The GRE, once required for admission to most graduate programs, has seen a steep decline in takers, as many institutions have made the test optional—a trend accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2020–2021, more than 350,000 people took the GRE; in 2024–25, that number fell to 200,000, according to the Journal.
The TOEFL, which assesses the English-language proficiency of international students, has faced mounting competition from companies including Duolingo, the Journal reported. The Trump administration’s crackdown on visas and efforts to cap international student enrollments in the U.S. have further shrunk the pool of test takers.
Sources told the Journal that ETS is hoping to sell the tests for about $500 million and has fielded interest from the Singapore-based investment firm Hillhouse, private-equity firms Nexus Capital and Veritas Capital, and education entrepeneur Martin Basiri, among others.
University administrators were reportedly wary of violating a state law that restricts certain discussions of race.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | CSUDH/iStock/Getty Images | WSCUC NEW
Professors at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock have nixed plans to participate in history lectures on racism and racial equity, due to censorship concerns, the Arkansas Times reported.
The newspaper reported that professors first raised concerns last month when the university scrubbed mentions of an upcoming “Evenings with History” lecture series from the university website. Administrators were reportedly concerned that two of the lectures could prompt scrutiny from state officials, specifically a February lecture titled “Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and the Death Penalty in Arkansas and the United States,” and a discussion with David Roediger about his memoir, which is titled “An Ordinary White: My Antiracist Education” scheduled for April.
University of Arkansas at Little Rock history Professor Barclay Key initially raised concerns in December in a memo to the Faculty Senate, obtained by the Arkansas Times, that recapped a conversation between himself and three high-ranking administrators.
Key noted concerns about the two lectures and that the administrators proposed changing the title of the first event and adding language to the description of the memoir discussion in order to avoid running afoul of state law that restricts certain discussions of race, according to the professor’s Dec. 19 memo.
Key wrote that he declined to make the requested changes.
“I also asked for clarification about how we are violating the law because the Department of History takes the law very seriously,” Key wrote, adding the administrators present confirmed they weren’t violating the law. “In search of further clarification, I pointed out that the law explicitly allows the discussion of ideas, history, and public policy that may be controversial or ‘that individuals may find unwelcome, disagreeable, or offensive.’ As the conversation unfolded, it became clear that this entire effort revolves around guessing what might offend some state legislators.”
Faculty members decided not to participate in the two lectures, which are operated in tandem with the nonprofit University History Institute. However, other lectures in the series remain on the schedule, such as a March event titled “The Making of a Propaganda Society in Rural China.”
Officials told Inside Higher Ed by email that the university “is reviewing its participation in the lecture series for compliance with applicable legislation.”
The move adds to academic freedom concerns in the University of Arkansas System after officials rescinded a job offer to Emily Suski, who was set to become dean of the law school, over political backlash. Officials pulled the offer after lawmakers raised concerns about the fact that Suski had signed an amicus brief supporting transgender athletes.
Nearly half of the police academies in America are offered at colleges or technical schools, like ours at Northern Essex Community College in Massachusetts.
At its best, police education and training prepare law enforcement officers with the knowledge and skills—including principles of constitutional law, active listening and verbal de-escalation techniques, implicit bias awareness, how to recognize signs of mental illness or substance abuse, use of force standards, and ethical decision-making and professional conduct—that they will need to protect and serve the public as safely and effectively as possible.
While no amount of training will prepare officers for every challenging situation they will face in their careers, or guarantee that every action they take will have the best outcome, the content, quality, culture and time spent on task of their training can make the difference between lives saved and lives lost.
Neglecting that high-quality training is one of the reasons we have seen so many use-of-force incidents, including shootings and fatalities, involving federal immigration agents over the past year—and why, unless we change course quickly, we are likely going to see more in the months ahead.
In 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) more than doubled the size of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) workforce, from 10,000 to 22,000 agents, in less than a year, through aggressive recruitment techniques, reduced standards and significantly less training. The results are now appearing, tragically, on the streets of cities across the country.
Between 2015 and 2021, ICE agents were involved in 59 shootings, an average of 10 each year, resulting in 23 deaths.
Since the start of President Trump’s immigration crackdown in cities across the U.S. last summer, federal immigration agents have fired shots in at least 19 separate incidents, resulting in at least five deaths, according to the nonprofit news organization The Trace. This includes the fatal shootings in Minneapolis this month of Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother of three and poet, who had recently completed a degree in English at Old Dominion University, and of Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse at a Veterans Affairs hospital and a University of Minnesota alumnus.
Potentially more impactful, though, is the insufficient preparation of those agents for their assignments: In order to meet its ambitious recruitment goal, the Department of Homeland Security offered signing bonuses up to $50,000, eliminated age limits, reduced physical fitness standards, and cut training time in about half, to only eight weeks.
All of this flies in the face of what educators know works best for community policing, and it is the opposite of the approach we have been taking in Massachusetts and at other college-hosted police academies across the country.
In 2017, I led a statewide task force of police chiefs, elected officials, municipal and higher education leaders that examined police education and training in Massachusetts and made recommendations for improvement.
