directly linked up to Student Finance Applications and/or NHS bursary support – far more students would be able to enrol, train and be ready to learn. This would require proper process mapping and joined up thinking across different government departments, UCAS and universities themselves.
The HE sector and NHS should collectively review the factors, groups and critical incidents affecting non-enrolment and first year drop out – nationally and across all PSRB courses – and work at pace to ‘fix the leaks’ accordingly. At present these data sets are not shared or acted upon across the UK but only via individual universities, trusts and occasionally at conferences and sector meetings.
UCAS and exam boards need to urgently bring forward automatic sharing of GCSE results via the ABL system so that universities and applicants can be assured of level 2 qualifications.
Look at alternatives to the ‘doom loop’ of GCSE Maths and English retakes and essential requirement for entry to NHS and other professional courses. There are already alternative qualifications including Functional Skills and these need to be amplified, so more students are able to get over the line and start training.
Universities should work together not against each other. Each university or training provider spends many tens of thousands each year on recruitment campaigns. For Nursing degrees alone, we estimate this to be at least £1M per year; pooling just 10% of this figure to ensure a consistent brand and overarching campaign would widen the pool of applicants rather than pit universities against each other.
Review the application process for Postgraduate Teacher Training – consider whether it should be given back to UCAS or another tech platform to improve visibility, choice, applicant journey and eventual enrolment figures. Clearly only three choices is not enough with some providers being more efficient than others in responding to applicants and dealing with application volumes. The resulting bottlenecks impact on applicant confidence in the system. The early September start date for PG teaching courses also needs a review. Apart from the application time pressure, these students are also starting before the campus (and school?) is truly ready for the start of term. Why not start with the rest of their peers at the end of September and also introduce a January start point as an option?
Make funding more consistent and long term – at present universities are only paid to train students based on first year intake each year, leading to short term decisions, volatility and competition. The LLE due in 2027 is unlikely to lead to flexibility in PSRB course transfer. Giving universities and health trusts a 3-4 year funding model would iron out that volatility, encourage new entrants and provide certainty to invest in facilities, staff and support to train those students.
Conclusion and next steps
As the HE sector looks back on admission and enrolment for the 2025/26 academic year and prepares for 2026/27 entry we feel that something must change to enhance the admission process for PSRB courses, all of which are critical to the future of the UK.
The practical steps and ideas included within the article are all deliverable but need joined-up thinking across different parts of the process. We propose establishing a working group or task force to address quick wins and consider a roadmap for addressing longer-term solutions.
This blog was kindly authored by Lee Marney, a recent graduate of the University of Manchester.
Introduction
Megan Bowler’s recent HEPI report lays bare the problems that language educators are experiencing in the face of declining uptake of modern foreign languages (MFL) at both post-14 and post-16 levels since the removal of compulsory foreign language Key Stage 3 in 2004.
The report is a fascinating insight into how language learning is indeed more vital than ever in the face of artificial intelligence, and the skills acquired are beneficial not only to individuals who learn MFL, but also to local communities and the economy.
MFL and pupils for lower socioeconomic backgrounds
The report recommends various measures to promote language educational uptake. However, more ought to be done to target groups of students who have disproportionately low participation in MFL to address the current language learning crisis, particularly through the form of:
offering alternative qualification pathways; and
reforming curriculum through utilising heritage languages (A heritage language is a minority language, migrant or indigenous, learned at home during childhood) to move away from a Eurocentric model of MFL across all Key Stages.
While policy can be a useful top-down tool to encourage MFL uptake, Megan Fowlers report rightfully points out that it must be accompanied by an ethos that reformulates the way in which we view the skills accrued by MFL learning. However, one must also be able to acknowledge that policy is a vital tool in encouraging that ethos growth by uplifting the linguistic diversity of this country’s working class. By reforming qualifications and allowing curriculum content to reflect the linguistic diversity of the UK and beyond, policymakers can ensure MFL are a tool for social mobility.