Our research was clear: The more education, training and practice officers receive, the more likely they are to think critically, solve problems effectively, understand civil rights issues from multiple perspectives, and experience fewer complaints and disciplinary actions; and the less likely they are to use excessive or deadly force.
Since then, the Massachusetts Municipal Police Training Committee, which oversees curriculum and instructional practices for all of the state’s 21-week police academies, has expanded collaborations with educational institutions and shifted from military-style boot camp training to an academy culture that prepares officers for public-facing professional community policing roles.
In 2020, the state created the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission, designed to bring even greater transparency and accountability to policing in the Commonwealth by requiring certification, discipline and training standards statewide.
In 2021, Northern Essex Community College became the first Massachusetts police academy to become ABLE (Active Bystander for Law Enforcement) certified and now, along with other academies in the state, prepares every officer with an eight-hour course teaching them how to respond if a fellow officer is involved in misconduct.
As a result of rigorous training over time, high standards, a culture of community policing, public transparency and accountability, and increasing access to higher education, Massachusetts has one of the lowest rates of fatal shootings by police in the country, while remaining one of the safest states to live.
However you may feel about the politics of American immigration laws and their enforcement, from the perspective of effective police education and training, the nation’s Department of Homeland Security, through its revised recruitment and training practices, is degrading the preparedness and effectiveness of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
Unless DHS changes its practices quickly, or is forced to by pressure from states and members of Congress, and adopts higher standards of education and training and a culture of community policing, the agency is all but guaranteeing there will be more unnecessary deaths at the hands of underprepared ICE officers around the country.
Lane A. Glenn is president of Northern Essex Community College.
The journal Dear Higher Ed aims to provide a space for discussions about DEI as some campuses disinvest.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Liz Leyden and urfinguss/iStock/Getty Images
Campus DEI officers and researchers who study inequities in higher education say they’re watching decades of their work disappear as colleges respond to federal and state bans on diversity, equity and inclusion policies and programs by scrubbing evidence of their programs, research and milestones from campus websites.
But two former diversity professionals and an anthropology professor have made it their mission to preserve what they can of their colleagues’ efforts. The group founded a journal, called Dear Higher Ed: Letters from the Social Justice Mountain, to collect insights, experiences, research and best practices from faculty and higher ed staff currently or formerly engaged in DEI work on their campuses.
The project started with two diversity professionals at Virginia Tech who wanted to document their coworkers’ experiences as potential fodder for a book as state DEI bans proliferated. Menah Pratt and Michele Deramo, who worked in Virginia Tech’s DEI office at the time, invited their colleagues to write letters to higher ed. But they quickly realized they wanted to include voices from other institutions as Pratt met coworkers invested in DEI nationally and internationally on a fellowship with the American Council on Education at the University of Minnesota.
“What was the impetus for me is, when I came to Tech, I read 2,000 pages of reports,” Pratt said. “There was a historical record of 20 years of work that had been happening at Virginia Tech around diversity,” full of relevant data and best practices. “And then I thought, ‘Wow, these [reports] are gone from public view.’ They’re gone from so many institutions across the country.”
Pratt wanted to “start capturing some of those voices, those experiences, the strategies, the perspectives” that might otherwise be lost.
Plans for a book grew into a full-fledged journal, hosted by University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing and affiliated with a nonprofit called Scholarly Platforms for Advancing Research and Knowledge, or SPARK. Pratt and Deramo—who shifted to other roles at Virginia Tech after its DEI office closed last year—edited and released Dear Higher Ed’s first volume in 2024. They later brought on Rhode Island College anthropology professor M. Gabriela Torres, and the three of them put out two more issues last year and an open call for submissions for 2026.
The journal’s articles range widely. Some are deeply personal narratives, others detail higher ed’s historic inequities or highlight research and pedagogy tools. One piece, framed by an analysis of Beyonce lyrics, discusses the value of Black women’s voices in the academy. A professor emeritus wrote about how he used his Sicilian family background to open up conversations about race and whiteness with students in his classroom. Others expressed pain at how higher ed had retreated from DEI work and their fears for the aftermath.
“Dear Higher Education, I revere you,” one author wrote, “but I am so mad at you.”
A ‘Little Ray of Hope’
The hope is to offer a place where higher ed staff and scholars who care about diversity work can share critiques of higher ed, vent their frustrations, pour over its fraught history and delve into where it needs to improve, Deramo said. But it’s also about “why transformation is possible.”
“We wanted to get people to try to envision, ‘What’s an alternative? What can higher education be?’” Deramo said.
Torres hopes the journal reaches academics still interested in these areas of practice and research “that higher ed has divested from and want ideas as to how to continue the work.”
She argued campuses have poured resources into DEI and, in doing so, “improved the lives of so many students.” Those resources might have dried up, but the work can’t be “abandoned,” she said.
She also wants to create a home for homeless research as federal agencies and campuses cut funds for projects related to gender and race. Torres researches sexual violence and said she’s increasingly pursued partnerships in Europe and Canada to continue her work.
Scholars who study anything perceived as DEI-related now feel like “I can’t talk about my research, I can’t talk about my values,” she said. But Dear Higher Ed is meant to be a “space of creativity” and “possibility” where they can freely share their thoughts and findings, and their expertise is prized.
The editors can personally relate.
“I am someone whose position was dissolved,” Deramo said. “I was someone whose expertise, whose thought leadership, was set aside. But I’m not going to set it aside.”
The journal also includes some international voices, Pratt noted, because even if the U.S. has backed away from diversity research and practices, that work is continuing in other places, and scholars can learn from each other across borders.
The editors recognize that what they’re asking authors to do—write often deeply personal stories about a now lightning-rod issue on a public platform—isn’t easy. With rare exceptions, they prefer authors put their name on their work, if possible.
Writing for Dear Higher Ed requires “courage” because “if everything is anonymous, then you don’t have anything,” Pratt said. “At some point, you just have to believe that your words out in the world, with your background and all your identities, are more important than the silence.”
For Pratt, the journal has been “a little ray of hope,” she said.
“We’re just sitting here silently suffering,” Pratt said. “And I think to have a small little platform that says, ‘this work is not going away,’ or ‘your work is still important,’ or ‘what you did was important,’ … ‘these values still matter’” offers “that little glimmer of hope.”
In the evolving landscape of higher education, centers and institutes dedicated to teaching and learning can no longer be viewed as optional support units; they have become critical engines driving academic innovation at scale. Success in this mission depends on rethinking legacy structures, fostering a culture of collaboration across schools and colleges, identifying opportunities that deliver broad impact, and remaining grounded in the core principles that make teaching truly effective: clarity, engagement, reflection, inclusivity, adaptability, support and rigor.
Wendy Colby, Vice President and Associate Provost at Boston University, leads BU Virtual and BU’s new Institute for Excellence in Teaching and Learning. The Institute was established to chart a new vision and approach, thoughtfully reconstituting and expanding the role of several former units such as a Center for Teaching and Learning and Digital Learning Innovation. The goal—to create a university-wide nexus for advancing teaching and learning excellence and academic innovation.
In part one of our conversation, Wendy and I talk about the role of academic innovation centers for teaching and learning (CTLs) within the university ecosystem.
Courtesy Wendy Colby
Q1: What does it take to conceive and build a new Institute that truly advances academic innovation and delivers on the promise to create more impact across a faculty community—especially one as large and diverse as you have at Boston University?
A: It’s interesting. I approached the leadership of the Institute in the same way I approach any new leadership assignment. It started with a lot of listening—being out in the community, talking with faculty and students, and learning what was working well and where challenges persisted. I sat in on classes and was invited to guest lecture in a few. I saw some truly exceptional examples of teaching at its best, and I also examined how faculty and students were—or were not—using technology and tools to support the learning experience.
Needless to say, I learned a great deal. I saw where innovation was thriving, and where faculty were often tackling similar challenges independently, without a shared platform for collaboration or access to scalable resources. I also saw the importance of leadership and advocacy at the top—working closely with deans and academic leaders to align on shared goals and priorities. It became clear that we needed to create the conditions for faculty to feel that this was an Institute by them and for them.
From those early observations, we began to define what the Institute needed to be. We established a Strategic Advisory Council and an Institute Faculty Liaison group, comprised of faculty champions from across our schools and colleges. We also formed close alliances with key partners—most notably the Office of Undergraduate Affairs and the Dean of Students—to clarify the Institute’s role in student success and the broader student experience. These partnerships, built early in the Institute’s formation, have been essential to creating the conditions for success.
Ultimately, what emerged most clearly is that our success depends on shared ownership. Impact at this scale cannot be achieved by any single unit alone. In a university comprised of many distinct academic and operational units, each with its own priorities and ways of working, collective alignment is not automatic—but it is powerful. When we operate as a connected university, able to harness, contribute to, and amplify the extraordinary work already happening across our community, the potential for impact is far greater than the sum of its parts.
Q2: What are some of the initial initiatives you have created at the Institute, and how are these fostering meaningful faculty engagement and better student experiences?
A: I’ll start by saying that I’ve now spoken with many leaders at other institutions who are either leading similar centers or institutes or working to transform their own in more meaningful ways. A common theme I hear is that these units often have incredibly talented teams—frequently comprised of former faculty—who work hard to develop thoughtful programming, offer workshops and create resources grounded in evidence-based pedagogy. Yet, too often, their impact is limited. They struggle to establish a clear institutional identity; they compete for faculty attention; and they tend to reach only a small subset of the community. Historically, that was a challenge we faced at BU as well.
So, in addition to establishing a new vision and direction for the Institute—and situating it in a more central, visible location on campus—we organized our initial work around a small number of shared, strategic initiatives designed for scale, coherence and broad relevance.
One of the Institute’s core initiatives is a campus-wide focus on AI in teaching and learning, developed in close collaboration with the AI Development Accelerator (AIDA) —a new center created to position Boston University at the forefront of leadership in AI. By combining the AIDA’s strategic and technical expertise with the Institute’s focus on pedagogy, faculty engagement and evidence-based practice, this collaboration enables a coordinated, university-wide approach to education, experimentation and responsible integration of AI into teaching and learning. Early efforts include the launch of a new AI at BU online certificate available to all undergraduate students, as well as discipline-specific studio sessions, guidance and resources designed to help faculty integrate AI thoughtfully into curriculum, assessment and classroom practice.
Another flagship effort is the Classroom LX (Learning Experience) Transformation Initiative, which was created to address the overall student experience across courses and programs. Through early listening sessions with faculty and students, we identified a recurring challenge: While individual instructors were doing excellent work, students often encountered inconsistent experiences from course to course—particularly in the use of digital platforms, learning resources, communication norms and expectations. These inconsistencies created unnecessary friction for students and additional work for faculty.
The Classroom LX initiative focuses on establishing shared principles, practices and design patterns that enhance the learning experience without constraining academic freedom. By providing faculty with common frameworks, toolkits and support for course design—especially in high-enrollment and foundational courses—we aim to reduce friction, improve clarity and engagement, and create more inclusive and supportive learning environments. Importantly, this work is codeveloped with faculty, grounded in evidence-based pedagogy, and designed to scale across disciplines while remaining flexible enough to meet individual needs.
Together, these initiatives are just a few examples of the shift we are making from isolated programming to intentional, institution-wide efforts that support faculty, improve student experiences and create lasting impact at scale.
Q3: Looking ahead, what role do you see Institutes like this playing in the future of higher education, and what lessons might other universities take from this work?
A: I believe teaching and learning institutes must evolve from “centers of excellence” into strategic engines that help drive institutional priorities. Our role extends beyond faculty support and engagement alone—it is about connecting pedagogy, scholarly research, technology, the student experience and career readiness. We are also addressing themes like digital wellness and the growing connection between student wellness and academic success. Institutes like ours sit at the intersection of academic mission and institutional change.
At a time when higher education faces significant disruption, our institutes have an opportunity to accelerate long-needed conversations about curricular innovation, assessment in the age of AI, learning design, inclusion and wellbeing, and what it truly means to educate students in a rapidly changing world. Our teams are uniquely positioned to guide and partner on this work thoughtfully and responsibly.
At the same time, there is no single blueprint for success. Every university has its own culture, structures, and constraints, and meaningful change must be grounded in that reality. For me, the work always begins with learning and listening—being present in classrooms, engaging faculty and students, and observing teaching and learning in practice. You are rarely handed a clear roadmap. Instead, the work requires synthesizing what you hear, identifying recurring patterns and shared challenges, and distinguishing between isolated issues and opportunities for broader impact. That sense-making—turning complexity into clarity—is a critical leadership skill in and of itself.
Equally important is building coalitions early. Sustainable impact depends on strong partnerships with academic leaders, deans, faculty and students, and on creating shared ownership around priorities and outcomes. When institutes are able to convene communities, align stakeholders and design initiatives that respect academic autonomy while supporting scale, they can become powerful catalysts for change. Ultimately, the lesson is that teaching and learning innovation succeeds not through mandates or isolated programs, but through trust, collaboration and a sustained commitment to improving the educational experience for all learners.
Join HEPI and Huron for a webinar 1pm-2pmTuesday 10 February examining how mergers, acquisitions and shared services can support financial sustainability in higher education. Bringing together a panel of speakers, the session will explore different merger models, lessons from the US and schools sectors, and the leadership and planning required to make collaboration work in practice. Discover our speakers and sign up now.
This blog was kindly authored by John Workman, Susie Hills, and Shaun Horan, Huron. Huron is a HEPI Partner.
The September 2025 announcement of Kent and Greenwich’s intended merger into the tentatively named London and South East University Group (LSEUG) reignited merger and acquisition (M&A) chatter across the sector. Consolidation in UK higher education has been mostly rare to this point, for a host of regulatory, cultural, and governance reasons. But might this be a turning point?
The UK sector is hardly alone. Another high-profile merger has been the talk of the Australian sector since 2024, when the University of Adelaide and the University of South Australia announced they would merge into Adelaide University. This new institution will boast approximately 70,000 students when officially joined up in 2026.
The United States has also experienced an unprecedented volume of M&A activity this decade. Since 2020, approximately 100 universities have closed or merged into other institutions, accounting for nearly 200,000 students and more than 2 billion USD in endowment assets. Huron Consulting Group’s analysis of 10 years of financial and enrollment data indicates that, within the next decade, another 370 institutions, representing 600,000 students, will experience financial pressures similar to those since-closed and merged institutions.
Is there more to come?
One school of thought argues that consolidation is simply a numbers game. The US has roughly 7.8 universities for every 1 million in population, significantly more than the 3.8 universities per 1 million people in Canada, or the 2.4 in the UK. While an exact tipping point or golden ratio isn’t obvious, the numbers seem to imply the US has more opportunity for consolidation than its northern or transatlantic peers. Not necessarily a surprise, given that sector’s greater number of small institutions. But it’s all relative. When compared to the 1.6 universities per 1 million people of both Australia and New Zealand, it is the UK that appears ripe for downsizing.
Of course, there are also important nuances about how and why each sector evolved, and the pressures they face today. US consolidation is partially the result of declining youth populations and shrinking enrolments, especially among the small institutions most dependent on tuition revenue. Pressure in the UK and Australia is driven more by policy changes and volatile international student numbers.
Importantly, there are also shared pressures driving M&A conversations across sectors. In each anglosphere country, university revenue has failed to keep pace with rising costs (or even inflation) for over a decade. Our marketised, tuition-driven models are exposed to evolving student preferences and alternative providers. And each sector faces waning public support.
7 executive lessons from past M&A activity
Given commonalities in our operating challenges and environment, it’s appropriate to heed any and all lessons from anglosphere M&A activity so far. Even financially healthy institutions should at least consider strategic options in this changing landscape.
Below are some of the most important lessons from these engagements that all HE leaders should consider, drawn from our M&A work with over 30 institutions.
1) Consolidation alone is not the endgame.
Mergers shouldn’t be pursued as a quick fix but rather in service to a specific strategy focused on mission and sustainable financial health. A successful partnership rarely results from two struggling institutions joining up. More often, this merely creates one larger institution, now facing both sets of legacy challenges. One university executive described this approach as ‘pitching two anchors together and hoping they swim’. Instead, the best-case scenario is to combine two institutions with complementary strengths. Leaders of institutions with strong financial resources may pursue strategic ventures to advance their mission, expand academic offerings, or enable growth. On the flip side, leaders of financially challenged institutions should identify existing strengths, or potential areas of investment, that bring value into an alliance.
2) No one-size-fits-all model, but different approaches are not created equal, either.
There is a wide spectrum of potential strategic alliance types, including third-party agreements, joint ventures, real estate divestments, and full mergers. Importantly, these models have varying degrees of transformational impact to the institutions involved. Some leadership teams have gravitated to what they perceive as the ‘maximum necessary’ level of transformation. Cross-campus shared services, for example, is often touted as a more tenable solution that allows institutions to retain their independent missions, identities, and portfolios. Yet, these partnerships have, in practice, led to almost equal levels of complexity and disruption as consolidation, with much less financial benefit than anticipated.
3) An underdeveloped partnership strategy is the most common failure path.
Too many leadership teams have discounted or attempted to rush the critical first steps on strategy and goal setting, opting to dive right into negotiation of business terms. The framework below outlines all the steps we have found are necessary for a successful merger, including strategic setting. Individual institutions that do not clearly define specific aims for strategic partnerships will waste energy and resources engaging poor-fit partners that should be spent on better, limited opportunities. Or worse, two institutions deep into consolidation conversations may find they are not fully aligned on culture, governance, or mission. One critical – and often fraught – decision is how to describe a consolidation. The chief executive of one university near the end of a deal reflected that, while the arrangement had a clear acquirer and acquiree, they had carefully avoided that language. Unfortunately, this created later tension and misunderstanding. She commented they had ‘tap danced around the obvious dynamics, and it would have been better if we had all been honest at the outset.’ A senior leader at a different institution noted: ‘There are no mergers in higher education, only acquisitions. But that sounds too corporate. So, we all say M&A just to be polite.’
4) The more challenging the financial situation, the faster leaders must act.
One of the most common and costly mistakes is not using time effectively – either spending too much on the wrong opportunity or leaving too little to pursue the right one. Frequently, institutions in need of a strategic alliance wait until circumstances become dire to start exploring options. This weakens their position by reducing time to find a compatible partner that fits their unique needs. In the worst cases, institutions with financial challenges couldn’t stay solvent long enough to execute a partnership and had to close. In other cases, institutions fail to appreciate the runway required to bring along key constituents and ultimately succumb to resistance that could have been overcome with earlier action.
5) Unhelpful increase in M&A ‘window shopping’ distracts and wastes valuable time.
Growing interest in M&A across the industry has spurred phantom activityby encouraging hopefuls, regional expanders, and serial acquirers to ‘window shop’ with limited commitment. For every successful merger or acquisition, there is a 10x increase in unhelpful phantom activity, which is a poor use of time, money, and energy for any leadership team, especially those of already-struggling institutions in need of partnership.
6) Both offensive and defensive stances are prudent in a fast-changing market.
A handful of leading, financially healthy institutions have pursued aggressive M&A strategies, viewing inorganic growth as their best financial path forward. Both Northeastern and Villanova have generated hundreds of millions in net-new revenue and assets through a handful of strategic acquisitions. Leadership teams taking a more defensive stance have also acted in the best interest of their institutions. For example, several universities have absorbed small, local campuses. While these acquisitions don’t always appear strategic when viewed in isolation, they successfully prevented competitors from creating a foothold in the acquirer’s backyard.
7) M&A centered on the expansion of academic offerings has the highest success rate.
While somewhat subjective, evaluating trends in the success and failure of M&A instances tells an interesting story. One way to categorise partnerships is by their stated goal. This includes geographic expansion, real estate acquisition, achieving scale or efficiency, and adding academic offerings to enhance the portfolio. While a handful of institutions have succeeded in using M&A to expand geographically, partnerships based on expanding academic offerings have the highest success rate, by a wide margin. For example, Texas Christian University (TCU) and the University of North Texas Health Science Center successfully created a private-public partnership to establish a new school of medicine. Arizona State University acquired Thunderbird School of Management as a means to quickly add an MBA offering to their portfolio. This ‘build vs buy’ dynamic is common in the corporate world but new to higher education, where a marketplace of assets is only now beginning to form. Several universities have found that the ‘buy’ option is a faster and cheaper way to grow student numbers and revenue. Conversely, other M&A approaches have not fared as well. One senior leader reflected on a recent acquisition: ‘We thought we were acquiring a unique physical asset in a new location – what we actually got was a large deferred maintenance backlog’.
What next?
Institutions that learn how to navigate this evolving marketplace will play a pivotal role in shaping higher education’s next decade, while bolstering their own institutional resilience.
Want to find out more about this topic? Join HEPI and Huron for a webinar 1pm-2pmTuesday 10 February . Discover our speakers and sign up now.
Huron’s dedicated M&A team would be happy to discuss strategy, next steps, and mistakes to avoid with any leadership team considering their options. Contact us here.
The sector regularly discusses first-year pedagogy as a way of supporting the whole student body, but direct entrants who transition into later years are largely overlooked in policy and practice.
The recent post-16 education and skills white paper brings attention to the need for more flexible learning and progression routes to create a more integrated tertiary system, where students between different levels of study can progress more easily without rigid barriers.
As someone who joined university directly into the second year, I felt a mix of imposter syndrome and disorientation. I remember the quiet confusion of arriving on a campus that seemed to have already moved on without me. My peers already seemed to have established their routines, connected with peers, and form a sense of identity within the institution.
While the institution welcomed me, its systems did not seem to notice I had arrived. That experience stayed with me, revealing how much of university life, from induction to academic support, is designed for students who all start together in first year, leaving little space for those who join later.
Higher education has mapped the journey and experience of many student groups. When it comes to direct entrant students, they remain absent from the map – a ghost town in literature and practice. If you happen to find research, it tends to label them as “top-up” or “advanced entry”, yet official statistics still categorise them as “continuing students”, never highlighting when they actually began their degree. This invisibility is particularly striking given the white paper’s push for diverse entry routes, modular learning, and the Lifelong Learning Entitlement.
These reforms are meant to widen access, yet direct entrants often slip through the cracks in registry systems, appearing only as “continuing”, unknown to academics. If we can’t even see them on the map, how can universities hope to guide or support them?
Behind from day one
Direct entrant students are those who join a degree at a later point (typically level 5 or 6). They will often have completed a foundation degree or Higher National Diploma (HND) at a partner college, or transferred from another university straight into their second or third year.
While universities have built entire transition strategies around first year students, the challenges faced by direct entrants are often similar – yet intensified by the social and institutional disorientation of joining an established cohort partway through their studies. I remember sitting in my first lecture and realising that everyone already knew the academic language, the course structure, and even the referenced to earlier modules. It wasn’t just a gap in content for me, it was a gap in belonging.
The human side of higher education comes first for many students, whether that is finding friends, feeling confident, or above all feeling part of their course and institution, and this is the essential starting point for academic success, as shown in a recent systematic review. Belonging is not just a buzzword. It shapes how students engage, stay motivated and ultimately succeed. Its role is especially significant in a sector where learners’ backgrounds and pathways are increasingly diverse. If belonging is a prerequisite for success, then direct entrant students begin their journey at a clear disadvantage.
The data illustrates this: in 2015–16, only 48 per cent of direct entrants achieved a good honours degree, compared with 61 per cent of those who started from the beginning, a 13 per cent gap that rarely receives the same attention as other attainment gaps, according to research by Sarah Cuthbert. The absence of more recent data highlights that direct entrants remain largely overlooked in research. Recognising these challenges points to a clear question: what can universities do to ensure direct entrants are seen, supported and set up to succeed?
What needs to change
To better support direct entrant students, universities need targeted interventions that recognise their distinct journey.
Early identification in registry systems (simple direct entrant tick box/field at enrolment ensuring they are flagged from day one), paired with intentional support from personal academic tutors would make these students visible and allow their progress to be tracked. Providing direct entrants with pre-term communications, including module options, progression pathways, and summaries of previous year’s content can help them feel prepared and settle into their studies more smoothly.
Building on this, tailored inductions that acknowledge the unique needs of these students could build confidence, social connections, and a sense of belonging from day one. Peer mentoring schemes, where current direct entrants support newcomers, offer practical advice and reassurance, helping to reduce isolation and bridge cultural gaps between FE and HE. Such interventions align with the white paper’s recommendations for smoother progression routes and closer collaboration between colleges and universities.
Despite ongoing financial pressures universities are facing, these interventions are cost-effective and achievable. They build on systems universities already have and simply require adaption to ensure direct entrant students are recognised and supported. By adjusting structures, communication, and support to fit the students, rather than expecting students to adapt to rigid systems, universities can improve outcomes, retention, and overall experience for a cohort too often unseen.
With application numbers falling across many institutions, universities have every incentive to recognise and strengthen all routes into university. Lower than expected recruitment is already widely forecast to leave many providers facing deficits. This makes it even more urgent to ensure that direct entrants are visible and well supported. There is a clear need to reduce barriers between courses and levels, and in doing so strengthen non-traditional pathways while enhancing attainment, continuation and overall student experience, especially at a time when these metrics are under such close scrutiny.
A test of our priorities
Universities often say they want to support all students to succeed, but direct entrants put that promise to the test. They represent the diversity of routes into higher education, and as policymakers push universities to show real improvement in outcomes and participation, their experiences highlight whether commitments to inclusion are actually being delivered in practice. When I started my career in student engagement, I noticed the same gaps in practice. These gaps were not the result of the institution trying to be exclusive, but rather blind spots built into processes designed for first year students.
Recent work from Student Minds highlights the need for institutions to adapt to their students, rather than expecting students to assimilate into complex, inflexible structures. To achieve true inclusion, universities must reconsider their practices, ensuring every student, regardless of entry point, can transition smoothly into both learning community.
If universities fail to do so, the white paper’s vision of flexible, module pathways and integrated tertiary provision risks remaining theoretical rather than practical. If we are serious about building systems that work for all students, direct entrant students can no longer remain invisible.
When the NHS launched its Long-Term Workforce Plan in 2023, it set out an ambitious vision: to nearly double the number of doctors and nurses through the first fully comprehensive national workforce strategy in its history. For universities (the institutions responsible for training these professionals) it offered rare clarity. Yet without a clear funding and implementation framework, progress quickly stalled.
Two years on, that ambition has not only faltered but, in some respects, reversed. Both universities and NHS trusts face severe financial pressures: universities are cutting courses and staff, while trusts reduce job vacancies and apprenticeships. Meanwhile, universities remain excluded from decisions shaping the future workforce.
Although Labour supported the Conservatives’ plan while in opposition, in office it has taken a different approach. The NHS 10-year plan, published last June, gave limited attention to workforce issues.
With the government committed to reducing net migration, boosting homegrown staff remains a priority, though now on a smaller scale. An entirely new workforce plan is expected in the spring, envisaging fewer staff – but with better conditions and “more exciting roles”. In the meantime, a radical change in the relationship between the NHS and higher education is needed.
Contradictions
Alliance universities educate a third of England’s nurses, a significant share of allied health professionals, and a growing number of doctors. We’re innovating and collaborating on degree apprenticeships, opening medical schools and creating new pathways into health careers. Yet as with the previous long-term workforce plan, universities have barely been consulted – despite being central to delivering the workforce the NHS needs.” The recent call for evidence on the forthcoming plan didn’t mention universities once.
That is why key bodies representing healthcare educators recently sent a joint letter to health ministers calling for education, training, and research to be at the heart of the 10-year workforce plan. We are asking for a cross-government taskforce to coordinate efforts on student recruitment, retention, clinical placement capacity, and planning. These systematic issues are at the heart of the NHS workforce crisis – not poor-quality education and training.
Universities can help scale solutions, but only if government stops pulling policy levers in opposite directions. These contradictions undermine progress: the Department for Education’s decision to scrap level 7 apprenticeship funding directly conflicts with the NHS’ emphasis on advanced practice. Add to that the patchy engagement of Integrated Care Systems with educators, leaving universities uncertain about their role in local workforce planning.
Despite these mixed signals, universities continue to devise innovative approaches. At Oxford Brookes, the School of Nursing and Midwifery operates as a joint venture with two NHS trusts, sharing leadership and strategic planning to align education with workforce needs. In North Central London, Middlesex University works with the Integrated Care Board to raise the profile of nursing in social care, providing bespoke training that has cut A&E admissions from care homes. These partnerships show what’s possible when universities are treated as equal partners, aligning education with workforce needs and improving patient outcomes.
Joint work on the pipeline
But innovation alone can’t compensate for a shrinking recruitment pipeline, which is still largely unaddressed by policymakers. Nursing applications have fallen post-Covid and in the wake of the cost-of-living crisis. Attrition figures often mislead: many students do not drop out but delay completion due to life pressures – financial strain, caring responsibilities, and mental health challenges. Intensive placements leave little room for paid work, compounding these pressures. University Alliance supports the RCN’s proposal for a loan forgiveness scheme in exchange for time served and an uprated learning support fund to keep students in training.
If we want a future-ready nursing and midwifery workforce, we need to ditch the outdated obsession with counting hours and start focusing on outcomes. The NMC will soon be consulting to reduce its requirements from 4,600 to 3,600 programme hours, which is a small step in the right direction.
The pandemic showed what’s possible when regulators embrace flexibility. Emergency standards unlocked innovation in simulation and digital training. Today, Alliance universities use augmented reality mannequins and advanced simulation suites to replicate hospital and home-care settings – boosting confidence and easing placement pressures. Scaling these solutions, however, requires capital investment and regulatory reform – neither of which is happening fast enough.
Flexibility isn’t just about training hours – it’s about pathways too. Degree apprenticeships have been one of the NHS’s success stories, creating alternative routes into nursing and allied health professions. However, without attention, the NHS risks losing one of its most flexible entry points into the profession.
Social Market Foundation research found that intensive inspection regimes, audits and reporting processes from multiple oversight bodies are driving up costs and leading to some universities leaving the market. Some successful programmes have been paused because employers can’t afford backfill costs. Anglia Ruskin University developed the UK’s first medical doctor degree apprenticeship to tackle shortages in rural communities at considerable cost – only for the level 7 funding decision to slam the brakes on expansion.
Long-term ambitions
Finally, if the NHS is to move beyond a hospital-centric model – a long-term government ambition – universities must help drive that change. The infrastructure to support the shift to community care has been hollowed out over decades.
Alliance universities are piloting community nursing pathways, increasingly arranging placements in primary care and social care settings. But growth is significantly hampered by a shortage of community staff able to supervise students. Without investment and clear career routes, graduates will continue to gravitate toward acute settings, and the vision of neighbourhood care will remain a mirage.
The next workforce plan is a chance to break the cycle of short-term fixes and build a sustainable system. That means joining-up health and education policy, embracing regulatory flexibility, and investing in the infrastructure that enables transformation. Above all, it means treating universities as strategic partners. Without these measures, ambitions for a homegrown, future-ready workforce will remain out of reach.
On Saturday, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse named Alex Pretti was shot and killed by United States Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis. The tragic loss of life, and the Trump administration’s response, deepen FIRE’s concerns about threats to the First Amendment rights to protest and to record law enforcement.
The killing demands a thorough and transparent investigation. Any agents who used lethal force without justification must be held accountable.
But Trump administration officials have shown little interest in waiting for that process to unfold. Instead, they have rushed to defend the shooting and lock in a narrative that portrays Pretti as someone who wanted to murder law enforcement. According to Kristi Noem, the secretary of homeland security, Pretti “arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement.” Border Patrol Commander at Large Greg Bovino made a similar statement at a press conference just hours after the incident, alleging that Pretti wanted to “massacre law enforcement.” On X, Stephen Miller, the president’s homeland security advisor, called Pretti a “domestic terrorist.” Administration officials continue to push this narrative, even as publicly available video raises serious questions about whether he posed a threat at all.
Officials have alsosaid that the mere fact that Pretti was armed indicates he did not intend to remain peaceful, even though no evidence shows he used or brandished his lawfully owned firearm. On Saturday, Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara said that Pretti had a permit to carry a gun in public.
Whatever comes of the investigation, this moment demands a reaffirmation of basic First Amendment principles that the administration increasingly undermines by collapsing protected expression into criminal conduct.
First, Americans have a right to protest peacefully. That right doesn’t depend on the cause or politics involved. Whether you are protesting immigration enforcement, the president, abortion, or COVID-19 restrictions, you have a right to go outside and make your voice heard. But the administration has shown a pattern of hostility toward this nation’s long tradition of peaceful protest and dissent, including threatening demonstrators with “very heavy force” and targeting universities and foreign students over protest activity. In September, the administration released National Security Presidential Memorandum 7, which links disfavored viewpoints to domestic terrorism, notably “extremism on migration,” a term left undefined.
Second, Americans have a right to observe and record law enforcement officers performing their duties in public. Government officials sometimes abuse their power or make mistakes, and public observation and recording are essential tools for documenting misconduct and holding officials accountable. Nobody has a right to physically interfere with law enforcement. But officials have claimed — incorrectly — that it’s illegal to follow and videorecord federal agents or to share photos and videos of them online. Just last Friday in Maine, video revealed a masked ICE agent telling a woman recording him that he was taking pictures of her car because “we have a nice little database and now you’re considered a domestic terrorist.”
The administration’s invented or distorted definitions of “impeding,” “obstructing,” or “doxxing” have no basis in the law and are inconsistent with the First Amendment.
Third, Americans don’t forfeit First Amendment rights when exercising their Second Amendment rights. That was true when demonstrators opposing pandemic restrictions openly carried guns at the Michigan statehouse. And it’s true for those protesting immigration enforcement today. In some contexts, displaying the firearm itself is part of the expressive message. Threatening others with a firearm is plainly illegal, but legal carry cannot justify suppressing protected expression or using deadly force.
The drumbeat of statements from the administration that are openly hostile to basic First Amendment rights should disturb every American. And when Americans see someone shot dead in the street shortly after recording federal agents — and then hear top government officials immediately justify the shooting before any investigation can begin — they will reasonably fear that exercising these rights carries not just legal risk but physical danger.
Americans have the right to criticize our government. We have the right to come together in protest. We have the right to record law enforcement. When we exercise our First Amendment rights, we shouldn’t fear we will be detained, surveilled, added to government databases, assaulted, or worse.
As Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said, free expression is “the best insurance against destruction of all freedom.”
